Slashdot Mirror


School Super Asks Governor To Make His School District a Prison

quipalicious writes "A Michigan school super asks the state governor to make his school district a prison, highlighting the various rights and privileges that prisoners get and public schooling students don't."

505 comments

  1. Very well written by gomiam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sometimes I would like to be able to give +1 Insightful to articles outside Slashdot :)

    1. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rating articles is a great idea. That way when poorly-written or troll posts could get voted into oblivion.

    2. Re:Very well written by Lillebo · · Score: 1

      +2 Insightful

    3. Re:Very well written by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well written maybe, but the comparison is ridiculous. Of course it's expensive to keep people in prison. I mean they live there with access to nothing else. Is he suggesting, for example, that we don't provide health care for inmates? If he wants to gripe about prisons and money, complain about the fact that 2/3 of all that money is for people in prison on bullshit drug changes...there's your biggest waste of money.

    4. Re:Very well written by BeanThere · · Score: 2

      He misses an important point, kids already get most of those things at home. Prisoners, on the other hand, *are* home. Also, I must say $7000 per student per year actually sounds like quite a lot to me. This doesn't seem like an argument to spend more on schools so much as it is one to spend less on prisoners. The reason we give prisons libraries is to try reform prisoners. If that expenditure lowers re-offending and re-incarceration rates by some measurable percentage, then it actually saves some money. It would be interesting to study how effective they are though.

    5. Re:Very well written by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, I must say $7000 per student per year actually sounds like quite a lot to me.

      Indeed. I went to an independent school in the UK, and the school fees were less than that, even accounting for inflation. This was a school that managed to pay its teachers well above average, to attract some of the best, and which had a wide range of extra curricular facilities.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Very well written by InfiniteZero · · Score: 1

      You mean the Facebook Like button?

    7. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not well written because it makes all the wrong assumptions.

      Children that go to public schools aren't supposed tackle society's problems. They are supposed to be cheap, barely educated workers. Unless you go to a private school, you are not supposed to get educated because education breeds dangerous thoughts, like equal rights and all that pesky annoying stuff those in power do not want to put up with.

      A broken, underfunded education system works as intended.

    8. Re:Very well written by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      That is a steal! The district I pay taxes to spends more than $17,000 per student. And the graduation rate is less than 50%.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    9. Re:Very well written by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      My private school education was crap, and I went to one of the usual British boarding schools.

      No schools teach much to kids below 18. Before university, it's all about innate potential + knowing the right thing to say. As far as entrance requirements, the best universities care about both; the rest only really notice the latter.

      That's England, anyway.

    10. Re:Very well written by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most kids in the worst-performing schools DON'T get that stuff at home. The worst performing schools are almost always in the poorest areas, and it's not because poor people are naturally stupid or because teachers in those schools are naturally incompetent.

      Parental involvement is the most significant single indicator of student success. Parental involvement also decreases as income decreases. Sometimes it's because parents have to work multiple jobs. Sometimes it's because the cycle of poverty creates despair which leads people to make bad decisions like turning to drugs and crime, which often lead them into our well-funded prison system. Schools have gotten worse as the gap between rich and poor has widened. This is not a coincidence.

      It's wrong to say all schools are failing. In wealthier districts, schools are by and large doing very well, even the public schools. The ultimate solution to repairing schools is reducing that gap between rich and poor back to a more reasonable level. Unfortunately, since any attempt to help the poor is seen as socialism and there's a pervasive feeling in this country that poor people are poor for a reason and don't deserve any help, we debate endlessly over symptoms rather than fighting the root cause.

    11. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From reading the comments that follow, I think satire is beyond the understanding of mos technical professionals.

    12. Re:Very well written by VAElynx · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Focusing on prisoners to lower reoffend rates, instead of focusing on kids who if aren't raised and grown well, become criminals.

    13. Re:Very well written by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, looking more closely, that's not true - my mental approximation of inflation was off by a long way. In the UK, state schools receive around $8700 per pupil and the fees for the school where I went are now a shade over $15000. My mother taught at a state school, and the funding was really tight (it's increased by about 85%, ignoring inflation, since then, about 50% factoring in inflation). So $7000 per pupil is probably below the minimum I would expect. My mother was having to teach classes of over 40 pupils, with one textbook between two and a lot of them so old that they were falling apart. With $7000, maybe they could afford a few new textbooks, but class sizes would still be too large.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Very well written by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      kids already get most of those things at home

      Not all of them. Kids from lower class working families don't get health care or internet access, let alone freeweights and nautilus machines. If it wasn't for LINK (which the Richpublicans would like to eliminate) they wouldn't get fed well, either.

      The letter was tongue in cheek, of course. The point being made was that Michigan is at the top of per prisoner spending, the bottom of per student spending, and that's ass-backwards. Especially considering that prisoners are seldom rehabilitated, but rather prison is a school for criminals to learn new and novel ways of screwing people's lives up.

      Spend more on education and you'll likely have fewer criminals.

    15. Re:Very well written by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      As I said in the other post, I messed up the inflation calculation, so my figures are a bit off, but my old school now charges about $15000 per pupil per year. I suspect the costs are slightly lower than a comprehensive school, since intake is restricted to the top 20%, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could provide a good education for somewhere in the $10-12K ballpark. $17000 sounds excessive.

      Of course, the amount of funding is only part of the problem. Making sure that it is well spent is a larger part. It's no use a school spending $100,000 on a well-equipt computer lab, if they don't have anyone competent to teach using it. It's no use employing the best teachers if the class sizes are so large that they have to spend all of their time maintaining order and not teaching.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Very well written by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      The documentary "Waiting for Superman" is well worth the watch. It's available on Netflix streaming. (Not sure about Hulu, RedBox, or any other service.)

    17. Re:Very well written by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He misses an important point, kids already get most of those things at home.

      And what if they don't? Cutting welfare and cutting schooling at the same time will guarantee that some people who had those at home or at school will get them in neither place. What, we shouldn't provide for the poor because they had to have done something to deserve it?

      Also, I must say $7000 per student per year actually sounds like quite a lot to me.

      It is. Less than half of that goes to education. Things like No Child Left Behind take up the rest. The unfunded mandates, paperwork to go with them, standardized tests, and all that require massive administrative overhead. We've gotten to the point where more money is spend on overhead than the children, and it's only getting worse.

      And, since the anti-school crowd focuses on teachers (teacher unions, teacher pay, teacher tenure, etc.) the anti-school crowd is doing a pretty good job of directly harming children in their quest for tax cuts for the rich. They aren't even focusing on the real waste (all the administration required by the long list of standards and requirements on public schools that aren't laid on private schools), but instead focus on things purposefully designed to increase overhead while harming the children. It's a concerted effort to sabotage public school in order to push vouchers.

    18. Re:Very well written by jeek · · Score: 2

      Sounds interesting. Can I borrow your password? ( I swear I don't live in Tennessee. )

      --
      If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
    19. Re:Very well written by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      There was actually an article somewhere saying that politically it's better for a county to spend money on prisons rather than schools, because prisons provide better jobs for prison contractors, and brings in more state funding. So it's actually financially advantageous for a county to let schools flounder so the deadbeat students become inmates and drive up the high-paying prison jobs.

      Just sayin.

    20. Re:Very well written by neoshroom · · Score: 1

      What? Very well written?! The letter had some glaring errors.

      One solution I believe we must do is take a look at our corrections system in Michigan.

      You implement a solution. You consider a solution. You don't "do a solution."

      We also spend the most money per prisoner annually than any other state in the union.

      You spend more money than any other state. You spend the most out of all the states. You do not spend the *most than* any other state...sigh...

      They get three square meals a day. Access to free health care. Internet. Cable television. Access to a library. A weight room. Computer lab. They can earn a degree. A roof over their heads. Clothing.

      These could more properly be separated by a punctuation mark other than periods, though the sentence fragments are not completely horrible this way.

      Everything we just listed we DO NOT provide to our school children.

      The letter switches between "I" and "we."

      I sympathize with the guy's message, but I wouldn't call the letter well-written.

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    21. Re:Very well written by mikael · · Score: 1

      In the UK, boarding fees for a private school, were something like 20K pounds/year, while prison costs for an inmate are around 45K/year, due to all the additional security: guards, CCTV, inspections, basic health regulations (minimum and maximum temperature ranges, free newspaper (a href="http://www.insidetime.org/">Inside Time . The cost is higher due to the Victorian architecture as well.

      It is a commentary that prisoners get better treatment than pensioners due to human rights legislation - they could sue for just about anything like the right to vote, that slopping out and cold cells were demeaning.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    22. Re:Very well written by Methuseus · · Score: 2

      The problem is the wealthier districts are less than 25% of schools. My parents live in an area with a middle-of-the-road median income, but they're cutting every program at the schools because nobody wants to pay the taxes required. And yes, this includes some multi million dollar homes.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    23. Re:Very well written by operagost · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I see you love education, so once you're done bashing the GOP, don't forget to ask Obama why he killed the D.C. voucher program.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    24. Re:Very well written by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes the point of the letter was that it is stupid to protect the budget of prisons while cutting the education budget. I have told people time and time again you have two choices. You can pay for better schools or bigger prisons. I also think a good start would be two reverse the old actions of desegregation at the Elementary school level.
      Ideally I feel that small Elementary schools and they should serve students within a small radius is the correct structure for elementary aged education. The elementary school could then be the center of the neighborhood. They play ground would double as a park on the weekend and over the summer. The library could stay open over the summer and be a children's branch library for the library system. That way kids can be build friendships with children near where they live and parents can know each other. Community is a lot of what is missing these days. Of course as they move up then they move into bigger and bigger schools and more diverse communities of students. The trick is to keep the quality high across the different schools but there has got to be a better way than shipping first graders around to balance the books based on the color of their skin. In may community at least that isn't a problem since it is really diverse but yet we still have huge elementary schools with hundreds of students in them. Some of the K-8s "also a bad idea" look like high schools.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    25. Re:Very well written by mikael · · Score: 1

      I'd give you moderation points (informative,insightful) if I had any.

      Parental involvement is the biggest difference in the UK as well. I've seen the social activity calendar of the most successful schools. They involved parents in every activity from Electronics clubs to Chess, Horseriding, Orienteering, Origami to Theatrical workshops on puppetmaking and mime.

      The education background of the principal is the second biggest influence. Even if a school were given a $1 million dollars to upgrade their facilities, it could either be spent on a new swimming pool and sportsground, or a digital media lab or language lab, all depending on which department head was in favor.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    26. Re:Very well written by JinjaontheNile · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like a stupid chain letter to me

    27. Re:Very well written by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but slashdot obfuscates my password when I type it in. Password: ********

    28. Re:Very well written by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that current fees at UK independent schools are more than double that, as much as GB£15k or over US$20k per annum.

    29. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was a good one!!

      better yet, could you send me a link to the embedded video??

    30. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me try... hunter2

    31. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private schools in DC costing less than $14000? Try $30k+ - google "sidwell friends tuition". I actually went to DC Public Schools, I know a little about the system. DC still has a lot of charter schools, which is pretty much where the kids with motivated parents end up. Of course, that leaves the rest of the schools with fewer motivated parents, which is where the real problems come in. DC is pretty unique, it's a concentrated urban area without the support of the surrounding suburbs, so you have a lot of very poor people, a number of quite wealthy people, and not too much in between - the in-betweens are in MD & VA.

    32. Re:Very well written by FirstNoel · · Score: 1

      Thus the need for better schools.

      --
      "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
    33. Re:Very well written by operagost · · Score: 1

      A correction: it wasn't 14,000, it was 7,500. I assume that families had to cough up the rest of the cash-- even though they already paid their "fair share" of school taxes. The bill that passed the House this year would up it to $12,000.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:Very well written by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      That's what the firehose is for.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    35. Re:Very well written by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      The voucher program idea has a lot of merit. If only it wasn't a smoke screen to funnel cash into the Catholic church.

    36. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Governor should send it back covered in red pen and with a C- at the top.

    37. Re:Very well written by anyGould · · Score: 1

      He misses an important point, kids already get most of those things at home. Prisoners, on the other hand, *are* home. Also, I must say $7000 per student per year actually sounds like quite a lot to me. This doesn't seem like an argument to spend more on schools so much as it is one to spend less on prisoners. The reason we give prisons libraries is to try reform prisoners. If that expenditure lowers re-offending and re-incarceration rates by some measurable percentage, then it actually saves some money. It would be interesting to study how effective they are though.

      I think the point the superintendent is making is that if he really wants to help his students, the best thing he can do is get them put in prison for a couple years - there's more money available for education in the prison system than the education system.

    38. Re:Very well written by anyGould · · Score: 1

      I see you love education, so once you're done bashing the GOP, don't forget to ask Obama why he killed the D.C. voucher program.

      That's easy - vouchers are a way for rich parents to get their kids away from the masses using tax dollars. It bleeds the public system, and that doesn't help anyone. (Easy comparison - if the grad rate in the public system is 50% now, what was it before the vouchers and the private schools? Is the rate lower simply because all the smart and rich students left, leaving everyone else to rot in the public system?)

    39. Re:Very well written by norminator · · Score: 1

      There's an episode of The Office about this: Season 3: The Convict.

      Prison Mike can set this super straight

    40. Re:Very well written by causality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It seems like the districts we spend the most on are the WORST ONES. For example, D.C.'s public schools spend over $24,000 per student, yet they graduate fewer than half. Meanwhile, the students in the voucher program went to private schools costing less than $14,000 per student and I don't think any of them failed to graduate. The voucher program cost less money and was more successful, so naturally OBAMA KILLED IT. Draw your own conclusion about this man.

      That one would not depend on who is President. The most powerful group opposing vouchers is the NEA. Not only is the National Education Association the largest union in the USA, it's also the most powerful and most politically well-connected. They say "jump", the politicians ask "how high" and are careful to ask that nicely. If these people don't like you, you're really going to have one hell of a time having a career in politics.

      Just about anything that would substantially improve the USA's schools would also reduce the power of the NEA and they will not tolerate that. The welfare of the students is their last concern. The perpetuation of their jobs and of the union's power is the primary concern. Vouchers would make private schools more accessible to more families, making it easier for private schools to compete against state schools. Whenever unfettered competition is allowed, the state schools do poorly both academically and in terms of expense. The NEA knows this. The movement towards private schooling would mean that merit and actual ability to teach become more important than how much seniority a teacher has acquired. It would end up weakening their power base.

      Remember that these are people who will take to the streets and protest over salary but not a peep is heard about the fact that we're teaching the students crap, that in so many places fewer than half of them graduate, that they read and write at pathetically low grade levels, that other basic skills are lacking, etc. If that doesn't explain their priorities, if that doesn't tell you who these people are and what they are about, I am not so sure what would.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    41. Re:Very well written by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You mean as opposed to the fact that the DC public schools are just a smoke screen to funnel tax payer dollars into the Democratic Party campaign coffers (and the pockets of well connected school administrators)?
      I don't care where the money is going, as long as money being spent to educate students results in students getting educated. Which the DC voucher program does, while the money going to the DC public schools does not.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    42. Re:Very well written by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Believe it or not, I actually think that the two ($17,000 / 50%) are linked. If a kid doesn't want to learn, there is NO amount of money or effort that will change it. In this case, the harder you try, the harder it is to make any progress. You can't fix broken people who like being broken. This is a cultural problem.

      The only way to fix this is to fix the culture that allows this. But you can't because I can almost guarantee you is that this is a minority (ie not white) district, and if anyone mentions the culture is a failure they will be labeled "racist".If it is racist to suggest that such a culture is letting its children down, then yeah, I'm a racist.

      Let's help the damned kids and quit the stupid political correctness that says certain cultures are okay when they are failing their children. Next time someone calls racism when calling the ghetto/barrio/urban culture to task, stand up and be counted. To allow this kind of thing is the REAL racism.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    43. Re:Very well written by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The hose hasn't done us a lot of good with the recent Packt crapflood, though.

    44. Re:Very well written by SteveW928 · · Score: 1

      Also, independent schools don't have to take all the kids who have parents who don't know how to parent. The public schools do... which is the real core of the problem. Teachers spend much of their time baby-sitting and parenting, because the parents don't. Any solution to our problem with school is going to have to include fixing parenting in our society.... or we'll never be able to afford it or compete educationally.

    45. Re:Very well written by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are unaware that not all private schools in DC are as expensive as Sidwell Friends School? As a matter of fact, I am quite confident that no other private schools in DC are as expensive as Sidwell Friends School.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    46. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how many autistic, special needs, disabled and FAS kids did your school take?

      None.

      Can you figure out why costs are high in public schools now?

    47. Re:Very well written by kenh · · Score: 1

      In NJ, where Ilive, we spend on average $13K/student. The superintendent was talking about student aid from the state, not the total cost per student, on average.

      My district gets $800K in state aid for 4,000 students - $200/student, we spend almost $14K/student for their education. Other districts in the state (Abbott districts) spend almost twice as much per child, and getas much as 90% of their funding from state & federal sources.

      Guess which districts are considered underprivlidged?

      Guess which districtsare actually educating their students?

      Guess which districts advocates argue need more money?

      Guess which districts will lose funding to increase funding for the other districts...

      --
      Ken
    48. Re:Very well written by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Sorry, rich parents were not eligible for the DC voucher program. Want to try again? (I'll give you a hint, look at the list of largest campaign donors, see if you can recognize one that has an interest in preserving the status quo of the education system).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    49. Re:Very well written by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the USA, but the school where my mother taught took a lot of autistic children, precisely because they (and other special needs children) came with extra funding, which is not included in the standard per-child rate. My mother was the special needs coordinator at one school for about four years while I was growing up, so I got to see a lot of this. Schools loved the special needs children, because they could use some of the extra funding to bring their general budget up to the level where they could just about give everyone something approximating an education.

      Gifted children going through the state system, of course, received no extra funding.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    50. Re:Very well written by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      There are mandatory tests that take better part of two weeks during every school year. This set of testing does NOTHING for the actual child that takes the test. Nothing. It is for the administrators and politicians to ague over funding. The results do nothing to identify children that are having issues and fixing the problems for those children, it is all to line hats with feathers of people who have nothing to do with actual education.

      We have a problem of gathering all sorts of data, categorizing, analyzing and summarizing it with no real purpose that serves the children in the system. I'm in education and IT, and the requirements pushed down by Feds and State regulators is just astounding. It takes several full time people to make sure the "data" is compliant with their reporting standards. That means hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries and benefits just to record, verify, collate and report data to the state and feds, who only use it for 'reporting' purposes only.

      It is sad.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    51. Re:Very well written by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Or, you can be like DC and pay more for schools and have a large crime problem.
      I would agree with your idea of small, local elementary schools, but not just elementary schools, all the way through high school. I would suggest that the education system in this country would be vastly improved by reversing the school consolidation of the 20th Century.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    52. Re:Very well written by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Raising kids properly and staying on top of their schoolwork is HARD WORK, the same thing that gets you out of poverty.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    53. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The school fees are clearly not the only income for this independent school otherwise there would not be enough to pay its teachers well above average. What does this say about the indepence of this school?

      p.s. for true independence I shall remain AC.

    54. Re:Very well written by Trapick · · Score: 1

      Is he suggesting, for example, that we don't provide health care for inmates?

      Yes, how ridiculous would it be if a civilized nation didn't provide healthcare for inmates, or any other group that can't provide it for itself. Like children.

    55. Re:Very well written by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I don't think that is a good thing. I see it more as a pyramid. You have a lot of small elementary schools, many middle/jr.High schools, and a few or one High School.
      As the person grows in maturity and knowledge you expand their circle of friends since they are more mobile. You also expand their educational options. A tiny High school may not have the resources to offer a robotics class, a drama class, a choir class, band, honors chemistry, and honors physics. You could offer specialized high schools which is done now but then what if you have student that loves music and robotics? Do you make them pick which one interests them most at such an early age? I see the ideal system for the majority of students as a ramping up. Also you never know what my spark a persons passion for learning.
      Or course part of the idea is that you never really break the connection to community. So maybe your home room instead of being by alphabetical order like it was in my High School would be by your Elementary school. Plus the Elementary school would be the bus stop for the students moving up to the more distant bigger schools.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    56. Re:Very well written by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be sending my kid to a catholic school, though. In fact, the largest religion by population where I am is Baptists. I'm not a Baptist, either.

      But operagost's stats are similar to what we have in Georgia... I could send my kids to a local private school for less than $7k/year. The city of Atlanta, however, spends over $13k/year. The suburbs vary greatly... the metro area is quite large, but the average in GA is something like $8k.

      For some strange reason, the areas that spend the least have the lowest dropout rates and the highest average grades.

      GA took a minor step towards vouchers, but it's not well publicized and not available to the average student (it's limited to special needs, AFAICT).

      Note that I'm not suggesting that teachers get paid to much or any other such nonsense... I'm saying government operations, including schools, are fat with waste, and the more money you "throw" at the "problem," the more gets wasted. George Bush increased federal spending on education more than anyone else in the prior four decades... yet is widely criticized by the left for supporting a successful voucher program in Texas.

      Nathan Bootz (the guy who wrote the letter) is actually advocating a shift to complete socialism... he even uses the fallacy "free healthcare" as if no one is paying for it.

      What the argument boils down to, however, is that criminals are being coddled far too much. I would discuss the "war on ___" if it would be fruitful, but it wouldn't... suffice it to say there are too many people in jail who haven't violated the rights of others, and the people in jail get far too much. Instead of arguing for more for others, the only good point he's making is that prisoners get far too much.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    57. Re:Very well written by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Parental involvement is the most significant single indicator of student success.

      That's true, but how can a semi-literate parent help his kid learn how to read? How can someone barely numerate help his kid learn how to do math? How can a parent working two jobs involve himself with his kids much? And then there are the kids with alcoholic parents, or the kids in foster care.

      And I discovered when my kids were in school that the educators' idea of "parental involvement" was joining in fund raising efforts, but try to engage the teachers in dialogue and you're just getting in the way.

      Things haven't changed much if any since the 1950s. In 12 years of public school, I had three good teachers (luckily my first grade teacher was excellent). The rest were mediocre to downright incompetent. Once I learned to read I didn't learn anything in school I hadn't already read until I reached college. One high school English teacher gave me an F on a paper because she thought I made up the word "hierarchy". A science teacher gave me an A on a paper because he didn't understand it, it was way over his head. And this was a middle class town. Ironically (or maybe not so ironically), the town's now a crime-ridden ghetto.

      Public schools suck, at least in Illinois.

    58. Re:Very well written by Zugla · · Score: 1

      Do the math. The top end of the range from the article was $40,000 for housing an inmate 24 hours / day, 365 days a year. That is $4.56 per hour for inmates. At $7,000 per year for a school, 200 days a year for about 7 hours a day. That is $5.00 per hour for school kids.

    59. Re:Very well written by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Concerning the pay of the teachers, are the average they are being compared with public school teachers who have been promised pensions that pay nearly as much as a full time teacher?

      It's difficult to compare because some of the pay for a pensioned teacher in a union (assuming the UK unions have the clout U.S. public unions have) is in the contributions to the pension, and if the market returns expected to pay the promised level of benefits fail to occur, then the school will be paying in the future for work accomplished today, probably taken out the funds used to pay current teachers. So, the average of a teacher with a promised pension is actually much higher than that in calculated average, unless the teacher is paying for the pension out of their salary.

    60. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not disingenuous at all. We spend 5x as much locking somebody in prison vs educating them correctly the first time. I don't see the governor unilaterally deciding he's going to cut the prison budget 10% and just let them struggle either.

      Like so many things lately, the state has double-crossed the votes again. The amendment that created the school surplus from sales tax also BANNED individual districts from CHOOSING to pay more taxes if they didn't agree with funding from the state. There is NO financial need to cut school spending.. The money set aside under the law for K-12 is MORE than enough, and was actually in surplus. (remember, the state took that money away from local budgets). They cashed in nearly all the K-12 "nest egg" to spend money on the STATES obligation to Colleges.. Effectively TRIPLE-DIPPING on the local schools by CUTTING their budgets.

      What's going on is an agenda against public anything from the rich folks in Grand Rapids.

    61. Re:Very well written by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      So then by that logic Michigan should be in great shape... Or at least the prison contractors should be...

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    62. Re:Very well written by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      The district is half poor and half middle class. The graduation rates have been falling and the costs increasing because they are busing the under-performing poor out to the schools in the middle class neighborhoods, building additions to those schools, and abandoning the schools in the poor neighborhoods. The middle class classrooms are being filled with disruptive under-performing students coming in, so the learning is harmed.

      Why do they do this? If any particular school falls below a certain threshold, they lose some funding. So they shuffle things around to bring down the better schools to keep the poor ones above the threshold.

      The result? Middle class flight, which decreases property values and thus tax revenue, and decreases graduation rates.

      Why can we not do something differently? Because the poor population is primarily black and Hispanic, and the middle class population is primary white and Asian.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    63. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's well written about it? Where's the insight? Is there anything in this that is not part of the drumbeat of "money, money, money" that we've been hearing for 30 years from our socialist schools?

      His thesis is basically, "this other department gets more money so therefore I should get more money."

      His comparison is ludicrous given that students have parents who take care of their living expenses, which is not the case for prisoners.
      He doesn't even attempt to explain why $7000 is not enough but $40,000 is justified.
      He doesn't touch on what portion of the state budget is already going to schools.
      He doesn't explain how all the handouts he wants are related to, let alone will improve, student achievement.
      He doesn't even try to explain why he's unable to do the job with the money he's been allotted.
      He doesn't talk about the history of increasing funding, and the lack of associated student achievement.
      He doesn't explain how private schools are able to do the job with less funding.

      And even the writing style is atrocious. Have a look at a professionally edited newspaper. Please count the number of times you see all caps, or an ellipsis not used in a quotation, or an interrobang. That's fine in a blog post, but he does all of those things in a public letter to the governor, written in his official capacity as school superintendent.

    64. Re:Very well written by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      So if you're poor, do you put in the HARD WORK to raise your kids, or raise yourself out of poverty*? It's not like time and effort are in limitless supply.

      * It is a fallacy that HARD WORK alone will raise you out of poverty. It is but one of the ingredients, you need some combination of effort, luck and talent. The hardest working ditch digger in the world is gonna be poor his whole life. The laziest genius with the right connections can easily succeed beyond that ditch digger's wildest dreams. The sweet spot is when a talented individual, born into the right circumstances, is also willing to work hard. Then you get the Bill Gates of the world.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    65. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sometimes it's because the cycle of poverty creates despair which leads people to make bad decisions like turning to drugs and crime..."

      So you're saying that poverty makes people into criminals? And if we can just spread enough prosperity, it will make people into good citizens? Then please explain the statistics cited in this article: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/28/poverty_is_up_crime_is_down_is_that_possible_107328.html.

    66. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Brazil and a really good (but not top 10) school here cost US$15.189,87 per year (I know because I pay that for one of my children). This for the period from 07h20 to 18h00.

    67. Re:Very well written by anyGould · · Score: 1

      I can't find a list of cutoffs - just that 1700 kids get Magic Tickets. So I'll concede one point, but still wonder if the voucher is enough to cover all the costs.

      As for why it's disliked, this couldn't have anything to do with it...

      A report by the General Accounting Office, Congress’s watchdog agency, found numerous accountability problems, including federal taxpayer dollars paying tuition at private schools that do not even charge tuition, schools that lacked a legally-required city occupancy permit, and schools employing teachers without bachelor’s degrees and/or certification. That report also noted that children with physical or learning disabilities were underrepresented compared to public schools.

    68. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religious education is often referred to as indoctrination.

      You find me private schools, teaching secular material, and costs less per student per year, then I will support vouchers. Till then nope, too many of these voucher schools are religious schools. I as a taxpayer do not want to pay for indoctrination.

    69. Re:Very well written by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I approve of that as a taxpayer with no children I pay more then my fair share for their rug rats.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    70. Re:Very well written by eln · · Score: 1

      No, I said sometimes people who are crushed by the despair of the poverty cycle make poor life decisions. Sometimes these poor decisions involve turning to drugs and/or crime. Any interpretation of what I said beyond that is a product of your own biases.

    71. Re:Very well written by gnick · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, since any attempt to help the poor is seen as socialism and there's a pervasive feeling in this country that poor people are poor for a reason and don't deserve any help...

      I agree with your point overall, but I think you're making a bit of an unfair assessment right there. I think that the reason that we have such a hard time closing the gap isn't fear of socialism, it's that the problem is hugely complicated, largely self-pervasive, and our attempts to help the poor through welfare, increased access to schooling (scholarships and such), and social programs have been largely ineffective.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    72. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember this topic being addressed:

      The problem is that we have a lot of people in the US, people in power, who believe in the concept called prosperity doctrine. If someone is doing well in life, God has blessed them; if someone is on the rocks, they are sinning in the eyes of God, and are being punished. Therefore "socialism" such as public schools, money to help raise kids are considered interfering with God's punishment.

      This isn't a rant against Christianity; this is some screwed up branch off of the religion.

      So ironic because this is just like what an Iranian adage states... "Kick a blind man. Why be kinder than God?"

    73. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest ah-ha! moment for me, as a kid, was learning that I could learn on my own far better than what I was getting in the classroom. I spent most of highschool learning all sorts of subjects myself (computers & programming being the main one), although at the expense of my schoolwork and classroom attendance.

    74. Re:Very well written by Glothar · · Score: 2, Informative

      The most powerful group opposing vouchers is the NEA. Not only is the National Education Association the largest union in the USA, it's also the most powerful and most politically well-connected. They say "jump", the politicians ask "how high" and are careful to ask that nicely.

      I don't think that--- BWAAA HA HA HA HA HA... HA... Ha ha. Heh.

      Sorry, but I thought you were-- BWAAAAAHAHAHA.

      You're serious? Really? The NEA? A union that is legally barred from striking or even officially existing in most states? A union that is non-mandatory in all states? A union that vehemently opposed No Child Left Behind (aka: No Child Gets Ahead, No Rich Child Left Behind, or perhaps No Statistic Left Behind) and had it rammed down their throat despite the fact that even an intro to statistics or a moderate amount of common sense shows it to be patently stupid? They're so powerful that they couldn't even stop a piece of legislation that was designed to reduce the quality of education in public schools? They're so powerful that they couldn't stop a state governor from ripping rights away from teachers that were given to them to protect them from abuse by the government and the public.

      The NEA is one of the weakest unions in the nation.

      Vouchers would make private schools more accessible to more upper-middle-class families

      You missed a couple words.

      Whenever unfettered competition is allowed, the state schools do poorly both academically and in terms of expense.

      I wonder why that is? How many private schools accept students who don't speak English? Around here, its pretty much none. Even the charter and magnet schools turn them away. How many of them take kids who are emotionally or mentally handicapped? Yeah, those kids get turned away, too. How about kids who need special accommodations? Sorry, charter/magnet/private schools aren't really set up to handle those. And so, public schools get all of these kids and then tools jump up from the crowd and complain that public schools spend more and have lower scores. Great. Nice to see that you don't understand statistics, either.

      Vouchers and "unfettered competition" is a mechanism used to stratify schools and ensure that children of upper-class parents get the best schooling, while everyone else is supplied with a sub-standard version. More often than not, it walks hand-in-hand with racism as lots of politicians and ordinary parents would much rather send their child to a school without so many "brown" kids. Educational stratification is really nothing more than the classist/racist vehicle of the 2000's. When you equalize across racial and socioeconomic classes, then remove all special needs kids, you find that private schools don't do any better job of teaching than public schools. In many cases, they do worse, as they're more likely to be chained by religious dogma or inflating grades based on the desire to retain paying customers. ...of course, those things aren't reported in testing statistics... because its illegal to separate them out.... unless you're a private school, then you can admit the dumb rich kid, claim he's in a special program and not report his abyssmal scores in your marketing report.

      You need to wake up to the reality. The teachers in the district that I live in are legally barred from striking. They are barred from collective bargaining. The do not have "tenure". In their first three years they can be fired for no reason other than "We don't want you anymore". Past that, it only takes some form of documented failure, where that failure can simply be a verbal report by a supervisor. They don't have three months of vacation. They have eight weeks of mandatory furlough. They've had their salaries frozen for three years now (despite the fact that the average person's salary continues to rise) and have zero recourse to complain about it. They have more and more of their time was

    75. Re:Very well written by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Right.

      Except that we never address the real issue, culture, because to do so would get labeled "racist" ten seconds after it is mentioned. Is it racist to point out that certain cultural values are not supported by then norms we are trying to establish (like valuing education).

      When a black or Hispanic kid who's family has been here in the US for generations under performs a Mong (Vietnamese) kid who's parents can't speak English, the problem isn't "racism", it is cultural. And tossing more money at black or Hispanic education isn't solving the cultural problem.

      The only thing that will fix this situation is for people to realize that the Ghetto/Bario/Urban "culture" is one of ignorance and failure and to not tolerate it at all. But even saying that I risk being labeled a "racist". It isn't racism to want people to succeed and to point out that failures of the culture don't deserve respect..

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    76. Re:Very well written by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Parental involvement goes beyond coaching or influencing the kids' teachers.

      Parental involvement, at its most basic, means caring how the kid does in school, and making that clear to the kid. In the early stages of formal education, the child will be much more influenced by what his or her parents think than his or her peers, so it's a good idea to involve the kid in the process early.

      If the parent is encouraging the kid to learn, doing even modest support like arranging a time and place for homework, that's good. If the parent is indifferent or even hostile to school and grades, that's bad.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    77. Re:Very well written by Glothar · · Score: 1

      Dude. I didn't know it did that. That's pretty cool.

      armAd1llo$

      Heh. Sweet.

    78. Re:Very well written by spopepro · · Score: 1

      ...thanks. We don't have many allies these days outside the profession. I appreciate those who are.

    79. Re:Very well written by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      Ah, you live in the south. My condolences.

      But operagost's stats are similar to what we have in Georgia... I could send my kids to a local private school for less than $7k/year. The city of Atlanta, however, spends over $13k/year. The suburbs vary greatly... the metro area is quite large, but the average in GA is something like $8k.
      For some strange reason, the areas that spend the least have the lowest dropout rates and the highest average grades.

      The cost of living is higher in cities. Same goes for cost of operating as school. There's more reasons to drop out too. In rural farmville, there isn't much to do. Of course, the education in rural schools is traditionally not as good as in larger areas. So the drop-out rate may not be the best metric. How about college acceptance? Or wages 10 years later?

      Also, anything big is going to have waste. If all of Georgia switched to private baptist schools with vouchers, they'd form organizations and be just as wasteful. Government, Corporations, Associations, Parties, Organizations, whatever label floats your boat. The bigger it is, the less lean and efficient it is. Or its a disorganized decentralized mess. That said, a constant effort is needed to trim waste and throw out the garbage. Like these sports programs. Holy COW is this all a giant waste of time, effort, and cash.

    80. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the bottom of per student spending" , citation please.

      According to the census, Michigan is right in the middle on per pupil spending.

      http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09f33pub.pdf

    81. Re:Very well written by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Ok, I've read plenty of people BS-ing about how "vouchers only help the rich". No. Not even slightly. The CURRENT system benefits the rich. Why? Because right now if you want your child to have a good education, you have to pay TWICE and send them to a private school (you have to pay for the useless public education that they're not receiving, then pay again for the private school). This means that a lot of lower and middle class families cannot afford to send their child to a private school. Vouchers would eliminate the double-payment system and put quality education in the reach of a lot more kids.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    82. Re:Very well written by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I bash the Democrats almost as much as the GOP, and I've voted for a lot of Republican candidates. Any more I usually split my votes between the Libertarians and the Greens, since the corporates own the Demublicans and Republicrats lock, stock, and barrell.

      My voting record for Presidents:
      Nixon
      Carter
      Reagan
      Reagan
      Bush
      Bush
      Clinton
      Gore
      Barr (I would have voted Green if they'd run someone besides McKinney)

      The GOP is like Microsoft -- they used to be a good company making good products, but these days they suck. The GOP has been taken over by the lunatic fringe, the extreme right wingers. The Tea Party is a Koch Industries product -- any middle class person who listens to that tripe is a fool. Want to fix the economy? Bring the tax code to where it was before Bush gave the uber-rich those tax breaks. Money doesn't trickle down, it flows up. Give a tax break to a rich man and it goes in the bank; he's not going to hire more people unless his business is booming and he needs them. Giving him a tax break does absolutely nothing for the economy, it just drains the treasury. Give the poor and middle class a break and he has extra cash for more goods and services; this is what fuels the economy.

      Wealth is produced on the factory floor, the programmer's cube, behind the fry cook's stove. It's simply controlled in the boardroom. "Trickle down economics" is a bald faced lie.

      Both major parties are pro-corporate big business, anti-small business. Both are for taking away your rights (GOP is OK with the 2nd amendment, both parties are OK with the 3rd, both are dead set against the rest), making ever more insane copyright laws, for the continued outlawing of marijuana, both are anti-middle class... on every topic that I have an interest in, both parties are against me. A vote for someone who votes against your own principles and feelings is WORSE than a wasted vote.

      As to vouchers, hooray for killing that! It's fine for those who have a decent job (it might have helped me when my kids were in school) but terrible for the poor kids, who are in far more dire need of a good education.

      Rather than those stupid vouchers, how about some parental CHOICE? You should be able to choose which school in your district your kid goes to. If that were the case, the schools would be competing for students and would have to improve.

    83. Re:Very well written by ekimminau · · Score: 2

      Sir, YOU need to wake up to REALITY...

      You need to wake up to the reality. The teachers in the district that I live in are legally barred from striking. They are barred from collective bargaining. The do not have "tenure". In their first three years they can be fired for no reason other than "We don't want you anymore". Past that, it only takes some form of documented failure, where that failure can simply be a verbal report by a supervisor. They don't have three months of vacation. They have eight weeks of mandatory furlough. They've had their salaries frozen for three years now (despite the fact that the average person's salary continues to rise) and have zero recourse to complain about it.

      Flame on...

      Perhaps you don't realise that for most people in the REAL world, the private sector, that is people who don't live their lives off of other peoples taxes, aren't members of any union, get fired for looking the wrong way at their boss after 20 years of service (what the hell is tenure?). They MIGHT get 2 weeks vacation. They MIGHT actually get all government holidays off. They probably have to work the stupid government only ones. They not only haven't gotten a raise in 10 YEARS they probably took a 10-20% pay CUT at LEAST once in the last 2-3 years and if you complain about it they tell you to pound sand and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

      Heres MY plan for ALL teachers. You work 12 months out of the year. Every year your percentage of students grades and graduation are factored against your salary. 100% graduation with 100% A's and you get 100% of your salary the next year.Sure, the special education teachers will get a break and the "bad school districts" will ask for a break "because our students are at a disadvantage". BS. You want to TEACH? TEACH. You want to warm a seat? Screw tenure. You get paid on your performance, just like the rest of us in the REAL WORLD. In the summer, you teach summer school. You tutor. You paint class rooms. You scrub desks. You TEACH. Or you don't get paid. And you strike, you get fired. And you suck, you get fired. And you don't like it? Get a job in the REAL world.

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    84. Re:Very well written by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      From reading the comments that follow, I think satire is beyond the understanding of mos technical professionals.

      Kinda like typing.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    85. Re:Very well written by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The problem with large schools is accountability. It is very hard for parents in a large school district to hold the administration of the school district accountable. Considering how badly most public schools in the U.S. do at teaching basic skills (reading, writing, math), I think worrying about schools having a wide variety of advanced classes is putting the cart before the horse. First we need to make sure that the overwhelming majority of students are well taught the basic skills, then we can start to think about how to tweak the system to teach advanced subjects. Right now, if your kid is one of the few who would benefit from those advanced subjects being taught in high school, pony up and send them to a private school that does so.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    86. Re:Very well written by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but most of the opponents of it were opponents of it before that report came out. For that matter most of the opponents of the voucher program were opponents of it before it was introduced.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    87. Re:Very well written by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      True. But if the parent was brought up to believe that education is unimportant (and sadly, so many are), how is (s)he going to be when the next generation goes to school?

    88. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should we provide them health care? No one provides me with health care if I quit my job. Let their families provide it.

    89. Re:Very well written by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Indeed, though to be fair, there are plenty of parents in poverty-stricken neighborhoods who do not participate in their kids' education because they are disinterested, resentful, and/or abusing drugs or alcohol as their own escape from poverty. This is not because "poor people are stupid and irresponsible," per se, especially people born into poverty, but stupid and irresponsible people do often end up in poverty as well, and stupidity and irresponsibility don't preclude parenthood by any stretch; they may even select for it.

      One problem with getting children out of that environment is that it's nearly impossible to have a parent declared unfit short of physical abuse or absolutely abhorrent living conditions, and unfortunately those standards are pretty low to begin with in poor areas. Even losing custody isn't necessarily permanent, and there can be cycles where biological parents are in and out of their children's lives, which really just makes things worse.

      Another problem is that even when a parent is declared unfit, the foster system is not a particularly healthy environment for most kids. In my neighborhood, it seems like every other family has a foster kid, and I hear them talking about it at the store, at parties, in front yards. They always talk about the money, not the kids. My next door neighbor, for example, has 4 foster kids and an older biological child who abhors her foster siblings and torments them constantly. Two of them, brother and sister, were born a year apart, both born addicted to crack, and one is developmentally impaired. The foster mom pays no attention as her biological daughter psychologically abuses the foster kids and they fight with one another. Of course no crime is occurring because they're fed and have a place to sleep, there's no abuse by the foster parents, and neglect is only a crime when someone gets hurt, so that's life I guess.

    90. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very dependant on the school you go to. I just looked up my local independent schools fees and they are a total of £9750 ($15920) per year for high school age students. It a pretty well respected school so I'm sure you can find cheaper.

    91. Re:Very well written by Glothar · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you don't realise that for most people in the REAL world, the private sector, that is people who don't live their lives off of other peoples taxes,

      That is the point of taxes. Taxes are levied to pay for local public services. Or are you going to lump firefighters and police officers into that same bin of layabouts who suckle at the teat of public taxes? Firefighters aren't any less respected because they are paid by taxes. Why teachers? Because someone on FOX told you they were the problem? Or because you have some grudge from your school days where your teachers didn't cater to your needs (probably because, like me, you didn't need special treatment)?

      aren't members of any union

      My local teachers aren't members of any union, either. Well, you'd call it a union, but that's a pretty weak application of the term. The ACM is more of a union than the local teachers "union". Its got no teeth or power: No striking, by law. No collective bargaining, by law. No benefits, by law. No protections, by law. It is essentially a weak lobbying group which supplies cheap (not free) legal support for the times when some parent decides to sue a teacher because their child isn't getting good enough grades. It can't even be called a union because unions are specifically outlawed.

      get fired for looking the wrong way at their boss after 20 years of service (what the hell is tenure?)

      This still describes teachers. Fired for being gay. Fired for not winning enough games. Fired for not being married. Fired for getting divorced. Fired for being married to the wrong person. Fired for worshiping the wrong god. Fired for not worshiping any god. I don't know what fantasy people live in where they believe that teachers have bulletproof tenure. In all of the states I've lived, it simply does not exist. But don't let that stop you. Heaven forbid you do some research before lashing out against those teachers you hated when you were 14.

      They MIGHT get 2 weeks vacation.

      Teachers in my district get 4 days of vacation. And when taking those days, they are expected to arrange for their own subs (there's a sub system to help them track one down) and provide teaching materials and lesson plans. On average, for each day of vacation taken, it takes about 4 hours of work... done at home, of course.

      They MIGHT actually get all government holidays off.

      Teachers in my district get six or seven government holidays off. Many of those days that students get off are actually full work days for teachers. As a developer, I get six government holidays. Banks/financial institutions get something like fourteen.

      They not only haven't gotten a raise in 10 YEARS they probably took a 10-20% pay CUT at LEAST once in the last 2-3 years

      As I said: Locally, salaries have continued to climb. I still get my cost-of-living adjustments. Not the teachers.

      This is a good time to note that the majority of teachers are far above the median for the amount of college and post-college education. All of them are required to have a degree and certification, about half have masters degrees. Comparing them to non-degree labor jobs is unfair (to put it kindly). Most teachers in my district have more schooling than I do. Most of them are way smarter than the average MBA I've met. Why do salaries for general office-workers climb while teachers don't?

      Because people like to blame teachers. It's an easy target. Everyone went to school so they pretend they know what it's like on the other side. You don't.

      if you complain about it they tell you to pound sand and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

      So... just like teaching then.

      Heres MY plan for ALL teachers. You work 12 months out of the year. Every year your percentage of students grades

    92. Re:Very well written by AntiNazi · · Score: 1

      Your anecdote is representative of all school districts in the US... or not.

      In the district I work for teachers make significantly more than the average citizen paying their wages, went on strike this year over salary and healthcare costs (which they already pay significantly less than the average citizen). Oh, you know what else they were striking about. The district wanted to add 2 days of training to their year. You know during the time the people paying their salary are still working and they are on a 3 month vacation.

      Top that off with them being nasty to tech staff (we are "administration") since they don't have a contract. Yea, you will really gain my support by a) getting paid double what I make to fail at your job while making mine harder, b) pay half what I pay for healthcare, c) work 3/4 of the time I do, d) be nasty to me in the process of crying about your horrible plight that is significantly better than mine. And they wonder why citizens are lining up at board meetings telling the board not to budge on the strike and showing up and the picket lines heckling teachers.

      "HONK IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN ME AND ARE ON THE WAY TO WORK WHILE I WHINE ABOUT MY AWESOME SALARY AND BENEFITS"

      I'm sure neither of the districts we are talking about are unique, but it will take a lot before I'm crying for the overall collective of teachers.

    93. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What!? This is not well written at all. The idea is amusing and he raises some interesting points that are leading to discussion, but the writing and grammar are atrocious. I'm for better education but maybe the superintendent of a school system should be able to compose a letter better than a 10th grader?

    94. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is interesting, but not well written. That this comes from someone in academia, I would expect better grammar and references.

    95. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raising your kids. If your kids are successful they can get you out of poverty in your old age as a "thank you" for raising them well. It's really not a hard decision.

      And as for the ditch digger...if he was to work hard, start a ditch digging business and manage it well he could well end up rich. I agree that hard work alone won't make you a success but it sure helps.

      I believe that the recipe for being successful is having two (or more) of the following: determination, organisation and brains.

    96. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per pupil estimates are very bad numbers. Most students use nearly the same resources in the school and can be lumped together for these general statistics. However, when I worked in the IT department of the local school district, I came to find out that special education resources crowd out the rest of the school's budget. Special education students have access to so much that they cannot be treated equivalently to the general population. The school district is rather poor, but I've been told that this sort of thing also exists for high performing students that can take advantage of very expensive AP classes. It's nice to think that all students are receiving the same education with the same opportunities, but that just isn't the case. We need to break out those students that are using expensive resources from the general populations that might have a graphing calculator (probably purchased by parents too) as the most costly teaching tool.

    97. Re:Very well written by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It is sad.

      Yes, it is. And what's sad is that the Republicans push for more in order to burden and harm the education system (so they can pass vouchers when the public system fails) and the Democrats go along with it because it's sold as "for the children." After all, what can be the harm in another test to make sure they have basic skills? (repeat 10 times and hire more administrators than teachers to deal with the paperwork, and the answer becomes obvious, especially when, as you note, the results aren't actually used to help the students).

      Sadly, if the feds ended all subsidies for public education and all requirements/regulations at the same time, the benefit to the schools would be greater than the harm of the lost funding (with the possible exception of special ed, but I haven't dealt with that as much).

    98. Re:Very well written by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the sentiment that raising your kids is a parent's first responsibility, people such as the poster I responded to see anyone in poverty as lazy. They don't recognize that there are sometimes necessary trade-offs, which is what I was trying to point out.

      If running your own business is what is required to succeed in our society, then we are admitting that our society relies on keeping some people down. It is impossible for a society to function when every person in it is a self-employed business person. Some of us view a society that relies on there being an underclass to function as a flawed society.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    99. Re:Very well written by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Parental involvement is the most significant single indicator of student success. Parental involvement also decreases as income decreases. Sometimes it's because parents have to work multiple jobs. Sometimes it's because the cycle of poverty creates despair which leads people to make bad decisions like turning to drugs and crime, which often lead them into our well-funded prison system. Schools have gotten worse as the gap between rich and poor has widened. This is not a coincidence.

      While that is true the real indicator is if the child is from a single parent home this is due to the extra burden or caring and raising a child alone and not having as much time for the child. I remember reading that when single parenthood is corrected for there is not a difference in graduation or crime rates between whites and other minorities
      -children in repeat divorces earned lower grades and their peers rated them as less pleasant to be around. (Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage –Harvard University Press 1981)
      -A Child in a female-headed home is 10 times more likely to be beaten or murdered. (The Legal Beagle, July 1984, from “The Garbage Generation”)
      -Seventy percent of long-term prison inmates grew up in broken homes.
      -Children of divorced parents are roughly two times more likely to drop out of high school than their peers who benefit from living with parents who did not divorce. (McLanahan, Sandefur, “Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps” Harvard University Press 1994)
      -75% of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families.(Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)
      -63% of suicides are individuals from single parent families (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Investigative Aid)

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    100. Re:Very well written by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Right.

      Except that we never address the real issue, culture, because to do so would get labeled "racist" ten seconds after it is mentioned.
      [...]
      The only thing that will fix this situation is for people to realize that the Ghetto/Bario/Urban "culture" is one of ignorance and failure and to not tolerate it at all.

      That culture isn't necessarily related to race. In the UK there are plenty of areas where the underachieving children are white-British. From this article,

      White British students make up more than three-quarters of low achievers in English schools and do worse than children from other ethnic groups with similar economic backgrounds, research revealed today.

      Boys outnumber girls as low achievers at school by three to two, the study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found.

      Nearly half of those who leave education with no or limited qualifications are white British males, and white students are more likely than other ethnic groups to do persistently badly at school, the study said.

      (Rather than urban culture, in the UK it might be related to a lack of aspiration, or laziness, or just not knowing why education is important... the state will pay enough to live on, and in some places three generations of people have never worked. However, there is still a national culture which prefers celebrity to intelligence. I was teased at a private school for consistently being in the top 5 in the class, until I was about 16. Saying "oh, I'm no good at numbers!" is more acceptable among many people than being able to do basic arithmetic.).

    101. Re:Very well written by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Ah, you live in the south. My condolences.

      Fuck you. Fuck you very much.

      The cost of living is higher in cities. Same goes for cost of operating as school.

      Not really. Schools don't pay property tax, the biggest cost of being located on more expensive real estate. The books don't cost more, the desks don't cost more... none of the supplies cost more, and the salaries of people doing similar work are not 50% higher in the cities than in the surrounding suburbs.

      There's more reasons to drop out too. In rural farmville, there isn't much to do.

      I don't live in "rural farmville," you ignorant moron... is that really what you think of the south? Have you ever actually visited here, or do you just buy into the blue state bullshit you've been fed your entire life? The schools in my district are some of the best in the state - the difference is not location or how much money government is flushing down the toilet, it's the parent's attitude towards school. So in NYC you might have a lot of wealthy people who put a high emphasis on education, but in the city of Atlanta you don't - it has nothing to do with "big city" versus "suburbs," it has to do with attitude of the parents living there.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    102. Re:Very well written by BranMan · · Score: 1
      The biggest problem I can see is the "No child left behind" crap that's been pushed for too many years now. Children are not equal, never have been, in any particular ability. Coaches will pick the best players and cut the rest, but in a classroom the entire class is hobbled to the pace of the least able child in that subject (at best - I'm not even factoring in whether the child cares anything about that subject or pays attention). Johnny isn't learning math? Flunk him! Make him repeat the grade or go to summer school. Shame is a great motivator.

      We have separate programs for the 'special' kids - and most parents fight to NOT get their kids included in them. When I went to school, it was at the end of the phase out of the gifted programs in our city (called a dozen different names along the way). I was damn lucky to have that, and it saddens me that it's gone. It helped make me what I am today - not only for us, but it gave great teachers the chance to BE great teachers. It was win / win.

      There's where your low test scores went - I guarantee that if you started a program for the brightest 10% of the kids, that parents would be pushing their kids harder to be in that group. Make it competitive - you want to be in the Honors program? You want to stay in it? Earn it! Just like a spot on a sports team.

      That's how it should be.

    103. Re:Very well written by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Did you point that teacher to a dictionary and get the grade adjusted? Also, what kind of teacher gives an F for one wrong word, whether it be misspelled, badly mangled, or made up?

    104. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason people see this as Socialism is because that philosophy IS SOCIALISM. You can say it in a convoluted way, and put a really good compelling reason behind it, but it is still socialism none the less. One comment I'll make to all socialists, if you want to spread the "wealth" around, start with your own, not mine.

    105. Re:Very well written by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      I don't understand...

      It sounds like you're saying vouchers will create a greater separation between the rich people who go to private schools and the poor people who go to public schools.

      But can't the wealthy people afford private schools already? Won't giving the vouchers to the poor allow poorer students to attend the rich schools? Or are vouchers supposed to be given to the rich?

    106. Re:Very well written by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that people who send their kids to these schools aren't receiving an education?

      I mean i was always under the impression that in order to get a voucher, you had to A, send your kid to the private school, and B, maintain a grade performance level that is better then the states.

      If that is the case, I'm not sure how it's funneling money to anything unless your objection is simply because the church is involved somewhere. If that's the case, saying it's a smoke screen to funnel money to non-secular establishments, or pro-democrat/pro-republican establishments holds just as much weight. In other words, it's merit-less.

    107. Re:Very well written by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Any ideology based education is referred to as indoctrination. However, most religious schools do teach secular material and the religious education is mostly optional. I know of 3 different relgious schools in my area who do this precisely and without vouchers.

      Why do they do this, because the state sets standards they have to follow. And regardless of their religious agenda, they are open to the public at large which means they need to accommodate the public at large. They do however maintain strict rules that are dealt with by nuns and rulers.

    108. Re:Very well written by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      I think you're being particularly obtuse. The amount granted for vouchers generally do not cover the entire cost of enrollment in private institutions. In addition, the limited enrollment numbers of private institutions ensure that these institutions can be very "selective" of which students they enroll. As such, upper-middle-income citizens with school-age children get a partial waiver on private school fees (as they have the resources to pay for the schools' additional costs), while low-income and middle-income parents still have to send their children to public schools - public schools that are now drained of resources and of better students (which do actually have a bearing on the quality of a collective educational format).

      Vouchers are fine if you want to continue and extend the gap between the haves and have-nots - not so good if you want to try to erase it.

      --
      That is all.
    109. Re:Very well written by Krater76 · · Score: 1

      Parental involvement is the most significant single indicator of student success.

      That's true, but how can a semi-literate parent help his kid learn how to read? How can someone barely numerate help his kid learn how to do math? How can a parent working two jobs involve himself with his kids much? And then there are the kids with alcoholic parents, or the kids in foster care.

      While my parents could hardly be construed as semi-literate they certainly weren't educated very well when it came to mathematics. I probably surpassed them by 6th grade in the level of mathematics that they had ever seen or had to use. They didn't even understand a summary of calculus yet I was able to take it in high school and do such an ungodly amount of it in college during my BSCS in college to get a minor.

      The difference was the constant nagging about homework. Concern over grades. Making sure I was in a challenged level of classes but not over-extended. College was the standard not the exception. If I had to stay later and get help from the teachers they would pick me up. In short, putting an emphasis on education.

      My parents attitude is not the standard across all social strata. In a such culturally diverse country such that the US is you are never going to have everyone with the same attitudes and that is why some school districts are much better than others. There is no solution to this, because changing a culture is almost impossible.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    110. Re:Very well written by jyx · · Score: 1

      Vouchers? As in, tax payers money? As in the state is pays for the education? Just like... Public/State Schooling?

      If the state is going to pay for it (because its deemed to be a state responsability) they should run it. Otherwise you end up with the shit house situation here in aus where the Private schools (as I am lead to understand, finding out this exact information is quite difficult) are funded 'per student' just as much, if not more, than their public (state) run counterpart, with the exception that they charge additonal fees on top and choose who they let in. Surprisingly these 'private' schools show quite good results.

      In the end it seems people are just running around saying the government should pay for a private institution - which is just plain mad.

    111. Re:Very well written by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Your post is full of ignorance and FUD. I work with school districts all overvthe country, and there's a lot of heterogeneity when it comes to Unions. There are districts and states that Teachers Unions own, and some that they don't. Sometimes they work in conjunction with districts to improve education, and sometimes they're obstructionist assholes.

      But never pretend their primary goal is improving the quality of education. Their goals are, in order: keeping teachers employed, raising teacher wages/benefits, and gathering and using political power.

      They own the state of California. They literally told our legislators that "we put you in power, we can get you out just as easily." Watch the video on YouTube.

      Teachers here in CA are immune to Social Security, getting a gold-plated retirement system instead, which includes allowing teachers to buy additional years of experience. Teachers in CA can start as high as $65k/year (for nine months of work a year) compared with the $20k-ish they make in states like South Carolina. (You think our cost of living is 300% higher?)

      If it sounds like I'm picking on teacher specifically, I'm not. I love working with teachers and teaching them technology. It's all of the public unions and government wages in general that are the problem. Here in CA parole officers average $100k/year, and we have lifeguards making $200k/year in LA.

      It is likely to never change as long as the foxes rule the henhouse. Democrats will bankrupt the state rather than cut wages.

    112. Re:Very well written by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      I'm not being obtuse, I was just admitting that I don't have any detailed knowledge of voucher systems. But thank you for explaining it, even if you did think I was being purposefully confused.

    113. Re:Very well written by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      On the issue of charter schools, you're an ignorant (and racist) prick if you think they don't take "brown" kids.

      I've worked with charter schools in some of the poorest parts of the country and they're overwhelmingly filled with "brown" kids.

    114. Re:Very well written by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Because it was shit. The end.

    115. Re:Very well written by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Are you a sockpuppet of operagost? Because my samefag detector just goes off the charts when you two keep replying in the same threads with the same inane, insane bullshit.

      Could be wrong of course, it isn't as if there are a shortage of crazies on the internet....

    116. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the district I work for teachers make significantly more than the average citizen paying their wages,

      What is the average level of education for the average citizen compared to the teachers? Teachers are educated beyond the Bachelor's degree level and many are at the Master's degree level. Shouldn't pay be at least somewhat related to the level of education required to do the job?

    117. Re:Very well written by causality · · Score: 1

      Vouchers? As in, tax payers money? As in the state is pays for the education? Just like... Public/State Schooling?

      If the state is going to pay for it (because its deemed to be a state responsability) they should run it. Otherwise you end up with the shit house situation here in aus where the Private schools (as I am lead to understand, finding out this exact information is quite difficult) are funded 'per student' just as much, if not more, than their public (state) run counterpart, with the exception that they charge additonal fees on top and choose who they let in. Surprisingly these 'private' schools show quite good results.

      In the end it seems people are just running around saying the government should pay for a private institution - which is just plain mad.

      Under the current system of public schooling, the child follows the money. Depending on where they live they have to attend the school that for which their state/locality pays. If a parent wants to send a child to a different public school, in that case they would have to pay tuition in addition to the taxes they pay which go towards education.

      Under a voucher system, the money follows the child. Private schools would remain selective. Their criteria for acceptance wouldn't have to change. If the child is accepted into a private school, the check to pay for that would simply be signed by the locality/state instead of the parent. That's the only difference. If no private school wants to accept that child, they'd attend a public school just as they (being born to non-wealthy parents) would anyway, only with a voucher system the parent could take them out of Failing Public School A and send them to Decent Public School B without being charged additional tuition (that is, without paying twice for the same service).

      The loss of students would put political and financial pressure on Failing Public School A to get their act together -- no longer could they continue to fail knowing that the kids are stuck there with noplace else to go (one of the biggest single reasons for the poor quality schools in so many areas -- they get students and thus funding no matter how badly they perform). I mean think about it. If a company were guaranteed your business no matter what kind of job they did, what would be their incentive to provide quality? This is a truly self-evident principle.

      What's the good reason you are opposed to this? It's like that saying, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Our schools, to put it mildly, fucking suck. If we keep doing the same thing the same ways, we can expect more of the same. It's time to try something different. If it proves to be a bad idea, we can move on to something else. Why is this such a big deal? Why do you think it's better for a child to follow the money than for the money to follow a child, who can then attend the very best school that will accept them regardless of how much money their family has?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    118. Re:Very well written by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It wasn't in her dictionary. She had a small, very abridged dictionary and wasn't going to listen to me even after I defined the word. What kind of teacher? Obviously, a very bad one.

    119. Re:Very well written by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That is why the pyramid structure. I agree about basic education but the basics are taught in elementary school. Once a child has a good foundation of reading, math, science, history, and English you can then build on that. As you said we need to make sure that the overwhelming majority of students are taught the basic skills. Those skill will be taught in the very small elementary schools and the medium "small by most of today's standards" middle and jr. High Schools.
      Just off the top of my head I would picture elementary as k-5 and having no more than 300 students and ideally no more than 150 students. The ideal size IMHO would be right around 120 students total. So one or two classes per grade and 25 students per class max. "Thirty at the outside but that is too large".
      The middle school with would be grades six and seven would have around 400 to 500 students and the jr High school maybe the same. At that point you would transition to a high school that maybe 1500 two 2000 students or more.
      I feel part of the problem with education is that kids are not allowed to find their passion. You always do best when you find something that you a passion for. That is one of the great things about the internet. When I was a kid I had a real passion for airplanes, space, and science in general. Once I read the 6 airplane books, two rocket books, and 12 science books in my school library I was stuck. When I got to my county library I found maybe 10 more space books and four aircraft books. I was lucky that my parents where well to do and could buy me books and subscribe to magazines but I got to find my class work boring. High School wasn't any better. A single subject may help a young person find what they want to do in life or at least find a joy in learning. So yes I do feel that a large selections of options at the 10-12th grade year is the best plan. Also it will introduce them to more people and hopefuly expand their circle of friends to people with different points of views.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    120. Re:Very well written by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put that in terms of GDP (that is total amount spent on ed per student as a percent of GDP) and compare it to .... China, India, Norway, Germany, Sweden go ahead. You should be embarrassed and ashamed by the pittance that we spend on the most important thing in our children's daily experience. On the one thing that has proven again and again to build a powerful and incentivized electorate. We as a civilization will fail, are failing to overcome the real problems and dangers of our world because we refuse to provide complete and proper support for our children's education. So when you complain about anything in the world and how no one is doing anything about it: here is the reason, we fail to educate our children to see the problems, to care about the problems and to know that they can change the world to solve those problems.

      My mother spent her life as an education lobbyist who decried these failings in our system, that we spend 10 times the money on highways that we spend on education (and that was the 1980's, it's worse today) forget about the defense department or subsidies to oil companies. &000 dollars a year, how much do you spend on your car??? On your grown up toys (like the iPhone + the iPad plus the subscriptions plus the other garbage for you because you "need" it?

      It does not sound like a lot if it was a priority for our civilization to produce an intelligent and informed populace.

    121. Re:Very well written by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      As I said in the other post, I messed up the inflation calculation, so my figures are a bit off, but my old school now charges about $15000 per pupil per year. I suspect the costs are slightly lower than a comprehensive school, since intake is restricted to the top 20%, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could provide a good education for somewhere in the $10-12K ballpark. $17000 sounds excessive.

      Of course, the amount of funding is only part of the problem. Making sure that it is well spent is a larger part. It's no use a school spending $100,000 on a well-equipt computer lab, if they don't have anyone competent to teach using it. It's no use employing the best teachers if the class sizes are so large that they have to spend all of their time maintaining order and not teaching.

      In the letter:
      "The State of Michigan spends annually somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 per prisoner,
      yet we are struggling to provide schools with $7,000 per student. I guess we need to treat our
      students like they are prisoners, with equal funding."

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    122. Re:Very well written by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      As I said in the other post, I messed up the inflation calculation, so my figures are a bit off, but my old school now charges about $15000 per pupil per year. I suspect the costs are slightly lower than a comprehensive school, since intake is restricted to the top 20%, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could provide a good education for somewhere in the $10-12K ballpark. $17000 sounds excessive.

      The problem is that you're comparing a private school to a public school system, and that's never going to balance. Private schools aren't required to take in all students, so I can pretty much guarantee that your old school would refuse to take on the special ed kid in a wheelchair who takes $100,000 a year to educate. The public school system can't refuse to take that kid on, though, so the cost per student has to include that sort of thing. If you cut out the budget needed for the most expensive three or four percent of the student body in most public districts (including special educators, one-on-one aides, special accomodations and other support stuff), you can cut the total budget by a third on average. That's just a cost that needs to be paid for universal compulsory schooling, and it's a cost that way too many people forget or openly ignore when they argue about how much cheaper public schools should be.

      Virg

    123. Re:Very well written by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      The loss of students would put political and financial pressure on Failing Public School A to get their act together -- no longer could they continue to fail knowing that the kids are stuck there with noplace else to go (one of the biggest single reasons for the poor quality schools in so many areas -- they get students and thus funding no matter how badly they perform). I mean think about it. If a company were guaranteed your business no matter what kind of job they did, what would be their incentive to provide quality? This is a truly self-evident principle.

      This would work great if only a school could be like a business. The problem is that the main mechanism behind competition is that non-competitive perticipants fail and leave the market. It's an interesting concept but I think you can easily see why you can't let a public school in an area "go out of business". The problem you run into (that's happened often in real life districts) is that Failing School A will start losing funding as students leave. It's easy to say that this will prompt them to "get their act together" but as the money goes, teachers and students will start to bleed off to other places until you're left with a school that realistically can't operate on the budget that's left. At that point, either it'll implode (functionally the same as going out of business for a private company) or it'll stall, leaving whatever students can't find a seat in a different school with a nonfunctional school. Based on the voucher system, that means that you'd end up with one or two underfunded schools completely overloaded with students who can't move because the voucher won't cover them, and the vast majority of students who fit that measure are special needs students. Do you honestly think that a special ed student in a wheelchair will get a voucher for $100,000 to take to a different district? What'll happen is that they'll get the standard voucher and their parents will have to make up the difference, and that means that virtually none of them will move. So, in the end you'll have a bunch of bottom-tier schools with short funding and lots of special ed and super poor students, and I'd love to hear the argument that this will result in a good end. It's easy to say, "If it proves to be a bad idea, we can move on to something else" but in the ten years or so it takes to realize this, the kids in those schools will get a crap education and recovering from the mess will take decades.

      School systems have some major problems, but vouchers create a lot of problems on the edge, and it's the edge cases that cost a lot and that most people choose to ignore.

      Virg

  2. Another Benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that it would take also take care of the truancy problem.

  3. Terrible Writing, Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I noticed many grammatical errors in that letter, which all would lead me to believe that this was not actually written by a school superintendent. Or if it was, it was not very seriously considered before being sent. As with any document that other human beings may read, proof-reading is an essential skill that his school should be reinforcing. If not, it is no great surprise to me that his students lack the funding he so desires them to have. We should be rewarding results, not inadequacy.

    1. Re:Terrible Writing, Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like what?

    2. Re:Terrible Writing, Actually by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The output from the bottom 90% will be buying "Made in China" not "Designing in the USA". $7000 is more than enough to contain, feed, medicate, test, stream and scholarship out the very few that are truly gifted but trapped by poverty.
      That $30,000 and $40,000 is part of an often private prison–industrial complex and generates real wealth for generations of investors.
      The $7000 number should be seen as more as an introduction to a life on food stamps.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Terrible Writing, Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like what?

      Quality writing, for one.

    4. Re:Terrible Writing, Actually by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      If you mean errors, how about: "We also spend the most money per prisoner annually than any other state in the union." I suppose I should be pleased that it was "than" and not "then", but really, if a school superintendent wrote that, we're boned.

  4. Schools are Prisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.

    In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.

    from "Why Nerds are Unpopular"

    1. Re:Schools are Prisons by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something.

      Yeah well, now they often don't feed you and when they do it is usually worse than what prisoners eat. In some cases schools have been caught serving meat not fit for human consumption to students because they literally cannot afford anything else. They don't prevent overt violence, either; they just send it out of their classroom. There's plenty of opportunities for it on the grounds.

      In Santa Cruz there is a school called Prison Hill, by the students. The sign says Mission Hill. The property is roughly triangular and one long side is Mission Street, which is also Highway 1. It's quite reasonable to have a tall fence here. Unfortunately, it goes all the way around the property... I did Summer School there one time. It definitely had a creepy feel. I can't imagine what kids feel like in the inner city in those gigantic buildings with the metal detectors, the cops, and the pat-downs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Schools are Prisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from "Why Nerds are Unpopular"

      GREAT read!

    3. Re:Schools are Prisons by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      On the topic of school food, I can only recommend having a look at Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. As a European, seeing what some schools in the US feed to the kids was quite some WTF moment.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    4. Re:Schools are Prisons by Elviswind · · Score: 1

      I think this was taken word for word from a review of The Breakfast Club.

    5. Re:Schools are Prisons by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Thank you for sharing that article. Very insightful.

    6. Re:Schools are Prisons by koreaman · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, which European country are you from?

    7. Re:Schools are Prisons by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Germany. Don't get me wrong, we have our own share of absolutely crappy food, but I still was baffled after watching the first part of Jamie's show. Pizza for breakfast? For school kids? Out of cartons that read "Cheese/Cheese substitute Pizza"??

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    8. Re:Schools are Prisons by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Quoting Jamie Oliver? He's got to be British.

      By the way, your sig link is broken. :-)

    9. Re:Schools are Prisons by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Close, but no cigar. As a Brit, the quality of American school food probably wouldn't have had me flabbergasted ;)

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    10. Re:Schools are Prisons by electrosoccertux · · Score: 0

      Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.

      In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.

      from "Why Nerds are Unpopular"

      imagine that, you do something bad, and you get put somewhere you don't like.

      The nerve of our society.

    11. Re:Schools are Prisons by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      At my university, the dorms were designed by the same company that designed prisons. And some of the buildings erected in the 60s were designed with architecture specifically to aid police in the event of a mass riot.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    12. Re:Schools are Prisons by Muros · · Score: 1

      Thankyou. Good read.

    13. Re:Schools are Prisons by Muros · · Score: 1

      imagine that, you do something bad, and you get put somewhere you don't like.

      I know, it is absolutely disgusting. When will people stop thinking about being born as something that is acceptable in modern society?

    14. Re:Schools are Prisons by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Yep, American school food is as bad as British restaurant food...

  5. Re:Whats a school super? by what2123 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone with the incredible powers of learning and studying.

  6. For a school superintendant by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    he's not very good at writing English.

    We also spend the most money per prisoner annually than any other state in the union.

    Yes, I know, cheap shot. Also IDK if school superintendants are usually teachers. But if he is, that doesn't bode well for his students.

    1. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're not very good at writing English.

      For a school superintendant [sic]

      Yes, I know, cheap shot. Also IDK if Slashdot commenters are usually this pedantic. But if they are, that doesn't bode well for this thread.

    2. Re:For a school superintendant by berashith · · Score: 1

      I thought you were being a bit nit-picky, but the next sentence is this ...

      Now, I like to be at the top of lists, but this is one ranking that I don’t believe Michigan wants to be on top of.

      At least the commas decided to show up this time, but the preposition at the end... ugh

      Aside from the horrible presentation of the argument, I really like the point that is being made.

    3. Re:For a school superintendant by pla · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know, cheap shot. Also IDK if school superintendants are usually teachers. But if he is, that doesn't bode well for his students.

      Nope... Purely political position, and one usually outright antagonistic to actual teaching staff.

    4. Re:For a school superintendant by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      It's strange, but after enough time spent on the internet, I just parse through sentences like this without blinking now. Upon second glance I notice the errors- but ordinarily when I read, I am reading for comprehension and extraction- not grammar. Or it could be all the time I spend in a second language- that I am constantly simply trying to comprehend and not validate grammar.

    5. Re:For a school superintendant by DesertJazz · · Score: 1
      Most superintendents tend to be teachers, turned principals, turned superintendents. In a lot of states, such as Texas where I teach, they base retirement based on the last 5 year average of salary earned... When a superintendent may make 80k-130k per year that's a pretty big incentive. That does not mean they were good teachers, and for the most part means a large gap between college and becoming a superintendent.

      Overall I thought the premise of the letter rang very true.

    6. Re:For a school superintendant by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      That sentence is perfectly clear, and gets his point across. I mean, you could surround "annually" with commas, but who cares?

    7. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey moron, that sentence is grammatically correct. Maybe it's you that needs more schooling.

    8. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong whatsoever with the preposition at the end.

    9. Re:For a school superintendant by jguevin · · Score: 1

      Really? You think he should have said "Now, I like to be at the top of lists, but this is one ranking on top of which I donâ(TM)t believe Michigan wants to be"?

      This sort of awkward construction is exactly why many experts on grammar have recently dismissed the "no preposition at the end" rule as an artificial restriction introduced thoughtlessly by 19th-century grammarians. I was taught as you were--but sometimes the rules we were taught are wrong.

    10. Re:For a school superintendant by poor_boi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is not incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. Citation: every single link on the first page of search results:

      http://www.google.com/m?q=ending+sentence+with+preposition

    11. Re:For a school superintendant by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Not his fault! he got his education in Michigan schools.

    12. Re:For a school superintendant by portraitofsanity · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong whatsoever with the preposition at the end.

      That is actually not hyper correction. You generally don't want to end it a preposition if the meaning of the sentence can be preserved without it. The sentence is however written so badly I'm not sure whether or not it would change the meaning of the sentence. It should be written as "... for which Michigan wants to on top". Both the rule of don't hang a preposition and that it's okay to end a sentence in a preposition are not entirely correct for modern mainstream usage.

    13. Re:For a school superintendant by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      As Winston Churchill said, 'that is the kind of language up with which I will not put.'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:For a school superintendant by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most of modern day english was "incorrect" before it became common in usage - english is an evolving language, suck it up.

    15. Re:For a school superintendant by berashith · · Score: 1

      or just take a second or two to reconstruct the whole thing .... Now, there are times that I want to be number one, but I believe Michigan wants to be at the top of this list.

      The completed prepositional phrase make a little bit of sense, and I spent almost no time re-phrasing this. Ending the sentence with the word "of" just looks and sounds bad. I can forgive a lot of these issues, and maybe this should be relaxed, but when you are the head of a large budget, writing a public letter to a Governor of a state discussing allocation of money, taking the time to edit your thoughts is probably a good idea and may even help the success of your campaign.

    16. Re:For a school superintendant by berashith · · Score: 1

      I am not correcting someone speaking in the vernacular. This is a letter to a governor. Take a second to make it look like you took some time thinking about what you want to say, and care about its presentation.

    17. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is. Didn't you take English in school? I don't give a damn what some random link says that you found. Six years of a real college education tells me you're wrong.

    18. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are a moron. I can barely decipher your sentences. Please stop putting multiple random hyphens in your sentences.
       
      If you had learned to read in high school, you might know the difference between quality writing and complete garbage.
       
        captcha: vomited

    19. Re:For a school superintendant by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      Of course, your modification sounds twisted and convoluted in colloquial speech. The voice of the letter is colloquial, and this sounds like how people talk, so the way he constructed the sentence is fine.

    20. Re:For a school superintendant by Coffee+Warlord · · Score: 1

      Good lord, your supers are only making 80-130? Average superintendent salary in Illinois is ~150k, with more than a few making over 300k/yr - there's a reason I'm hoping I can convince my wife to move from teaching into administration down the road, despite the political bullshit that comes with the job.

      And of course, they're axing teachers left and right due to financial difficulties. Shock.

      In my experience, the administrators are/were rarely all that great of teachers, they're the ones who play the political game the best.

    21. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, either you didn't listen or you went to a really shitty college. In middle school, you learn "never end a sentence in a preposition". Kind of like how you learn that Columbus discovered America when the rest of the world thought the earth was flat and that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Basically, you learn the easy answer because they don't feel like arguing the difficult answers with children. By the time you get to college you should be learning that this is all a bunch of crap. You generally don't want to end a sentence in a preposition because it probably means the sentence is poorly composed and can be restructured to make your thought clearer. However, there is no grammatical rule forbidding the practice.

    22. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad he didn't get it from the Michigan prison system. I hear they have a great program. It seems to be used as a model for other systems as well.

    23. Re:For a school superintendant by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      And it looks like he did. So where's the problem? People are bitching more about style than anything else, and perhaps a kludgy sentence here or there where he was obviously mixing fact dropping and making a point at the same time. So I have to wonder if those complaining about the English are wont to do so because of their feelings about the subject.

    24. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is. Maybe you need a little more schooling.

    25. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok. He came from a public school.

      THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

    26. Re:For a school superintendant by poor_boi · · Score: 1

      It's not "some link I found." It's EVERY link I found. If you don't think that carries serious weight, then we have a philosophical difference of opinion about finding reliable information on the internet, not about prepositions. :)

    27. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took you six years of college to learn English grammar?

    28. Re:For a school superintendant by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 1

      Here in Ontario the Superintendents are almost always former principals, or at least educators. One can only assume this is because they have school administration experience. Are they appointed where you are or are they elected? Either way it still sounds like a bad idea.

    29. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your reconstruction failed. You changed the meaning of the sentence. :)

    30. Re:For a school superintendant by Dictator+For+Life · · Score: 1

      I would like to think that we could hope for rather more than “gets his point across” in this context. The gentleman is in the education business, after all. Furthermore, the sentence is atrocious: one doesn’t say “the most than.” One says either “more than” or “the most.” It's the difference between a comparative and superlative, and Mr. Superintendent doesn’t appear to know the difference.

      --

      DFL

      Never send a human to do a machine's job.

    31. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US people as grammar nazis: Syntax Error
      You don't have a language, just really, really bad English...

    32. Re:For a school superintendant by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      As the AC above pointed out, you're not correcting anyone. You've parroted a grammatical "rule" that most 5th graders know isn't true, and then recast the sentence to mean something totally different.

      Maybe it's time to take a break from the internet and do some real reading.

    33. Re:For a school superintendant by anyGould · · Score: 1

      In my experience, the administrators are/were rarely all that great of teachers, they're the ones who play the political game the best.

      Of course - if you're good at teaching, you'd want to be a teacher. Admins fall into two groups (a) the teachers who want to be in charge because they hope they can change the crap they're having to put up with, and (b) the teachers who suck at teaching, so move into admin so they can be in charge.

    34. Re:For a school superintendant by berashith · · Score: 1

      wants , does not want ... whatever .... funny how this can come up in a conversation about words and structures mean things :)

      first rule of grammar correction on the internet ... every time you correct as a grammar nazi, you will make an error and get called on it. /sigh

    35. Re:For a school superintendant by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because nobody seems to know how to avoid using a preposition at the end of a sentence without it sounding twisted and convoluted. Hint: try also avoiding passive tense. It helps.

      "I like to be at the top of lists, but I don’t believe Michigan wants to be at the top of this particular ranking."

    36. Re:For a school superintendant by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You are right about it being a political position, but who do you think funds most election campaigns for school district positions? For the most part, the majority of campaign contributions for school board seats come from the teachers' unions.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    37. Re:For a school superintendant by pla · · Score: 1

      Are they appointed where you are or are they elected? Either way it still sounds like a bad idea.

      It varies by state (and even by town), but generally in the US, the school board (an elected body) appoints the superintendent.

      So both.

    38. Re:For a school superintendant by metlin · · Score: 1

      Well, the argument seems to be that it sounds "wrong" because apparently "nobody" talks that way.

      It's like when people say "anyways", despite it not being a word, and argue that it's part of the language because apparently everyone says it. Well, if we were to go with the tyranny of the majority, we'd all be confusing you're and your, use rediculous instead of ridiculous, and pretty much butcher the English language.

      It's one thing for the occasional (and hopefully unintentional) mistake or two, but knowing that something is wrong and yet insisting on it is pitiable at best.

    39. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could have been improved significantly with "but this is one ranking which I don't believe Michigan wants [should want] to lead." Terser, clearer, and entirely avoiding the preposition morass.

    40. Re:For a school superintendant by GNious · · Score: 1

      You should see the stuff we got from our school when we enrolled our daughter. It was terribly poor quality.
      Admittedly, Belgium is a French-speaking country, but this was the European school, and they seemingly weren't able to do basic English.

    41. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old man: Where did they go?
      Young man: I don't know where they went to.
      Old man: Around here, we don't end sentences with prepositions!
      Young man: OK, I don't know where they went to, asshole!

    42. Re:For a school superintendant by treeves · · Score: 1

      No, that was just his freshman year(s), then he moved on to more specific fields of study.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    43. Re:For a school superintendant by treeves · · Score: 1

      'Who needs more schooling'. Not 'that needs more schooling'.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    44. Re:For a school superintendant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame the niggers.

  7. Don't some cable co's give free Internet to school by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Don't some cable co's give free Internet to schools? I know that directv has free SCHOOL CHOICE programming. http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2466/~/how-much-does-school-choice-programming-cost%3F Prison cable tv is not free it's payed for with over priced prison commissary food and goods. Why not go all the way and rent out the cloakrooms to the prison system.

  8. Success, not failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We rank nationally at the top in the number of people we incarcerate. We also spend the most money per prisoner annually than any other state in the union

    In the business of government, that's called success. The more spending you can justify, the more you can leverage that cash flow for personal gain.

    Am I saying the people at the top of the pyramid are there purely for personal gain? You're damn right I am.

    1. Re:Success, not failure by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      And the harsh reality is that, since we started the "get tough on crime" attitude in the U.S. back in the early 80's, violent crime has seen a steady decline. Juvenile crime has dropped *dramatically*. And the juvenile crime drop started to *really* plummet about 12-15 years after the "get tough on crime" stuff started to hit the adult system (more adult scumbags locked up means less scumbags having kids to pass along their life of crime to).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Success, not failure by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      And the harsh reality is that, since we started the "get tough on crime" attitude in the U.S. back in the early 80's, violent crime has seen a steady decline.

      1. Citation needed.

      2. (Favorite Slashdot Meme Alert) Correlation != Causation

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:Success, not failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Success, not failure by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Violent crime rates in Michigan went up or remained stable with the rates of 1980 till 1996 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/micrime.htm They began to drop after the economy began do pick up and were at a low around the period of time the jobless rate was at a historical low http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm they begin to get worse again during the economic troubles of the 2004-2006 and drop off again due to a population exodus from the state (fewer people competing for jobs).

      While I'm all for Correlation != Causation there is an undeniable correlation between jobless rates/economy of a region and crime rates. It's been documented worldwide.

    5. Re:Success, not failure by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The numbers have been dropping since the mid-90's (as I said, about 12-15 years after the "get tough on crime" stuff began in the early 80's), From the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP):

      Here is the data from 1996 to 2000, showing a 15% drop in total juvenile arrests between 1996 and 2000.

      Here is the data from 1998-2008, showing a 16% drop in total juvenile arrests between 1998 and 2008.

      And, you're right, correlation is not causation. But SOMETHING is clearly changed. Juveniles born after the early 80's are much less likely to become juvenile delinquents than juveniles born before that period.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Success, not failure by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      They actually look at this in Freakonomics and trace it back to abortion being legalized. Less unwanted children means less uncared for and neglected children means less problem adults. I personally don't support abortion, but preventing unwanted pregnancies clearly has a huge effect on crime rates.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

      If you really want to end the prison system, you have to end the war on drugs. There is simply no other way around it. The war on drugs makes criminals out of non-violent people and gives massive amounts of funding to gangs, violent criminals, and terrorists. Legalize drugs and then you have less non-violent people going to jail and being hardened by prison, and you take away power and funding to those other harmful groups. Enough said.

    7. Re:Success, not failure by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Google your own citations. Crime statistics are published routinely and are easy to find.

      I prefer to point out that the decline in violent crime follows the inverse of the trend in the popularity of violent video games that conservatives claim are turning the youth into mass murdering zombies.

    8. Re:Success, not failure by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 1

      Sorry... The evidence that the "get tough on crime" chest thumping changed everything just isn't that compelling, even if it has been politically expedient for some. Much more plausible explanations are found in our increasingly sedentary youth and the legalization of abortion, as asserted in Freakonomics.

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    9. Re:Success, not failure by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Juveniles born after the early 80's are much less likely to become juvenile delinquents than juveniles born before that period.

      Maybe the juveniles of today, are too busy doing meth...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Success, not failure by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you are tough on crime, this means, presumably, that you are arresting more people. Now, this means that the people locked up do not commit any more crimes while locked up (after is a function of whether your prison system makes sense or is just a relic of medieval thinking).

      The number of youth turning to crime, according to you, is a function of the number of criminals around them when they are growing up. Now if this were true, the crime rate would be significantly affected by the imprisonment rate, all over the world. But we find this to not be the case. Although locking people up does keep them off the street, it is a very costly and inefficient way of combating crime.

      Which is why the most likely explanation for the drop remains legalised abortion. It is not growing up around criminals which matters in particular, but growing up in difficult circumstances. Abortion prevents births in bad circumstances and allows mothers to only carry their pregnancy to term when it makes sense to them.

      Indeed, the drop would be observed not 12 years after the measures, but 17-18 (the human violence peak). Guess what happened at the end of the seventies?

    11. Re:Success, not failure by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      IIRC they attributed that to the Roe vs Wade ruling since an unwanted child had a much higher chance of becoming a criminal, etc. The only cite I remember for that was in the book Freakonomics I think but there are probably many others.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    12. Re:Success, not failure by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      > The numbers have been dropping since the mid-90's (as I said, about 12-15 years after the "get tough on crime" stuff began in the early 80's),

      It could be caused by video games also. E.g. Pac-Man was released 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacman). Or any other event that occurred during that time. You should at least compare the crime rates of different countries to see whether crime rates have been dropping everywhere or only in those countries where "get touch on crime" has been used.

    13. Re:Success, not failure by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      This data is incomplete, without juvenile population stats to go along with it the data is meaningless on it's own. If you had a 16% drop in arrests but a 50% drop in juvenile population then you've had an increase.

    14. Re:Success, not failure by Shompol · · Score: 1

      In the book called Freakonomics, the claim that getting tough on crime was the reason for dropped crime rates is investigated in detail and dismissed.The logic behind it is like this: NYC went all out to get tough on crime, really ahead and beyond the rest of the country, which resulted in dropped crime rates over the years. The problem was: it dropped uniformly across the country, meaning draconian policies had nothing to do with it.

      The author blames the crime rate drop on Roe v Wade case, which happened 20 years before the crime decline.

      You can attribute the crime decline to a number of different factors, but I would say that as the times change so does the society. "Tough on crime" is just a gimmick, effect of which, if any, becomes insignificant in the sea of other factors that changed during the same decades.

    15. Re:Success, not failure by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      And then someone below posted this which appears to be where Freakonomics got its info from....
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    16. Re:Success, not failure by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Or killing each other in video games, or playing WoW, or posting on facebook/twitter.

      --
    17. Re:Success, not failure by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Why aren't they the worst they've ever been (for any of us) right now?

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    18. Re:Success, not failure by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      If legalized abortion were the root cause, shouldn't the drop have started around 1984 (12 years or so after Roe V. Wade)? In fact, there was a significant bump before the mid-90's, which suggests to me that abortion isn't it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    19. Re:Success, not failure by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, 17-24 years after (yet a bit later in fact, because of delays in implementation). It has been argued that the bump is due to the introduction of crack. Australian, Canadian and Romanian studied have all concluded to the same effect of abortion.

      And these are a good control, because the legalisations happenned at different times.

    20. Re:Success, not failure by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The juvenile population in the U.S., like the overall population, has trended pretty steadily upward (making the decline in juvenile arrests even more impressive). For example:

      In 1996 there were 269 million juveniles in the U.S.
      In 2000 there were 282 million juveniles in the U.S.
      In 2008 there were 304 million juveniles in the U.S.

      Here is the source, so you can look for yourself.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    21. Re:Success, not failure by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      While the site is called "Juvenile Populations," those stats are total U.S. population.

      You actually have to set the age range to be below 18... in 2009, the estimate is 74.5 million.

      Not saying the trend isn't right, but your numbers are not just for juveniles.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    22. Re:Success, not failure by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I would suggest crime correlates to (but lags behind) the economy. I would bet numbers will start getting worse.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    23. Re:Success, not failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it's a good thing you "got tough" on all those potheads. Keep drinking the kool-aid sweetie.

    24. Re:Success, not failure by rapiddescent · · Score: 1

      And the harsh reality is that, since we started the "get tough on crime" attitude in the U.S. back in the early 80's, violent crime has seen a steady decline.

      1. Citation needed.

      discussed at great length in the easy-to-read pop-sci book "freakonomics"

    25. Re:Success, not failure by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But historically there's also been a correlation between a booming economy and a rise in crime. Don't know if it still holds, and our current social environment is a lot different from the historic norm, so perhaps it doesn't. (E.g., for most of history all people were employed in some manner or other...including crime as one of the manners. In fact it was at one recent point a crime to have "no visible means of support", though I suppose that would include welfare, where it exists.)

      Additionally the statistics on crime are quite suspect. What constitutes a crime is variable. (Violent crime is, in this way, a bit different, as it's more constant and easier to obtain objective evidence on. But you've got to watch the definitions used carefully. Different people with different agendas tend to use different definitions.)

      It would be very interesting if the existence of welfare has reversed the correlation between a good economy and a rise in cirme. But we can't know because too many variables have changed. E.g., many things that used to be legal are now illegal. Before around 1900, e.g., there was no market for illegal drugs, because there weren't any. (Don't recall the year that started, but this particular Prohibition Era has lasted over a century, and lead to a thriving increase in illegal trade. As well as other things...like babies no longer becoming addicted to opium.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re:Success, not failure by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      And the harsh reality is that, since we started the "get tough on crime" attitude in the U.S. back in the early 80's, violent crime has seen a steady decline.

      1. Citation needed.

      discussed at great length in the easy-to-read pop-sci book "freakonomics"

      Indeed. I've read it. It seems to have a somewhat different conclusion than what the GP suggested, as already pointed out by several posters in this thread.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    27. Re:Success, not failure by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Oops, you're right. The numbers (aged 0-16) are actually:

      66 million in 1996
      68 million in 2000
      70 million in 2008

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    28. Re:Success, not failure by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      Those are total population numbers, not juveniles... You need to subtract the 18-20, 20-24 and 25 and above classifications.

    29. Re:Success, not failure by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      The reason for this is abortion.

    30. Re:Success, not failure by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

      Maybe they just stopped arresting as many of them but there are just as many crimes/criminals at that age :P

    31. Re:Success, not failure by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2

      it's so much harder to wear a condom than have an abortion.

    32. Re:Success, not failure by CanadianRealist · · Score: 2

      Also putting young people in prison is a very effective way to ensure that they hang out with plenty of criminals. It also gives them the chance to learn from the more experienced ones.

      One minor correction. People who are locked up likely do still commit crimes, but usually only against other inmates, not against the general public.

    33. Re:Success, not failure by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      A sadly high number of people seem to think that. I blame prevention policies which try to get teenagers afraid of sex.

      When a teenager is told sex is fine, and it's cool to have condoms, he probably will have some when sex will happen (and it will, no campaign in the world can fight the collective sex drive of teenagers). And that's cool.

      Now if everything regarding sex is taboo, well, odds are no condom will be on hand, and unwanted pregnancies will occur (and the girl will not know about the "morning after pill"). I actually believe that abortion is the responsible course of action, there. But then the critical difference is that you are pretty much forced to abort, whereas you should have elected to put on a condom.

    34. Re:Success, not failure by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but these don't show up in the crime statistics. Also, the "though on crime" crowd seems to think too easily that it "serves'em right".

    35. Re:Success, not failure by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      A booming economy is very different than the unemployment rate you can have a sizable boom with little to no impact on the unemployment. There are always influencing factors beyond just the unemployment rate. As an example, property crime has trended downwards with the unemployment rate but the unemployment rate spikes where there's a fairly steady decline in property crime. It's obviously a very contentious issue with no one answer but one thing that can't be argued is that better education results in a more stable society.

      The interesting fact is that the US spends more per child than most countries but gets poorer results. Nations like Canada, Finland, etc spend $5,400-5,800 per child where the US spends $7,700 on average. I would be asking why other countries are getting better results for less cash. Security spending is one area I would look at - very few schools in Canada that I know of spend any money on security services (metal detectors, paid security staff, etc). The other is administrative salaries. The board of education when I was growing up (servicing a population of about 100,000 students) saw an 300% increase in administrative spending, 59% for in school administrators (principles, vice principles, secretaries, etc) and only a 3% increase in teacher's salaries (including new hires). It's that kind of irresponsible spending that leads to fewer resources going directly to benefit the individual student.

    36. Re:Success, not failure by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      A NYTimes article about this very subject said another likely cause is the sharp drop in lead levels in blood, especially in kids: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?scp=1&sq=crime%20rate&st=cse Apparently high lead rates lead to a lot more aggressive and violent behavior.

      After reading this and recalling what it was like going to NYC in the 1980s, and what it is like going to the "bad neighborhoods" now, I feel as a whole US society is a lot nicer and safer. My neighborhood itself, not too long ago considered to be a "bad" neighborhood, now resembles what my grandparents told me about 1940's Brooklyn or a sitcom (everyone knows each other, says hello, hangs out with each other, etc). When I am in a bad neighborhood now, I feel a lot safer than I did on a typical subway ride in the late 80s. Now some of that may be attributed to me be being a child in the 80s, and I have probably grown a lot more urbanized. But a thought did occur to me: Perhaps high incarceration rates have produced something of a tipping point- you take enough aholes out of the neighborhood, and people are no longer afraid, and thus aren't hiding, and invest time/money to make their property nicer. About a year ago I had to walk to a store about a half mile from the subway in the South Bronx- one of the worst neighborhoods in the entire city, but I never once felt like I was in a dangerous situation like the many times you would see real junkies on the subways ranting and raving. Its not a place I would want to live, but it certainly didn't live up to descriptions from "the Bronx is burning" era.

      The Times also mentioned the drop in crack use, and the relative replacement of that with marijuana. Crack can take an otherwise nice person and make them crazy enough to steal and murder. Marijuana takes an otherwise nice person and makes them a bit poorer, and less motivated, but certainly not to murder, and maybe in extreme cases slightly more prone to steal.

    37. Re:Success, not failure by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      I agree for the most part but I fail to see the link from the first to second sentences in your second paragraph. Wouldn't that make the crime rate proportional to criminals (integrate for an exponential function), not just those that have been imprisoned. In fact only those that haven't yet been caught would increase crime.

      --
      horror vacui
    38. Re:Success, not failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also follows the increase in gun ownership and loosening of restrictions on concealed carry laws.

    39. Re:Success, not failure by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Posited:

      - Since the "tough on crime" system began, criminals are incarcerated for longer. They are denied conjugal visits more often. They generally procreate less.
      - Previous studies have shown that due both to social and genetic reasons, the progeny of criminals generally become criminals themselves. Drug gangs, mafia,opium, weapons traffic, assassination, motion picture distribution...

      - Therefore, possible causal link: incarceration of large numbers of criminals has caused them not to procreate, thus decreasing the number of juveniles likely to become criminals.

    40. Re:Success, not failure by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      more complicated than that:

      if phi is the proportion of criminals, the crime rate c is

      phi * r , where r is the rate of committing crime for the typical criminal.

      d phi/ dt the rate of change in the proportion of criminal, a proxy measure for which is c is

      d phi/dt = ( 1 - e (t) ) * phi + p * phi (t-delta) where e is the efficiency of capturing criminals (and the rate at which they retire) and p the number of new criminals you are creating from phi (there is a time delay effect)

      This is in fact a chaotic system, because of the delay. But wait! where is the imprisonment rate? The rate is pretty much the number of criminals you catch -- which depends essentially of the number there were in the first place, for a given efficiency. So the crime rate is proportional to criminals, and so is the imprisonment rate. But the fraction of criminal can be affected only by affecting e, if your only lever is "tough on crime" policies -- and that only really forces retirement by not releasing criminals.

    41. Re:Success, not failure by tbannist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interestingly, the criticism section of the Wikipedia page on the impact of legalized abortion on crime mentions that after adjusting for several valid criticisms the research indicates that the phasing out of lead-based gasoline additives may have had a larger effect than legalized abortion.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    42. Re:Success, not failure by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that the abortion effect is not observed only in the US...

    43. Re:Success, not failure by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I'd think it's common knowledge by now that violent crime has been declining for 20-something years (basically since crack cocaine peaked, though that may just be a coincidence). If you didn't know this, you've had your head hidden some where dark and smelly for a while and I don't quite know what to do with you.

    44. Re:Success, not failure by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you win the NON-SEQUITUR of the DAY AWARD!

      Sure, that's easier. It has nothing to do with whether or not legalized abortion can be credited with declining crime rates (which, frankly, I think the data on is weak, but I also think it's stronger than the data for any alternative explanation).

    45. Re:Success, not failure by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      It's not the book's source; that article was authored by the same guy who wrote Freakonomics.

    46. Re:Success, not failure by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Wikipedia article indicates that both factors are statistically significant.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    47. Re:Success, not failure by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      I used to think ending the war on drugs would end most crime.... but then I realized. If you legalize drugs, people who can't get a 9-5 job will have to move on to something else illegal to make money on. Like gambling, racketeering, loan-sharking, kiddie porn, etc.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    48. Re:Success, not failure by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      It's not like we'd have an explosion of those other crimes as people have to be into those things for it to work. Now gang members may push it, but you have to have customers in order to run any business, even illegal ones. Evidence shows that there is not only a decrease in crime but a decrease in drug usage as well after legalization. More importantly, a substantially decrease in usage among teenagers. See: Portugal

      http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

      The reality is, those people who had the "easy" life of selling drugs, now actually have to get jobs, and this also helps improve impoverished neighborhoods. The whole reason drugs are rampant in poor neighborhoods is because of how easy it is to make quick money. When your option is to work at McDonalds for $7/hour or work on the corner making some quick cash, the choices are much harder. But when the guy on the corner has to face up against walmart, he's going to lose, and thus he'll have to get a real job.

    49. Re:Success, not failure by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest problem here is that you are expecting teenagers to make rational decisions when the law clearly says they do not.

      No teen is ignorant about condoms or condom use in this day and age. The entire thought of it being out of sight out of mind is a little 1960'ish. Even most of the porn they will look up on the intertubes will show guys wearing condoms.

      However, there is no reason why encouraging children to not engage in sex before they reach a certain level of maturity and condum use cannot be complimentary in practice. Abstinence does not exclude condom use as it's still one of the most easiest and economical ways to avoid pregnancy once married.

    50. Re:Success, not failure by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      Crime really started dropping about 17 years after Roe v. Wade. "Tough on crime" police tactics really don't factor into it [1]; reducing the causes of criminal behaviour (e.g., poverty) does.

      [1] Dubner, Stephen J. and Steven D. Levitt, Freakonomics, HarperCollins, New York, pp. 137-144, 2005.

    51. Re:Success, not failure by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      See, this is wrong: what part of "you cannot win against the collective sex drive of the world's teenagers" don't you understand? Much better that the teenagers have sex early and safely than slightly later, inhibitions lowered by alcohol, without protection.

      Teenagers will have sex. Their attitude to sex will make them enjoy it more or less and be more or less responsible about it. And fear and (self-)loathing does not lead to responsible behaviour. A fearful human does not think straight. You cannot frighten someone against sex. Millenia of religious interdiction failed in that regard, what makes you think you will succeed?

      No, the right policy is to actually encourage teens to have sex when they really feel like it. Inform them early and abundantly. That way, they'll turn into less frustrated adults, but also will bear less consequences of their actions -- because the only consequence will be mutual enjoyment.

      BTW, I actually expect kids from the age of 7 to act rationally, as long as they are not overly stressed or fearful. It is not a question of legal responsibility, but rather of acting responsibly whilst doing something their ancestors have done in past millions of years.

    52. Re:Success, not failure by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Maybe the recession in the early 80's?
      Maybe the fall of the Soviet Union had some effect?
      Maybe the gradual easing of ethnic tensions in the inner cities?

      There could be many explanations.

    53. Re:Success, not failure by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It probably has a lot to do with how desperate people are feeling right now.

      I'm a firm believer that rough times and economic trouble alone doesn't make someone turn into a criminal, it's desperation and the lack of hope for any alternative way out of the situation which accompanies it that allows them to rationalize the bad behavior.

      Of course there will be some people who just have some sense of entitlement and will resort to criminal behavior with any justification, but for the most part, losing hope for something better is what would cause people to flip instead of trying to tough it out. This can be largely illustrated from the great depression where we didn't see an upswing of violent crimes- even after discounting the gang wars of the roaring 20's with prohibition and all.

      As long as there appears to be hope for something better, we will likely see people thinking more to the future then to the now.

    54. Re:Success, not failure by spiralx · · Score: 1

      When you consider also that the US pays twice as much as other Western countries for health care (split about 50-50 between public and private spending), yet fails to cover 40% of the population it makes you start to wonder what's going on and why isn't all this cash helping...

    55. Re:Success, not failure by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      + 5 million insightful.

    56. Re:Success, not failure by stonewallred · · Score: 1
      Teens old enough to have a baby, ~12 years old, but they can't decide to have sex.

      A 14 year old, who can't make any decisions that are legally binding, such as consenting to sex with an older person, drive a car sign a contract or even refuse medical treatment if ordered by his guardians, can make a decision to do something that can get him a needle ride.

      The major problem is that the age of accountability needs to be set, What age is open for debate, but at some point kid needs to be kids and on the other side they need to be adults.

      And yes it needs to be across the board, drinking, smoking, fucking, dying, whatever.

    57. Re:Success, not failure by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      See, this is wrong: what part of "you cannot win against the collective sex drive of the world's teenagers" don't you understand? Much better that the teenagers have sex early and safely than slightly later, inhibitions lowered by alcohol, without protection.

      No it is not. It is better to prepare them for the eventual use of a condom while discouraging the sex anyways. We as a society and people within the society reject the notion that animal instincts and urges control us. If we gave into that position, then rape and other things could easily be justified. I don't know why you think encouraging our children to become sluts is honorable, but it is not. The laws in almost every state says that children are not capable of making consent in these areas which is why sex with adults is illegal. Discouraging sexual behavior while equipping them with the knowledge to be safe at it is the best route to go. Even drunken teens who take daddy's car for a joy ride typically put a seat belt on. Your premise that they won't know what to do is a fail from logic in the start.

      Teenagers will have sex. Their attitude to sex will make them enjoy it more or less and be more or less responsible about it. And fear and (self-)loathing does not lead to responsible behaviour. A fearful human does not think straight. You cannot frighten someone against sex. Millenia of religious interdiction failed in that regard, what makes you think you will succeed??

      First of all, there are plenty of reasons to fear sex. Condoms do not stop aids or other life threatening diseases 100%. Our jobs as adults is to prepare children to become adults. hiding these facts from them does not do this. Abstinence education does not need to be a religious interdiction nor does it need to frighten teens any more or less then education on condom usage.

      It sounds to me your problem here is the hint of religious connection more then anything.

      No, the right policy is to actually encourage teens to have sex when they really feel like it. Inform them early and abundantly. That way, they'll turn into less frustrated adults, but also will bear less consequences of their actions -- because the only consequence will be mutual enjoyment.

      I think you just lost any credibility here. You want to encourage children to have sex to avoid the problems of children having sex. You are not speaking clearly.

      BTW, I actually expect kids from the age of 7 to act rationally, as long as they are not overly stressed or fearful. It is not a question of legal responsibility, but rather of acting responsibly whilst doing something their ancestors have done in past millions of years.

      You need to lower your expectations to reality. I won't even go into the "you want some candy little kid" that your comments keep making me think you are trying. But are you seriously saying that a 7 year old is capable of negotiating a loan for a house, driving a car, or performing the same job you do? Well, that last one could be a loaded question as I do no know what you do for a living and it could very well be possible that a 7 year old could do it just as well.

      But those are all things that society has declared children not capable of doing. Having sex with someone under the age of 14 in most areas will get you a rape charge by statute because society has said they aren't capable of making those decisions. And I'm talking about developed societies too, not some backwoods tribe in Africa or the middle east who's net GDP is less them my annual income.

      There is a scientifically valid reason for this too. It's because the frontal cortex of the brain doesn't finish development until around 22 years of age. This is the part of the brain that associates consequences with actions. Society says that some mature faster, other later and a happy medium to where children are capable of being adults in thought process is around 16-18 years of age. Some areas go even further as say they aren't capable until age 21 when it concerns mind altering substances like Alcohol. Now this is science, not religion so keep that in mind if you reply.

    58. Re:Success, not failure by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      1) Unless you think sex itself is an issue, your comment makes no sense
      2) You mistake intelligence and rationality for knowledge and experience.

      Fact: in Europe, where people accept that teenagers will have sex and expect them to enjoy it, condom use is higher, and abortions and STDs are less prevalent

      Fact: you cannot frighten, train, coerce the average teenager in not having sex if he can.

      Fact: it is my instinct to eat. You don't consider it bad that I do so, despite it being a grossly repugnant bodily function whose secondary characteristic is to give pleasure. As long, of course, as I do so responsibly and do not poison myself and do not end up obese. Why is protected sex different?

    59. Re:Success, not failure by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Juveniles born after the early 80's are much less likely to become juvenile delinquents than juveniles born before that period.

      I would like to thank G.I. Joe for that change. After all, knowing is half the battle!

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    60. Re:Success, not failure by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ... Guess what happened at the end of the seventies?

      The hippies became yuppies?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    61. Re:Success, not failure by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      1: Sex is not an issue. Encouraging children who cannot take care of themselves to engage in activity that could put them in the position of having to take care of children of their own is. It just doesn't make sense. It's like telling kids to jump out of a moving car whenever they want to, but it's ok if you are wearing a helmet.

      2:I don't even know what in the hell you are trying to say there. It's not rational to encourage children to do things detrimental to their own health or well being. It's in intelligence saying let your kids become sluts for whatever reason. It is however intelligent and rational to encourage them to abstain for this behavior until they are older but at the same time prepare them for transgressions should it happen.

      I do not know who lied to you but your fact 1 is just plain wrong. http://www.avert.org/std-statistics.htm

      Fact 2: You most certainly can train children into not having irresponsible sex. You can also train them to taking the proper precautions too. However, That doesn't seem to be what you are after.

      Fact 3: Again, what in the hell are you talking about? I do not consider sex as being bad at all. I consider encouraging children to have sex as being bad. I simply cannot understand why in the world you would want all the young people in the world to be exposed to potential VD, Aids, and various other health issues or pregnancy when they are not old enough to make informed decisions. Do you think that only liberal women used to having sex with anything will help your chances at getting laid or something?

      It's like drugs and alcohol, you don't encourage kids to do them, but you instill enough sense in them to not do it behind the wheel of a car or in a crowded area or around dangerous machinery where they will or can cause problems.

      Please explain your logic in why they need to be encouraged. It seems to me educating them on STDs, pregnancy, and other health concerns while discouraging the behavior is the best approach. Encouraging them in this behavior serves no purpose relating to the concerns there. All it does is create a sexually experience juvenile who instead of taking the 1 in whatever chance 5 times end up taking it 500 times..

    62. Re:Success, not failure by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Isn't that more of the good effects of Roe vs. Wade? After all, an adult or young scumbag needs only 5 min, 2 hours max to get a girl pregnant. Is not like they will be worried about the long term consequences of an unwanted child.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    63. Re:Success, not failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats what she said!!!! LOL!!!11!!!

  9. Re:Whats a school super? by c0mpliant · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a school which has become self aware and has begun to address some of the flaws in its existance

    --
    There is no -1 disagree
  10. Huh by TimeElf1 · · Score: 1

    I grew up near Ithaca, MI. It's out in the middle of BFE. I can't really see him being superintendent for much longer though ballsy move but not really smart.

    --
    Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
    1. Re:Huh by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      That makes me applaud this move even more. While it's great to ask people to change what they are doing and do the right thing when there's no backlash against you, only demanding change when it's easy on us and just going with the flow when it's not is part of why things are slowly going to hell. That he's willing to take a stand when it risks negatively effecting him also shows that he's really trying to make a change for the better rather than just picking an easy battle to make himself look good, with little care for seeing any real improvement.

    2. Re:Huh by wolfemi1 · · Score: 1

      I admire people willing to stand up for their principles even at the possible cost of their jobs.

  11. Clever but inane by SniperJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I appreciate the point that the superintendent was trying to make (especially given the relative funding difference per person), I'm sure that the students would have some things to say about being forced to remain inside the school for 24 hours a day. Prisons spend so much money and provide items such as health care, exercise facilities and food because those people are forced to be there. You can't really just offer lunch in prison. Besides, I think the dollar argument is disingenuous. Comparing dollar figures for people that are in prison 24 hours a day / 365 days a year to those that are in school for 180 days a year / 8 hours a day on a per capital basis isn't exactly fair. From the article itself, $35,000 a year for a prisoner divided by 8,760 hours (24 hours * 365 days) is roughly $4.00 an hour. $7,000 a year for a student divided by 1,440 hours (8 hours * 180 days) is $4.86 per hour. By that metric, they are spending 22% MORE per student on an hourly basis than they are on a prisoner.

    1. Re:Clever but inane by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I would mod you up had I the points. It is disingenuous, and really to me all it indicates is how much egregious waste there is in the corrections system.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:Clever but inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while agreeing whit your point, do you think it is ok to spend only 22% more on schooling than on incarceration? it might have something to do with the US having such a humongous prison system

    3. Re:Clever but inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that metric, they are spending 22% MORE per student on an hourly basis than they are on a prisoner.

      Wow! $0.86 per hour more? A whole $0.86?

      On students - the inarguable future of our country?

      Versus incarcerated criminals?

      Well. This country is in good hands, no doubt.

    4. Re:Clever but inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      teachers are paid on a yearly basis, they work much more than your 1400 hours, 2000+ is common, with this correction the disparity is obvious. quit cherry-picking your data.

    5. Re:Clever but inane by dachshund · · Score: 1

      Prisons spend so much money and provide items such as health care, exercise facilities and food because those people are forced to be there.

      Prisons provide healthcare and food for free because prisoners are forced to be in prison, thus preventing them from earning their own money to pay for those items. Similarly, school is a full-time requirement for those under 18 (or 16, anyone know what the law is in Michigan?) and also prevents you from holding a full time job (let's put child labor laws aside). So it's actually a much fairer comparison than you think it is --- daytime wage-earning hours are much more valuable than sleeping time.

      The reason we don't provide students with healthcare or meals is because it's assumed that their parents will provide for them. If students routinely had to pay for those items themselves you'd see a huge backlash against mandatory schooldays --- or else the government would provide meals and healthcare just as it does for prisoners.

      In other words, I think your counterargument is a lot less reasonable than you think it is.

      By that metric, they are spending 22% MORE per student on an hourly basis than they are on a prisoner.

      And I think the point is that in terms of the value to society, basic education should probably be worth a lot more than 22% more than imprisonment, your somewhat arbitrary calculations aside.

    6. Re:Clever but inane by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your overall point, breaking it down on a per-hour basis seems disingenuous because the cost doesn't scale that way. It doesn't cost much to lock prisoners in their cell for 8 hours during the night.

    7. Re:Clever but inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your points are valid, I think you missed the most important point he was making. It wasn't dollar for dollar or a $/hr that he was arguing. It was that (at least according to him...I haven't verified the numbers) Michigan spends more per prisoner than any other state, yet they don't rank the same for education. He didn't mention the actual spending rank for schools, but I looked it up and Michigan is ranked 26th in spending per student. So we rank #1 for prisons but only #26 for education.

      So can you at least appreciate and agree with that point? All those other figures you quoted are meaningless because they're extremely difficult to compare meaningfully, due to them being completely different things. But making state-to-state comparisons is a lot more meaningful since your are comparing prisoners vs. prisoners and students vs. students, rather than prisoners vs students.

    8. Re:Clever but inane by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      More importantly, all he really does is point out that Michigan spends way too much on its prison population.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Clever but inane by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point.

      Why are we willing to pay for these things, out of our taxes, for criminals in jail - but not for schoolchildren?

      Why is it that when somebody is in prison we're willing to all chip in to make sure they've got access to food/clothing/shelter/healtchare/education/etc... But when they're free like the rest of us, it's their problem, and it's just too bad if they can't afford food/clothing/shelter/healtchare/education/etc.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    10. Re:Clever but inane by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Cogent point, but I think you simply skipped over one of the significant arguments.

      "Prisons spend so much money and provide items such as health care, exercise facilities and food because those people are forced to be there. You can't really just offer lunch in prison"

      Well, that's the point, isn't it? That prisoners are cared-for to a degree that even comes close to compare to that of our students is obscene.

      Prison should not be a place where we care for the incarcerated as if they are disaster victims that happen to need a place to live....entertainment, education, vocational training, internet, libraries? Why? At what point do we stop this silly experiment in rehabilitation and just turn prisons back into punishment?

      Even Minnesota's intensive and carefully-studied CIP program didn't change the rates of recidivism, merely extended the average time before the subject was again arrested.

      I suggest that cinderblock cells with minimally-nutritious food, a medically-required minimum hours of outdoor time, and no other services would cost substantially less than $4/hour, the entirety of the savings could just go straight to education.

      --
      -Styopa
    11. Re:Clever but inane by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And teachers are not the only cost. Buildings and other facilities still need maintenance during the summer. In fact, the school holidays are when most of this maintenance gets done. Schools don't stop costing money to run when the students are not there...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Clever but inane by phlinn · · Score: 1

      Because by depriving them of their own ability to provide those things, we become responsible for them. We can't evade that responsibility. We could of course use corporal punishment of one form or another instead, for a vast savings and possibly for better results. But that's considered barbaric, even though most people would prefer to take say, 2 lashes of a flogger per year. There's a pretty good argument that the prison system is both less effective and crueler than corporal punishment.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    13. Re:Clever but inane by mnrasul · · Score: 1

      There are lies, damned lies and then statistics as goes the famous adage. The cost of prisoners is actually alot more. In my opinion, the cost of prisoners is actually 8.86$ per hour if not more. How? : Alot of crime is due to poverty, lack of opportunities, allure of "easy" money and what not (this is imperative evidence, i don't have the links to prove it, I am sure others can find them). It can be argued that had they been educated properly to begin with, there would be less prisoners/crime. True there always will be criminals, but if people have a decent way out, they would rather not take the risk of crime. So let us assume that, as kids they cost the state 4.86$ per hour, due to failure of the system, inspite of having gone through the education, they are still costing the state additional 4$ per hours. Hence, there is a compounding effect here. Result is total loss to state. As kids they cost in education, as adults they cost in prisons and other associated costs of crime. If by imparting higher quality education, the expenditure on future prisoners can be reduced, I would be all for it. If by spending say $8 on education, they don't go to prison, we would not be paying the 4$, hence we don't loose much. Infact, they will start businesses, or work somewhere, earning state valuable taxes, hence the net cost to educate them would be actually less then 4$ and might even be profitable over their lifetime. I have made alot of simplifications, but it is simple to illustrate the fallacies of the comparison. Investing in education has alot of by-products, one of which is a healthier society.

    14. Re:Clever but inane by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

      Your figuring is also disingenuous. The school doesn't only pay for the building the hours students are there. Power, water, insurance, cleaning, wear, depreciation do not stop when the kids are not there.

    15. Re:Clever but inane by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Even Minnesota's intensive and carefully-studied CIP program didn't change the rates of recidivism, merely extended the average time before the subject was again arrested.

      It also reduced the severity of subsequent crimes and saved several million dollars via that extension of out-of-prison time.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    16. Re:Clever but inane by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point: if we spent more resources on students, we could find a cost-savings by preventing future prisoners. It's cheaper (by an order of magnitude) to educate people, even providing really expensive high-quality education, than incarcerate them.

    17. Re:Clever but inane by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Certainly there is different activity at night than during the day, but children sleep just like prisoners do, so an hourly comparison can still even out.

      As for the costs of sleeping prisoners, it does cost significantly more to house sleeping prisoners in their cages. In prison, you need to pay for good doors to keep them from leaving and you have to hire 24/7 staff who are awake and watching them, as well as have medical staff on shift if there are issue. Parents, on the other hand, generally get to sleep at night alongside their children unless something happens.

    18. Re:Clever but inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a correction system of the educational system. If they would have poured some of that money into education, not just infrastructure but teacher training and other similar things, instead of adding star ratings to holding cells, the number of convicts would have been greatly reduced.

      Most of the prisoners are there because of lack of options, not because they suddenly decided to kill their spouse, bomb an government institution or embezzlement. Try a correlation between schooling quality and criminality and you'll see the pattern, it's been done over and over.

      Better schools == fewer convicts

    19. Re:Clever but inane by GlennC · · Score: 1

      But when they're free like the rest of us, it's their problem, and it's just too bad if they can't afford food/clothing/shelter/healtchare/education/etc.

      This seems to be the basic premise of the Tea Party, or as I like to put it..."I gots mine, screw you."

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    20. Re:Clever but inane by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Prisons are set up with an idea towards containment but also towards rehabilitation.

      I understand that rehabilitation is a dirty word to some, implying bleeding heart liberalism, but we need to understand that while we confine prisoners in prisons, we are also *concentrating* criminals in prisons. Those prisoners will some day be released and if they have no skills, they are less likely than even an illegal immigrant to be able to get a job to support themselves. After all, who wants someone who is known to be a criminal to work for them in any position of trust?

      It is in the public interest to have prisoners learn skills so that they at least have a chance to have a life outside of prison, otherwise they will simply be forced to rely on their criminal skills, and prison is a very good way to both train and reinforce criminals.

      Personally, I am with the people who suggest that we decriminalize drug use to reduce populations, and perhaps even just flog or humiliate criminals and only use prisons for the most incorrigible ones who will be given very long sentences. However, while we are operating a prison system, we have to spend the money to make sure the prison system doesn't just make things worse.

    21. Re:Clever but inane by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Think about this though, the prison system is saying that it costs $35,000 at minimum to guard a prisoner. If you assume half of that goes to the actual 'prison' part of the equation, that leaves $17,500 to keep a prisoner alive and healthy; using tiny dormitory housing, cheap mass produced food, no travel budget, minimal healthcare, and few amenities. That is more money than a person makes, before taxes (no income taxes but other taxes are still applied at that income level) doing a minimum wage job 50 hours per week.

    22. Re:Clever but inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent. So we spend 22% more on the development of a person that has a great chance of being a productive member of society than we do on those who have already started down a path towards destruction of at least themselves. Fan-freaking-tastic.

      Ignoring the immense elephant in the room of the insane "War on Drugs", which puts many behind bars who shouldn't be, I still think 22% is a ridiculously small amount. Per hour, we should be pouring more than 500% more into the future of our youth than on the housing of those who commit major offenses. And I firmly believe that if we put that much more into a child's future, the number of people who end up in the prison system would be drastically reduced.

      Which is, by the way, why I was in favor of the infamous "Midnight Basketball" programs that were so decried in the 90s.

  12. This man is superintendent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "One solution I believe we must do is take a look at our corrections system in Michigan. We rank nationally at the top in the number of people we incarcerate. We also spend the most money per prisoner annually than any other state in the union. "

    Fire him and hire someone who can construct a sentence.

    What an embarrassment.

    1. Re:This man is superintendent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing wrong with those sentences. YOU are the embarrassment.

    2. Re:This man is superintendent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might as well stop teaching Faulkner, too...that fucker could never follow inane rules of grammar while writing creatively.

    3. Re:This man is superintendent? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      He may be an embarrassment, but at least he shouldn't be THE MOST embarrassed THAN you.

  13. And you thought... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    ...your teachers and principals were tough!

    --
    I8-D
  14. Re:Whats a school super? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

    Haven't you watched The Simpsons? It's short for "superintendent", as in "Superintendent Chalmers", the guy that Skinner is usually showing around doing inspections.

  15. Child Labor by cgfsd · · Score: 1

    If schools were prisons, the children would be forced to work during the day making stuff.

    About time those little bastards become useful.

    1. Re:Child Labor by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Prisoners in the United States are not forced to work, thus your comment is invalidated.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Child Labor by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      its technically forced labour anyway - we force the little buggers to learn stuff so that when they grow up and are let out of the pris^H^H^Hschool system, they will be productive and make things that will keep the economy rolling and basically fund our lazy lifestyles in our old age.

      If we couldn't do that, then we'd have to invent a lifeforce-sucking machine to keep us all youthful from their essences. Remember that next time you say school sucks!

    3. Re:Child Labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they couldn't complain about not having "prior work experience" upon graduation!

    4. Re:Child Labor by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Soon the National Industrial Recovery Act will be legal history and regular employment of children younger than 14 with no minimum wage provision will be fine in many states.
      http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4124271

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. Simpsons by iONiUM · · Score: 1

    Was anyone else reminded of The Simpsons episode where they did this?

    Didn't work out so well for them.

    1. Re:Simpsons by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      yup

    2. Re:Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, it only came up within the last minute of the episode. Nice try, poseur.

  17. hell yes to the max. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having thought about the children in question Im in agreement but only if they keep the inmates chained to their desks 23 hours a day , only let them out into the yard for 1 hour every 2 days - sorry bye bye college football et all.

    Finally they get the electric chair if they fail to graduate, its a win all round. The tax payer saves money as the role of teacher/warder/social worker can be roled into one and society gets a better class of citozen at rhe end of it all.

  18. Re:Whats a school super? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Yes, executive oversight and administration rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintendent_(education)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. Not the school's place to provide those things by OhPlz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does this guy know what public schools are for? They're for education. If people don't have a roof over their head, they get public housing. If people don't get three meals, they get food stamps or go to the local soup kitchen. If they don't have access to a fitness center, they get the Y. Want to earn a degree? Earn some scholarships, grants, or go the loan route, or get out into industry and go to night school. Books and computers? Public libraries typically have those.

    It sounds like he does actually want to make a prison, because prison is likely the only place you'll find all that together. That doesn't mean they're not provided to the non-incarcerated. This type of thinking sends the school systems down the path of being replacement parents. That should not be our end goal.

    1. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the fine article:

      This is why I’m proposing to make my school a prison. The State of Michigan spends annually somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 per prisoner, yet we are struggling to provide schools with $7,000 per student. I guess we need to treat our students like they are prisoners, with equal funding. Please give my students three meals a day. Please give my children access to free health care. Please provide my school district Internet access and computers. Please put books in my library. Please give my students a weight room so we can be big and strong. We provide all of these things to prisoners because they have constitutional rights. What about the rights of youth, our future?!

      Depending on the child's family, and the location of the school, many of these things are not available.

      There is no assurance that anybody is going to have a roof over their head. Sure, there are public housing programs, but they aren't a sure thing. They're chronically underfunded. I guess there are homeless shelters, too, but they aren't any better funded.

      There is no assurance that anybody is going to get three meals a day. Yup, the food stamps program exists - again, chronically underfunded. And with lots of hoops to jump through. And there aren't soup kitchens everywhere.

      Fitness center - you want them to go to the Y? You realize the Y isn't free, right? YMCA membership around here is ridiculously expensive. It's cheaper just to sign up at some other health club.

      Earn a degree - scholarships, grants, loans, night school... None of those are guaranteed. Lots of competition for limited scholarships and grants. And several of the banks in my area have stopped offering student loans.

      Books and computer - public library. Well, that's nice if you have a public library. And if that library actually has computers and a decent selection of books. Again though, they're chronically underfunded.

      It sounds like he does actually want to make a prison, because prison is likely the only place you'll find all that together. That doesn't mean they're not provided to the non-incarcerated. This type of thinking sends the school systems down the path of being replacement parents. That should not be our end goal.

      These things are apparently important enough that they're provided for prisoners. Nobody says "I'm sorry you can't earn enough money to pay for your own health care, it's your problem" when you're a prisoner. And yet, if you aren't a prisoner, that's basically the response. Same thing goes for pretty much everything else you mention.

      So, culturally, we think healthcare is essential enough to provide it to the people we've locked away from the rest of us... But we don't think it's essential enough to make sure that our schoolchildren have it no matter what...

      Seems a little messed up to me.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they get put on a wait-list for those things. Because when the economy takes a hit and those services are actually needed more, they're the first programs cut. It's not the government's responsibility to provide those things, it's ours. We need to help those in our own communities, because waiting for someone else to step in is just not going to work.

    3. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      The point being made is that as a country we are still spending $40,000 per inmate whenever schools across the country gets their budget slashed. My former High School had to lay off 40% of the teachers and are now teaching the kids in classrooms of 50 students. Its a satirical piece that while students are being sacrificed for the budget, prisons still have cable television and accessible health care. Its a call for more progressive thinking: cut the prison's budget before going after education.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    4. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no assurance that anybody is going to have

      ...any of that stuff. I used to think I was underprivileged because my dad loved the bottle more than he loved me and wasn't around except to deliver some occasional emotional abuse for some birthdays or rare Christmases, but that was when I lived in Aptos. Then I moved to Capitola (but on the edge of Santa Cruz, really... not the nice part, more kind of in a ravine) and started hanging out with kids who had to steal to eat, or who had run away from home and lived in a squat and spanged for their food because someone was touching them or beating them at home. I went to school with some of these kids. The absolutely horrendous school lunch (bless your heart, Joan, I know you did what you could with the tiny amount of budget you had, but I think some of that stuff is still stuck to my intestines) was the most nutritious thing some of them ate all day.

      So, culturally, we think healthcare is essential enough to provide it to the people we've locked away from the rest of us... But we don't think it's essential enough to make sure that our schoolchildren have it no matter what...

      You can pretty much run right through all these supposed "human" rights guaranteed in the constitution, and then compare that to the laws pertaining to minors, and the only conclusion you can possibly come to is that we do not believe children to be humans.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the modern education system is to precisely be replacement parents so that the real parents can be off being "productive members of society" in factories/cube farms.

      And I think the Principals implication was that a lot of kids weren't getting those things despite their ostensibly being programmes out there. Also I doubt your local public library is funded well enough to provide access to thousands of computers and TEXT books (that is what he was talking about, not novels, a lot of districts are hurting for texts printed this century) for public school kids.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    6. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Regarding the public housing programs...
      I live in TN, and my girlfriend's sister is on public housing.

      There is a FOUR YEAR waiting period for any type of public housing whatsoever here. She applied when her child was born. He's now almost four and they just got it. In my opinion, the entire system is structured to get you in and keep you in. She's a stay-at-home-mom, and dad does roofing. She wants to get a job, but they're terrified they'll lose the assistance and have trouble making rent payments, and with a four year waiting period to reapply, I don't blame them.
      So, naturally, they end up suckling the gov't teat with no end in sight.

      Why is the system designed to prevent one from moving on?
      I thought the point was to help until you didn't need help anymore.

    7. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Y is not a government program.

    8. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Does this guy know what public schools are for? They're for education.

      Great. And children learn better when they aren't hungry. Children learn better when they have greater access to resources (computers and books). Children learn better when they exercise (don't remember that the Governator was also the Chairman of The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports?).

      Those things should be provided at home, but sometimes aren't. They are provided in prison, but not schools. That is the point, and you seem to agree with everything he says, but in the most disagreeable manner.

    9. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people don't have a roof over their head, they get public housing. If people don't get three meals, they get food stamps or go to the local soup kitchen. If they don't have access to a fitness center, they get the Y. Want to earn a degree? Earn some scholarships, grants, or go the loan route, or get out into industry and go to night school. Books and computers? Public libraries typically have those.

      Unless you live in Michigan. Or anywhere else a teabagger governor/legislature got elected. Then you don't get that stuff anymore.

    10. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, you must really have your head up your ass. Go to a school sometime and look around. My wife is a counselor in an elementary school in mid-Michigan. Kids come:
      - without coats (she has a supply for just such an emergency)
      - homeless (she provides help to let them get temporary housing)
      - hungry, without food (she gets them signed up for the lunch program, their only meal of the day)
      - without heat (she hooks them up with government help for power/gas so they can stay warm)
      - parent woes such as prison/death/substanceAbuse/divorce (she counsels them, gets them references to full time counseling)
      - abused sexually/physically/verbally (she calls the cops and/or social services)

      Not to mention the meer *educational issues* like learning disabilities, personality disorders etc. Schools are the clearing house for all the woes a child runs into. WIthout them, without their support, children who have no other resources (shitty parents, terrible financial circumstances, just plain bad luck) get dumped unceremoniously into the dumpster. There are days my wife comes home completely spent from the piles of shit she has had to deal with, and the children who are being suffocated by it. She is often the only friend these children have and, perhaps, ever will. You support schools for far, far more than just reading/writing/rithmetic my friend. You support people like her to clean up the mess people make of their lives and, as a consequence, their childrens'. And her job is going to get cut. Not enough money to cover all these damn extra programs. Folks like you just say "teach em math, that's your job". You just don't get it! I suggest you start

    11. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by phatphoton · · Score: 1

      This type of thinking sends the school systems down the path of being replacement parents. That should not be our end goal.

      As can be read further up in these comments, parental involvement is paramount in educational success. A point was made that in lower-income areas, parental involvement is lacking due to several possible reasons and this involvement is lacking in both quality and quantity. I would then say that parents are failing their kids. I come from a very low income area in a rural part of the Appalachia Mountains and grew up among mostly un-motivated nearly worthless students (which diverted attention from the few other motivated, demanding, and brilliant ones). I will say that the majority of parents and family in the area encouraged or condoned misbehavior and essentially discouraged any kind of social concern or moral fiber and in some cases outright blocked academic effort. This lead to a general disregard for scholastic authority (or authority in general for that matter) and a constant line of selfish, inept, and apathetic citizens (some are more than happy to display the confederate flag in blind protest to authority). Replacing these kids' parents with something, ANYTHING better than drunk, apathetic lazy people would provide a huge benefit. State-run parentalism isn't the answer, I think, but is at least better than what some of these kids have now.

    12. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Inda · · Score: 1

      Please give my students three meals a day. Please give my children access to free health care. Please provide my school district Internet access and computers. Please put books in my library. Please give my students a weight room so we can be big and strong.

      This amuses me as I'd expect this as the norm in the UK, apart from the three meals a day. Breakfast is enough and it's free at the local school.

      I don't pay anywhere close to $7,000 tax per year. That figure seems stupid.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    13. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Terwin · · Score: 1

      I thought the point was to help until you didn't need help anymore.

      Since when?
      That is just what they say to the people who don't like it.
      Everyone knows the primary reason for every type of 'social security' is to buy votes and lock those voters in so that they are afraid to vote for anyone else lest they 'lose everything'

      Why else would they extend unemployment benefits again and again, so that they end just after the next election?

      Sure each individual program has a shallow ramp so that if you are only on one program you can slowly climb out of the program until you no longer qualify, but people are usually not on just one program. If you are on food stamps, housing assistance, and medicaid, then above a rather small level of income, you lose perhaps $1.50 in benefits for every extra dollar you earn.

      And you dare not vote for anyone who would do anything except add more funding to those programs, lest you risk losing your benefits.

      Also, it does not matter how much you fund such programs, because anything that is not immediately handed out will be lost to waste/graft/inefficiency/bureaucracy causing any increase in demand, or even a return to previous levels after reduced demand, to be 'more than we can afford with current funding'.

    14. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by phlinn · · Score: 1

      Because it serves the interests of the people who actually work in those programs to make certain there is always a need for them. It's an instance of the principal agent problem in part. It may not be malicious on the individual employee level, but people are great at rationalizing decisions as helping others when it really helps themselves. You might want to consider this sort of issue as applied to all other government programs.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    15. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      I don't pay anywhere close to $7,000 tax per year. That figure seems stupid.

      You're referring to the $7000 per student cost of education from the GP, right? The ratio of taxpayers to schoolchildren is probably not 1:1.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    16. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the modern education system is to precisely be replacement parents so that the real parents can be off being "productive members of society" in factories/cube farms.

      Actually, modern education was designed to become replacement parents because the founding thinkers of the academic discipline of efucation did not like the values that many parents taught their children. Unfortunately, we as a society are discovering that the values those "thinkers" preferred are not a very good base for a stable society.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    17. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . If people don't get three meals, they get food stamps or go to the local soup kitchen.

      I challenge you to come up with a plan for adequate nutrition and shelter (rent) for a family of, say, one adult and two school-aged children, based on a combination of:
      1. One minimum-wage job
      2. Food stamps
      3. Available charities (Food banks, and any soup kitchens that will cater to employed adults and families.)
      4. Subsidized public housing

      Good luck.

    18. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between providing these things to prisoners and providing them to everyone is that with prisoners we have intentionally prevented them from providing for themselves. If you fail to provide food for your average citizen there's a good chance he'll provide for himself. If you fail to provide food to someone you've imprisoned he is guaranteed to starve.

    19. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      What a narrow argument. Let's see how it looks reversed.

      Do you know what prisons are for? They're for punishment. If criminals don't have a roof over their head, they shouldn't have gotten convicted. If they don't get three meals, they shouldn't have gone to prison. If they don't have access to a fitness center, they should've hired better lawyers. Want to earn a degree? Stay out of prison! Books and computers? Should've thought of that before landing themselves in trouble.

      Besides, public schools were never intended to educate.

      --
      My page.
    20. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the dumbest set of rationalizations I've seen in ages.

      Do you know what else is chronically under funded? Prisons.

      Here on the west coast, "underprivileged" children are given free meals at school. 2x per day. They are given free state sponsored health care. They are given a special buss route so they don't have to walk a long ways to school. They are given all their supplies, books, and materials needed for school... for free or very cheap. This, in a state that is 14 BILLION dollars short on it's budget. SHORT. BILLIONS. Meanwhile, google fu up some pictures of "california prison overcrowding".

      Social programs WORK. In so far as they give healthcare, food and clothing, and other support to the poorest members of society, which helps keep those kids out of jail. (to a point anyway)

      No one is going hungry, or sick at school around here. What the fuck are you guys doing wrong over their in MI?

      I personally know a young single mother of 2. She works full time, but is a teacher and doesn't make a lot. She gets, Free oregon Healthplan for both her kids (not self), Free food stamps in the amount of $350/mo, Housing aid ($500/mo in rent help if you live in a qualified area), and if she lost 20% of her income somehow, she'd be qualified for cash assistance, which pays at least $300/mo in CASH, and lets not even talk about the taxes and rebates from the gov. Most of these programs are permanent, as long as you continue to qualify, which is as long as you are still poor.

    21. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US and Somalia are the only nations on earth that deny Children human rights.
      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child

    22. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      "Depending on the child's family, and the location of the school, many of these things are not available."

      Fine, but that doesn't make it the school's responsibility to provide those things. His shopping list is full of things that a community needs, not just a subset composed of just students. He's comparing the dollar amount to provide all of that to prisoners when he should be considering the dollar amount of any education provided to inmates. That's what his school system is supposed to provide, education. It's not a valid comparison he's making unless he's trying to say the entire community is underfunded. But then he has to consider the costs of those other programs that are already in place, not just the amount his school gets per student.

      Another person made an insightful comment below. Ignoring the sidetrack of whether prisons should provide all these things for inmates, the prisons provide them because typically, they're the only ones who can. The prisoners can't go work out at the Y or get themselves a cozy cell in a half-way house. They're in prison, behind bars. Non inmates will tend to provide for themselves.

      As for the Y costing money, sure. But I know the one in my community sets the fee based on the person's ability to pay, and it's free in some cases such as the individual being unemployed. As I said the schools aren't there to provide everything a person needs in life, the government isn't there for that either. When exactly did people start thinking that the purpose of the government was to ensure that you had every basic need supplied to you? That's not the government's job, that's your job!

    23. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should consider exploring the rest of the US. The things you listed aren't freely available in most places.

    24. Re:Not the school's place to provide those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the argument that it's not the school's place to make up for our society's failings, but you're forgetting the underlying purpose of schools. This is our investment in the future. It's the school's business to provide our society with the resources to continue, to grow, to improve. Regardless of how our society fails these kids, it's in all of our best interests that each school gives every kid a chance to contribute to our future well-being. That investment of $2 each day to give a hungry kid breakfast may benefit society $M's over 50 years of productive work. Why wouldn't you make that investment?

  20. Done already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Turning the school into a prison for the government benefits... Simpsons did it first!

    Also, most students would agree that schools are prisons already, anyway.

    1. Re:Done already by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Any student who would think that is an idiot and has no idea what prison is like. Or, are you saying that the male students rape and shank each other and the male teachers have 2,3, or more student girlfriends they bang in the staff lounge?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Done already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how it was done in your fancy school but we had a ridiculous amount of shanking and male on male rape going on. As a kinky homosexual with a rape and blood fetish, I really enjoyed my time at school.

    3. Re:Done already by khr · · Score: 1

      Any student who would think that ... has no idea what prison is like.

      Exactly... And that's part of the point of trying to give them a good education, so they never have to get a first hand idea of what prison is like...

  21. Re:Whats a school super? by xclr8r · · Score: 1

    super is short for superintendent basically the chief school administrator for a district of schools.

    --
    Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
  22. Re:Whats a school super? by MikeDX · · Score: 1

    ah, you mean Super Nintendo Chalmers ...

  23. would spice up the senior class song competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The contenders could be two songs about working on the chain gang: Sam Cooke's original and the sequel from the Pretenders.

  24. Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't fund public education, what do you think the kids will do?

    I mean, they've committed the crime of being born poor.Obviously, only people who can afford private school should be able to educate their kids, right? This must be the meritocracy I keep hearing you talk about. You do understand a true meritocracy requires you to SPEND to make sure everyone starts out on equal footing right? Oh i"m sorry, nevermind, that's "socialism."

    Oh I agree, there is a lot of waste in the system and teachers and administrators are paid too well with too many perks. But with that valid complaint, instead of trying to REFORM where public school funds go, you just want to defund it. Those evil poor people, trying to get educated. Tsk, tsk. Let us keep our focus on where our concerns should naturally be: keeping taxes low for the rich. Those poor rich, people trying to rob them of the money they made completely by themselves, without any input from the infrastructure their country made possible, right? (The country they SAY they love.)

    Anyway: I'll tell you what those kids will do without good public education: they'll become criminals. You've taught them with your priorities that poor Americans should hurry up and die as far as you are concerned (healthcare anyone?). With that kind of leadership, the poor will hear you loud and clear and return the amount of respect you give them: it's not about helping each other as Americans, it's about "I got mine already, so fuck you." That's a perfect segue to a gun in your backside and a request for your wallet, no? You reap what you sow Republicans. The quality of your society is dictated by your policies and your attitudes towards your fellow American.

    See, the funny thing about education costs, healthcare costs, is that if you don't pay these expenses, they don't just go away. They still COST you, but in terms of the quality of the society you live in instead. What, too "socialist" for you? Reality. Learn it.

    Of course, Republicans are "tough on crime." So this principle will get what he wants in jest, in reality: more prisons, less schools. No costs there, right Republicans? It's what the poor deserve: prisons, not schools, right? Tells us all we need to know about your love for your country and your fellow citizens. Just stop believing anyone buys your lies anymore, you selfish shortsighted assholes.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Hey Republicans: by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      On the state level, I would leave it up to the towns. I would give them an adequate amount of funding and then let them sort it out. If a town wants to have overpaid teachers and administrators, more power to them. And it looks like that is what a lot of states are doing.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    2. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      Apparently it is ok by you that rich towns have good schools and poor towns have bad ones. Do you believe in meritocracy? Do you believe in equality? It seems you believe in nepotism and classism.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:Hey Republicans: by stms · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that George Bush did a better job with our education system than our current President who last I heard is trying to do the same thing Bush did to address the issue. It really is amazing at how people can blame those evil republicans for everything even when they're not in charge.

    4. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that most conservatives want to take that 7000 dollars and give it to the parents to pick whatever school they think is best for their child? That way the poor kid and the rich kid can go to a good school together.

      I know it's tough to get past the rhetoric, but the idea is sound. Why throw money at a failing system and hope it improves?

    5. Re:Hey Republicans: by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thats what a lot of states are doing and it isn't working. My former High School now is teaching 50 students per teacher. In theory it sounds like it works, but when you do the actual math on running a school (overhead of a building, faculty, etc) you'll find that typical American towns cannot afford to provide anything more than 3rd world country grade education.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    6. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you are correct that many democrats side with republicans on certain policy matters. but this doesn't excuse the side of the aisle with the religious devotion to protecting the rich and screwing the poor, all the while claiming to love america. are you going to say to me with a straight face that democrats want to defund healthcare and education and government in general with the same fervor as republicans? it is democrats who decry "evil socialism"?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:Hey Republicans: by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      Do the research: he is pushing for education to be spared on budget reform. Can you provide a reference on your point? Besides, education budgets are being cut on the state level - nothing has taken place on the federal level yet.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    8. Re:Hey Republicans: by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      In another post I sited Camden, NJ. One of the poorest, most crime-ridden cities in America. It gets a huge amount of state aid. Their students still aren't doing well.

      I would gather that while money is nice, it isn't money that creates a good education. A stable and caring family and a stable community have a lot more to do with it. It is related to money but it isn't about straight spending. They are correlated. But I don't see the straight causation.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    9. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      ah yes, let's all worship at the alter of the free market fairy. parents will pick the succeeding school, and abandon the failing one, and competition will take care of the rest. nevermind that 5,000 kids showing up at a school that seats 500 is not going to work, nor is the mother in the south bronx going to drive 40 miles to scarsdale every day and back. gee: why don't we take that 7,000 dollars and distribute it evenly to guarantee that all schools are on equal footing? is that socialism you say? so it's ok to punish kids who are born poor? and you still want to lecture me about meritocracy when you either dishonestly or ignorantly advocate for classism and nepotism?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    10. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i agree 100%. so let's talk about where that money goes and make it more effective. Republicans just want to defund, and let the poor be punished for the crime of being born poor. and then lecture us about meritocracy. pffffffft. if you don't start on the same footing, classism and nepotism dominate. to counteract that, you give more money to poor districts, to even things out. you don't just give up, out of hatred for the poor, and let the poor stay poor, unless you couldn't give a flying fuck about your fellow americans (all the while proclaiming false love for your country)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    11. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I agree, there is a lot of waste in the system and teachers and administrators are paid too well with too many perks.

      I will agree that administrators are paid quite a bit more than their contribution to the educational process warrants, but teachers are grossly underpaid. In fact, the pay is so low as to dissuade many people who would otherwise be outstanding teachers to pursue a career they will love less, while leaving our children in the hands of either those who are so dedicated to teaching as to accept the paltry salary and archaic tenure and compensations systems, or people who just couldn't do anything else.

      I don't think it's fair to say that the Republicans have done much worse in terms of "reforming education" (can we stop using that term - there have been no reforms and it's just a political buzz-phrase) than the Democrats. Neither party has done well. Most parents care about their child's education, but few are willing to pay the property taxes to make public school feel like it's just as good an option as private school. Even fewer are willing to get actively involved in the educational process, however -- making sure homework is done, making sure kids don't skip class, enforcing discipline at home. Many parents simply view school as daycare. The result? Kids don't feel like school is something their parents value and consequently they don't value it either.

      I am tired of Sarah Palin as the face of the Republican party and I'm tired of John Boehner as the teary face of the Democratic party. We are a country of intelligent people who let our emotions (and frankly our Bibles, sometimes) get in the way of making smart decisions when it comes to politics. In fact, it makes politicians loathe to support any rational policy that won't "play well" in the media, for fear of not being reelected. And unfortunately, the media and the public are too short-sighted to see how longer-term plans might yield huge benefits (or even unanticipated benefits).

    12. Re:Hey Republicans: by Polumna · · Score: 1

      Hey, speaking of rhetoric, the whole public school failing thing is rhetoric. Rhetoric produced by people in the name of FUD and school vouchers. (Also, if you think a $7,000 voucher is going to get little Joe Underprivileged in the same school as Billy Gates IV, you're out of your goddamn mind.)

      But wait! Everybody knows that the public school system in this country is a dismal failure. Everybody says so and it's in the news constantly. Nooope. Everybody thinks it's *someone else's* public schools that suck. Actual approval parents have for their childs public school is quite high. You want to see the power of rhetoric though: here it is.

    13. Re:Hey Republicans: by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Apparently it is ok by you that rich towns have good schools and poor towns have bad ones. Do you believe in meritocracy? Do you believe in equality? It seems you believe in nepotism and classism.

      In Kansas, Republicans addressed this problem of class affecting education. There were rich school districts and poor school districts. The rich ones turned out better educated students as a result of this disparity in wealth (and thus funding). Poor school districts asked the state to help level the playing field. So to make sure everyone got an equal chance, the Republican legislature put a cap on how much the local school districts could spend, so the rich kids got the same public education as the poor ones.

      Well, they almost addressed it. Private schools have boomed in the wealthy areas.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    14. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      interesting

      of course, those graduates of the wealthy private schools will cite hard work and meritocracy, rather than connections and nepotism, in their continued good life

      they will look down their noses at the "lazy" undeserving poor who want to get their grubby hands on their "hard-earned" money. all the while proclaiming great love for america, as they willfully abandon their fellow americans

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    15. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that they assume that if they de-fund the education departments the administrators will be forced to do away with the waste and perks.

      I know that I have a hard time being excited to pay more taxes for the school when every room in the elementary and middles schools has a high end projector that has network and touch pen integration and they sit unused. I know it is just one example, but why would you put $2500 in fancy equipment in every room when a chalk board/white board will do the same thing. It sits there unused while the chalkboard is.

    16. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      if you agree that the problem is waste, then you defund on the basis of a line item list of the wastes. you don't just defund, and expect someone who hasn't done their job to suddenly do it. fire them

      and i agree that administrators are paid too well to do too piss poor of a job. so fore them or line item their salary: redefine their salary as merit based, based on how well they do they do their job: ie, get rid of waste

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, you are kind of mischaracterizing the mainstream conservative argument on this.

      (1) Public schools are failing largely due to the difficulty of creating accountability with teachers and administrators in government unions.
      (2) Government planned schools are not exposed to market forces and hence don't evolve to remain competitive

      Solution: Defund public schools and give the same per child dollars as a tax credit for parent's to pay for private schools. In theory market competition would create a large number of schools competing for those dollars.

      The big argument here isn't over weather schools should be funded, its about the effectiveness of government and the necessity of teachers unions.

    18. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the thing that's really funny is the magically elastic cause and effect universe of GOP die-hards. If something good happens during a Republican administration, they get the credit. If something good happens during a Democratic administration, it's the delayed effect of Ronald Reagan's work. Bad things, of course, are always due to some Democrat between FDR and Obama. Very convenient. Must be why they occasionally let the opposition win an election.

    19. Re:Hey Republicans: by stms · · Score: 1

      Education is one thing Healthcare is another. Generally speaking neither side wants to "defund" education and yes I could say that with a strait face.

    20. Re:Hey Republicans: by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      interesting

      of course, those graduates of the wealthy private schools will cite hard work and meritocracy, rather than connections and nepotism, in their continued good life

      Done.

      they will look down their noses at the "lazy" undeserving poor who want to get their grubby hands on their "hard-earned" money. all the while proclaiming great love for america, as they willfully abandon their fellow americans

      And done. :( They started this stuff 2 decades ago, and it has worked just as you said.

      Now, there is one other option for the well-to-do:

      1. Move out to a newly built suburb in what had been a bean field last year.

      2. Start a new school district.

      3. Issue bonds to build schools. (The revenue can also be used for general expenses.) This isn't subject to the funding cap.

      4. Well funded public schools!

      . . . years pass . . .

      5. District built. Bonds paid off. Steady decline begins.

      6. Grown children of wealthy suburbanites GOTO 1.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    21. Re:Hey Republicans: by stms · · Score: 1

      I'm not just where I heard it but your statement that "he is pushing for education to be spared on budget reform." would fit in with my commit.

    22. Re:Hey Republicans: by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reply. You agree that the problem isn't strictly due to money but to other factors, but you think the solution is money. I'm not quite following you.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    23. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the free market fairy does not solve healthcare or education problems. this is because healthcare and education are mandates. the free market will naturally create tiers of service based on pre-existing economic status. this is an injust society i will not be a part of

      yes, government has efficiency problems. waste and ineffectiveness must be constantly fought. but it is not superior to just allow the poor to continue being poor, and stupid, and unhealthy. that is a classist society, not a meritocracy, not a society of equals

      every other industrial country has figured this out. why not the usa? because of this moronic american cult: free market fundamentalism, the free market solves all problems. actually, it doesn't. it only solves some problems. on some issues, healthcare and education for instance, the government must run, or at least regulate stringently, how services function, because the free market will continue, and deepen, social inequalities

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    24. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      ah, how sweet, the k5 troll rearing its head above the water once more.

      As to your claim that people turn into criminals without the 'society' (read, the rich and Chinese) paying for their education, well that's nonsense based on history. Without public education people don't become criminals, they become apprentices (as long, as government doesn't fuck that up as well, as it did, with all the minimum wage and other so called 'pro-labor', but really anti-job laws).

      Sure, some turn into criminals - well that's what private security forces and guns are for.

    25. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      a bridge falling down is caused by erosion. the problem is solved with money: prop up or build a new bridge

      i don't know why the concept is so difficult for you to follow

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    26. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      why don't you to move to haiti, where your ideology is working wonders

      i prefer to grow and protect the middle class, by endorsing policies that makes sure all citizens are on equal footing in terms of education and healthcare

      you have a problem with that goal. because you are a selfish shortsighted asshole who doesn't recognize what it takes to maintain a fair and just society of equals

      to you, it's not a problem if society is highly unequal. that's just normal and natural to you. and in fact, it is normal and natural. in parts of the world with vast swaths of poor and a few ultrarich. that's the society your ideology results in. it sounds like oyu are a product of such a society, and simply don't know any better, out of ignorance

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    27. Re:Hey Republicans: by cs668 · · Score: 1

      Sorry the parent post was mine. Didn't try to do the Anonymous Coward thing!!

    28. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      What happened, k5 isn't cutting it for you anymore?

      By the way, if you are ever in Lucerne, leave a message here, I'll buy you some soup.

      As to the rest of the drivel - government makes everybody equally.... poor, not more than that. Only free market competition forces people to come up with everything new and interesting, with all the new products and services, all while reducing costs and increasing efficiency. But you'd rather lament on the unfairness of that system, which allows some to be more than others, while greatly increasing the actual wealth of society - production, than the system you prefer, which punishes people who actually do the work of increasing the wealth, all while promoting the worthless consumption by the welfare state proles.

      Cheers.

    29. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      philosophically, they are the same in that you are talking about supplementing the resources of the poor with the resources of the rich in order to reach a society of equals. only when all people in a society have the same access to basic resources like healthcare and education can you talk about meritocracy. but if you allow the poor to receive substandard healthcare and education, you perpetuate and deepen class divides. you then have a society of unequals, whose end game is vast swaths of poor and a few ultrarich

      i don't believe all rich and all poor can or should have the exact same footing. this is an impossible goal. but much effort should be exerted in order to keep the footing as equal as possible, to achieve something as close to a meritocracy as you can. the poor shouldn't be rewarded the same as the rich, you should be more rewarded for working hard and achieving in life. but by the same token, the poor shouldn't be doomed to substandard healthcare and education, just for being poor. or a class divide hardens and deepends. a poor child should have roughly the same chance to succeed in life as a rich child. a poor child should not be doomed by poverty simply because of where he was born

      and so leadership of society should not be left to the selfish shortsighted assholes who have no problem letting society slide towards vast gaping inequalities. some people don't have a problem with such a society. because they are simply ignorant or don't care that that is what their ideology results in

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    30. Re:Hey Republicans: by anyGould · · Score: 1

      You realize that most conservatives want to take that 7000 dollars and give it to the parents to pick whatever school they think is best for their child? That way the poor kid and the rich kid can go to a good school together.

      This only works if all the schools have tuition

      Otherwise, the rich kids (or more properly, the rich parents) will spend extra to make sure that their kids get all the best bells and whistles, field trips, lab supplies, etc. Everyone else will end up at Ed's Discount EducationMart.

      An alternative would be how the school district here works - there are a ton of special programs, but they're all part of the district. Your kid can go where-ever they'll accept them (or they qualify, for the "kids needing help" programs), and there's no additional cost to the parents - the government funding goes to where the kids are. Schools compete for students, and programs that are popular get cloned across the district. Currently about half the kids in the district go to schools that *aren't* their default (read: whichever one is closest).

    31. Re:Hey Republicans: by cs668 · · Score: 1

      Well I don't think that is true. I mean maybe in government, but if you are the CEO of a company you are probably not making line item adjustments to some middle managers budget.

      If I ran a school I would not want some politician line item vetoing parts of my budget. Let me propose my budget, if it needs to be cut then cut it, but let me manage my school and how I allocate the budget. If I don't provide results then fire me.

    32. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that I have a hard time being excited to pay more taxes for the school when every room in the elementary and middles schools has a high end projector that has network and touch pen integration and they sit unused. I know it is just one example, but why would you put $2500 in fancy equipment in every room when a chalk board/white board will do the same thing. It sits there unused while the chalkboard is.

      And yet if you took as "prospective parent" tour of a private school, they'd point out such equipment and proudly state they're up on the latest technology, and you'd be "cool, this place is great".

      The difference is the public school kids don't deserve it because they're not so well off. The wealthy deserve more precisely because they are wealthy, and thus worthy.

    33. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the poor shouldn't be rewarded the same as the rich, you should be more rewarded for working hard and achieving in life. but by the same token, the poor shouldn't be doomed to substandard healthcare and education, just for being poor. or a class divide hardens and deepends. a poor child should have roughly the same chance to succeed in life as a rich child. a poor child should not be doomed by poverty simply because of where he was born

      what i would like you to do, is to try hard and try to stay on the fucking subject matter: it's about kids starting out on equal footing. it's not about guaranteeing that everyone finish at the same economic level, regardless of effort exerted. that's called nepotism actually: you know, who your rich father knows getting you your position in life, rather than the hard working guy who couldn't rise any further in the company because your useless ass needed to be pampered

      it's not about every kid getting an xbox, its about every kid getting a good education and good healthcare. you of course confuse the two topics. either out of ignorance or willful intellectual dishonesty. and so leadership of society should not be left to the selfish shortsighted assholes who have no problem letting society slide towards vast gaping inequalities. some people don't have a problem with such a society. because they are simply ignorant or don't care that that is what their ideology results in

      and i believe you are in lucerne, maybe not swiss though. you sound like the product of the upper middle class or rich of a highly unequal society. certainly classism exists everywhere, including switzerland, such are your obvious blinders

      but thanks for playing, marie antoinette. i would let the conversation occur between adults honestly interested in society's well-being. we'll try to to put too much of a damper on the allowance your dad gives you monthly for clubbing and ski holidays

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    34. Re:Hey Republicans: by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      ah, how sweet, the k5 troll rearing its head above the water once more.

      As to your claim that people turn into criminals without the 'society' (read, the rich and Chinese) paying for their education, well that's nonsense based on history. Without public education people don't become criminals, they become apprentices (as long, as government doesn't fuck that up as well, as it did, with all the minimum wage and other so called 'pro-labor', but really anti-job laws).

      Sure, some turn into criminals - well that's what private security forces and guns are for.

      If this is sarcasm, it's on par with the Superintendent's open letter. Not quite "A Modest Proposal", but good enough for a slashdot discussion.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    35. Re:Hey Republicans: by cs668 · · Score: 1

      It's not that they don't deserve it. It's that it doesn't actually help to educate. My college professors didn't have that sort of equipment to teach college level mathematics and computer science courses. Tell me why you need to wast that money for 1-8 graders. Spend the money on Teachers instead!!!

      BTW, the schools in the poor neighborhoods have a bigger budget per pupil than the ones in the rich neighborhoods, at least in the metro area where I live. The kids who get screwed on spending are the rural kids where there is less local property tax.

    36. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      you sound like the product of the upper middle class or rich of a highly unequal societ

      - yes, if you count an ex-USSR immigrant to Israel and then the Americas, who spent 16 years working his way up the food chain so that later, he could then move his business out of that decadent socialist society to a freer place to be marie antoinette, then I say: let them dwell on their own misfortune, as they keep voting for the bread and circuses and let them be cleansed in the fire of economic disaster, brought upon them by those very choices for the welfare state, that they made, so that maybe, just maybe, if they survive the collapse, they will come out on the other end as winners, who rebuild their society and stop asking the world for more favors.

    37. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Result from message filter "REPUB_TEA_PARTY":

      [extraneous and/or blasphemous text]

      Anyway: I'll tell you what those kids will do without good public education: they'll become criminals.

      [extraneous and/or blasphemous text]

      Point taken! Therefore, the obvious course of action is to cut more funding to public education (as they're going to be failures and criminals anyway) and funnel that straight to military spending (as we're going to need to fight the future failures and criminals from our previous funding cuts)! Don't worry, if you have potential but don't live near a private school, we trust the almighty Invisible Hand will judge your worthiness accordingly in order of your finances.

    38. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans just want to defund, and let the poor be punished for the crime of being born poor. and then lecture us about meritocracy.

      Quit lying. I grew up in one of those poor school districts to a poor family. Everyone talked about how bad it was, how students weren't learning and their grades were bad. Yet I came out of it, paid my own way through college, got a high paying job. It wasn't money that made the difference. There were all sorts of talk just like you are saying. Raise taxes on rich, pay teachers more. No one punished me when these measures failed. I learned how to succeed without government involvement.

    39. Re:Hey Republicans: by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I support defunding education... on the national level. While certainly there will remain differences between rich and poor areas, the fact is that throwing money at the poor areas doesn't help either. All national funding does is politicize spending and it becomes a way of buying votes.

      There is a saying that goes: "You don't reinforce failure," but that is what we are doing with underperforming schools. While school materials are expensive, in general, you can fit out labs and buy the exact same textbooks for the same price in a poor district as in a rich one. But even in poor districts with very large amounts of state and national funding, it still all ends up going to shit. The difference isn't in the school buildings and the resources, its in the care that the community takes in their school.

      What you need is the ability for people stuck in poor areas who want a good education to be able to escape the poor areas.

      You can't turn a poor inner city school into a high performing school just by spending more money on it. It won't work. You need to change the surroundings of the kids in the school. While all their friends are in gangs and classrooms are uncontrollable, they can't learn anything. You need to cease concentrating the poor into their own districts and then dumping money on the resulting black hole that forms.

      You need to identify the kids who would benefit from a change in scenery and get them in better schools and more importantly, into better communities. Change the peer pressure they are getting every day from gang membership to actually acting like a human.

      Then you need to identify the kids who won't learn, or can't learn and keep them away from the ones who want to learn. Get them in vocational education and get them out of the schools with skills that they will be utilizing anyway at a younger age. A significant fraction of those kids will probably love learning technical skills and then getting out and actually making some money. They also don't have to live with constantly being compared to the honor roll students.

      Mind you, when I am talking about the vocational track, I think it should be voluntary. Kids identified for vocational education should be asked if they want to learn a trade or if they want to try for college. They should be shown their grades and test scores and be counseled as to the amount of work it will take for them to actually get to college. If they want to try anyway, you actually have a kid who has now *chosen* to try. They can no longer say "Someone is forcing me to be here". They can leave any time they want. They will be *encouraged* to leave if they don't measure up.

      Will any of this fly? Probably not. We're all brainwashed into believing that all kids have the same abilities, all we have to do is just spend more money and they will become geniuses or something. We also have this idea that by forcing the kids to be in school, they will learn things somehow instead of just being disruptions. That's where we end up running day care for children instead of actually running schools. We might as well just stop with the charade and open up publicly funded supervised day care centers for children who don't want to be in school. At least then, the kids who want to learn will have a fighting chance.

    40. Re:Hey Republicans: by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      ...you should be more rewarded for working hard and achieving in life. but by the same token, the poor shouldn't be doomed to substandard healthcare and education...

      Yes, if you're willing to take life, smooth down all the edges and making it bland, sterile, and soul destroying, you can do just that.

      Now, if you have any solutions that would work on human beings, I'd like to hear them.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    41. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well sure, if by 'eating the poor kids' you mean my proposal of having the market forces directing them to various apprenticeships and whatever levels of education they could pay for, though this would require dramatic reduction in the costs, which are not coming as long as government money is in education, then it's sort of a modest proposal, but I go much further than proposing to sell the kids for richer people's culinary adventures, I think they can actually add to the wealth of the society in much more ways than just being served on a platter - they can in fact become productive members of society and provide products and services the market wishes to buy from them.

      Obviously this cannot happen until the government is removed from making various economic and fiscal decisions, that make it impossible for anybody even to hire people out of school for less than minimum wage, though the country is filled with the unemployed, collecting whatever temporary benefits the government of China is still providing the US welfare recipients with.

    42. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that kind of leadership, the poor will hear you loud and clear and return the amount of respect you give them: it's not about helping each other as Americans, it's about "I got mine already, so fuck you." That's a perfect segue to a gun in your backside and a request for your wallet, no? You reap what you sow Republicans.

      Just because you're a coward who wants to keep the poor in prison so you feel a little bit safer doesn't mean gun-toting Republicans won't take the law into their own hands and shoot the criminals dead, but you probably live in a pansy state that doesn't have a death penalty anyhow. But hey, since you think keeping people in jail is a "service" that makes it all right. The services that you want us to sow is a wilting crop of crap sandwiches. Go back to agriculture school. We don't need a "service" to cut down crime, we need deterrents. The head of a prisoner or a liberal on stick as a reminder. One third of Michigan's state dole is related to the corrections system. Their state is full of bad people. Don't let them reproduce, and don't let them live.

      So, you know what, fuck you and your side's concept of 'shared suffering'.
      Kill em all and let God sort em out.

      Just stop believing anyone buys your lies anymore, you selfish shortsighted assholes.

      For a moment you should consider that you are the asshole.
      Asshole.

    43. Re:Hey Republicans: by stms · · Score: 1

      You have a point there however you shouldn't be thinking of it as some idealistic principal you should instead be thinking of it as a solution to a problem. Ideology encourages people to try to find a solution to a problem that best fits their ideology instead of just finding the best solution to the problem.

    44. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      ok, i am wrong about your background, apologies

      now my question to you is: why do equate giving everyone an xbox, regardless of effort exerted, with guaranteeing healthcare and education for all

      the first society guarantees you finish in the same spot, regardless of effort exerted. the second society guaranteers everyone STARTS in the same spot

      do you understand the difference? are you ignorant of the difference or willuflly intellectually dishonest?

      communism is fucking moronic. capitalism with socialist safety nets is the ideal. social darwinistic classism is evil. do you understand what i stand for yet? you seem to be unclear on the issues

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    45. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      guaranteeing equal access to education and healthcare is soul destroying?

      are you just a complete fucktard or am i supposed to laugh? sorry, it's hard to tell clever trolls from earnest morons nowadays

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    46. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually knew anything about Michigan, you would know that they have been run by Democrats for many years now...

    47. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      right, shoot everyone who is poor

      i see that i've painted a picture of stereotypical republican stupidity, and you've gladly accepted the description

      fucking pathetic

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    48. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      right, shoot everyone who is poor

      i see that i've painted a picture of stereotypical republican stupidity, and you've gladly accepted the description

      hilarious, if it weren't for the fact that so many of you fucktards keep talking this ignorance

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    49. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I am very clear on the issues, here is where I always stood and will continue: I am not going to be part of a 'society', which forces me to be 'charitable' through government enforcement.

      Everything else is irrelevant, the children, then outcomes, anything. If you think you own my work and the way I use the outcome of my work, you can go to hell.

      So that's the first and a very separate issue from the second one, which you are bringing up: some sort of a guarantee that kids must have an equal start in life.

      It's a nice thought, good luck with that. It has never worked that way, it will never work that way. If you think that your average kid from an average family is going to have the same sort of a start, as somebody, who made a point in his/her life to build a large amount of capital and also was able to do so, the you are delusional.

      Now then the question becomes: must it be so?

      Must it be so that the society allows every child to start from equal footing? Yes, the society must work towards that goal.

      Now the final question: given my take (and many people with a similar take) on the government intrusion into our lives, what should be the mechanism to ensure that kids do have some form of education that they could then use in their lives, to achieve a desirable economic outcome for themselves? My answer remains, stays the same, does not change at all: get government money out of the system and allow the system to have competition that would cater to all markets, obviously with price discrimination.

      I will not presume to know ANYTHING about your past, so I'll speak in general, when I'll say that people used to buy their own education before government made a point of destroying it with government subsidies and loans and regulations and protections - people could buy it, just like they could pay for their health care out of pocket, because it was cheap, and they had very cheap insurance with high deductibles and enough coverage to take care of catastrophic health issues in their lives.

      That's my answer to your question and to any further question: the answer stays the same.

    50. Re:Hey Republicans: by nmccrin1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously, only people who can afford private school should be able to educate their kids, right?

      I'm not Republican, but this is bullshit. Why does everyone think the only way anyone can learn is if they are in some sort of group (i.e. school)? "Public or private school" is a false dichotomy. My mom taught me to read, and after that I've learned at least 90% of what I know on my own (I never went to public school, did two years of private school). I taught myself calculus. Apparently people are overthinking this whole education thing. It's not rocket surgery; you don't need teams of (government funded) experts in pristine white lab coats running around in order to teach Johnny that C A T is "cat" and that PI = 3.14159265358979... etc.

    51. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      "I am not going to be part of a 'society', which forces me to be 'charitable' through government enforcement."

      I stopped reading there. Because you live in Switzerland, which is exactly such a society. Move to Haiti. That's the society you get with your ideology: vast swaths of poor, and a few ultrarich.

      That you won't admit that that end game is the result of your social darwinism is either stupidity or willfull dishonesty on your part. Either way, you're a selfish shortsighted asshole, and if the Swiss have any smarts about them, and they do, your ignorance won't hurt the well-being of Switzerland.

      You are part of society. Your well-being depends upon society's well-being. Those of us know this, willingly contribute. Those of us too ignorant or shortsighted to not give back some of what they derive from society's riches will be forced to give back. That's not robbing you. Because you're robbing society when you derive sustenance from it, as you do, and don't give a little back to continue the sustenance.

      Enough assholes like you, and society gets less rich overall, and all of our pocketbooks suffer for that. Where did your money come from genius? You just made it up in your bedroom? What a selfish shortsighted piece of shit you are.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    52. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading there.

      - that makes both of us.

    53. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Republicans: f you don't fund public education, what do you think the kids will do?

      Obviously, they aren't listening, but if they were, I suspect the answer is fewer prisons and more handguns with lasersights to "defend" yourself against criminals. They fancy themselves judge jury and executioner. Of course, these everyone-for-themselves policies roughly lead to anarchy and private militias, but on the plus side, so do all the best sci-fi novels.

    54. Re:Hey Republicans: by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      I thought that may be where you were going. Just wanted to be sure. The counter-argument would be that you can throw as much money as you want at the school, you aren't going to create responsible fathers, a stable family, a low crime rate, and change all the things conspiring against a good education.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    55. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      hey, dumb ass, I just went outside, asked my neighbors - they are going to vote for the next income/corporate tax cut in 2012. 50% cut. We can't wait till 2014, the canton is going to vote to reduce the income taxes ... to 0.

      Whoever I speak with - everybody is on the same page - the fed can go take a hike and the locality better do with what we pay in sales, and the society is getting richer, not poorer, the unemployment is 3%, the Frank is going up against all currencies all the time.

      Oh, and I AM making money in my bedroom - working on my software and selling it from my bedroom, so zum Wohl, asshole, zum Wohl.

    56. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      sure, you live in denial anyways

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    57. Re:Hey Republicans: by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of how they "integrated" schools in Texas - black and white students under the same roof, but they march to separate classrooms after they get off the school bus. They're technically still following the letter of the law.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    58. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yes, and the rich society that purchases your software is rich because it is maintained. you wish to derive income from the richness of society, but give back nothing to maintain its richness. the more people in society think like you, the poorer society will be overall. sure, it won't happen fast enough to effect you personally, but the 20 year old, 10 year old, yes it will. The more a society is concerned wirth social welfare: denmark on one end, haiti on another, the richer that society is, and the happier people are. it's pretty obvious, moron

      not that you care. you're clearly a selfish shortsighted asshole. we're not robbing you, asshole, we're asking you to give back to that which gives you the money you covet, but apparently don't really understand. to you, money is magic stuff that exists in complete independence of the richness of the society it represents. would you like to be paid in Haitian gouds? oh, why not? oh, i see, you do understand in some way that money is really an abstract reflection of the richness of the society it represents

      but you won't do anything to maintain that richness. you're the thief. you take, and you give nothing back. it is required that you do. and we will make you. without that compulsion, civilization would cease to exist because, unfortunately, most people are as blind and greedy as you, and they'd happily suckle at the cow and not feed it, until it is drained dry

      so, we must compulse you to contribute. and we will. because we like civilization. and unlike you, we're smart enough to see what is required to maintain civilization

      deal with it, little parasite

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    59. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      yes, and the rich society that purchases your software is rich because it is maintained. you wish to derive income from the richness of society, but give back nothing to maintain its richness

      - nonsense. My software increases productivity of retailer and shipping companies, this in turn allows these companies to compete better with other companies, reducing their costs, and in current environment this gives them the advantage of being able to compete on price, which in turn benefits the end consumer.

      Beside that, my software allows the suppliers to be in control of what they are ordering and how much, some of the suppliers are also manufacturers. The manufacturers get this data and then use it to adjust the production capacity and the type of goods that are produced (this is mostly China and some European manufacturers), this allows them to be more precise, more effective, save costs, create less waste and use less energy. All parties also gain from reduced storage requirements.

      This is a complex world that is created by entrepreneurs, not by government. We see government as pretty much an evil thing, that is trying to destruct from our goals and trying to prevent us from working as efficiently as we can. The entire manufacturing/supply/retail chain is very price sensitive, especially in current economic conditions and my software is helping many people to get exactly what they need, the shelves are filled with products they actually are interested in buying, rather than with stuff they don't need and the prices are much more optimal, catering to the current market conditions.

      This is my contribution, I do not owe anything else to anybody.

      The more a society is concerned wirth social welfare: denmark on one end, haiti on another, the richer that society is, and the happier people are. it's pretty obvious, moron

      - socialist states are turning less socialist every day, I know what I speak of, as some of my clients are dealing with that - reduced taxed, reduced business regulations, because even more socialist states can't survive by government decree, and Haiti's problem is not lack of government, it's lack of investment exactly due to government corruption.

      not that you care. you're clearly a selfish shortsighted asshole. we're not robbing you, asshole, we're asking you to give back to that which gives you the money you covet, but apparently don't really understand.

      - production, asswipe, it's all about production. Money is only a store of value, which I store in gold, because in reality I don't trust any government with a printing press. Money is just an expression of my work.

      Work, asswipe, it's all about work. It has nothing to do with government, it has everything to do with production capacity. Do we have poor people here? Yes. Do we take care of them? Yes. Do we need government to do that for us? No.

      but you won't do anything to maintain that richness. you're the thief. you take, and you give nothing back. it is required that you do. and we will make you. without that compulsion, civilization would cease to exist because, unfortunately, most people are as blind and greedy as you, and they'd happily suckle at the cow and not feed it, until it is drained dry

      - work, asswipe, only work matters. The wealth is production capacity, the money is only a store of value, which allows me to save my contribution and use it when I see fit without relying on any fucking retard, like you, robbing work of others to give me something I never deserved.

      so, we must compulse you to contribute. and we will. because we like civilization. and unlike you, we're smart enough to see what is required to maintain civilization

      - no no, here is where you fail. Not only are we collectively lowering taxes in Lucerne, we are pushing the other cantons to do the same due to competition and businesses, that come here exactly because of the lowering taxes

    60. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      denmark. rich, happy people. strong middle class. a strong social safety net

      haiti. poor, desperate people. vast poor and a few ultrarich. no social safety net

      you take care of your society. if you don't, we'll make you contribute what you owe for the benefits you accrue by living in it, but apparently are too fucking stupid to recognize or acknowledge. you understand the value of hard work. good for you. you apparently don't fucking understand the value of the civilized infrastructure in which that work happens. they also bust their ass off in haiti, genius

      and i'm glad you are lowering taxes in lucerne. good for you. but you're not arguing against raising taxes, you are arguing against the very notion of the need to contribute to society to maintain it

      communism: fucking stupid
      capitalism with social safety nets: intelligent civilization
      social darwinism: fucking stupid

      you don't defeat the stupidity of communism by embracing the equally stupid mirror image of it. communism is an extreme. social darwinism is an extreme. the extremes are the problem. grow a fucking brain

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    61. Re:Hey Republicans: by Tom · · Score: 2

      Oh I agree, there is a lot of waste in the system and teachers and administrators are paid too well with too many perks.

      Are you certain about that, as in can you put reasons and numbers to it?

      Because unless the US is dramatically different from Europe, there is no truth to that. My sister is a teacher and my girlfriend is becoming one. I know I wouldn't work the hours it requires for that kind of money. You are aware that a teachers work day is far from over when he leaves school, yes? And that the holidays are for the pupils, not the teachers?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    62. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Hey, genius, the infrastructure is also supposed to be profitable, otherwise, if it's built with subsidies, it's unsustainable and will eventually disintegrate, like will observe in USA, where infrastructure will disintegrate, because it was built with taxes and not for a real market purpose.

      Haiti was a slave colony, you should really figure this shit out - they used to be profitable, then the government of US of A came there, stationed there, caused all sorts of civil unrest, reinvented slavery. That's just PART of their problem - the US government (same problem as for Mexico and other South American nations BTW)

      So go fuck yourself with your government, which only knows how to take a working thing and break it. Now your entrepreneurs - they are more than welcome here. Your government - well, let's say they are not as popular.

      and i'm glad you are lowering taxes in lucerne. good for you. but you're not arguing against raising taxes, you are arguing against the very notion of the need to contribute to society to maintain it

      - absolutely. We have an entire canton of people who are mostly against all income taxes, so I guess good for us then.

    63. Re:Hey Republicans: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      ahhh... the usa is to blame

      i apologize, but with that weak effort, you just took this conversation into a level of intellectual charity i am not willing to sustain. good luck on turning switzerland into haiti

      what a fucktard

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    64. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because having a country that is more and more attractive to businessmen and their investment capital is going to turn that country into a poor place, I know, beautiful.

      Oh, and again, you and your government, except for reinstating slavery in Haiti last century, there was also a little matter of dozens of undeclared wars: Columbia, Dominican, Panama, Honduras, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Laos, Congo, Libya, Chad, Persian Gulf, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Mexico, Bosnia, Kuwait, Somalia, Macedonia, Yemen, Afghanistan.... did I forget a lot? Well, let's see how much longer the Chinese are willing to pay for this nonsense.

    65. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can learn" and "will learn" are very different.

      Even in the US, home of the capitalist and the individual, what percentage of the population has the kind of initiative you describe? Is taught that kind of initiative? What percentage WILL NEVER SHOW that kind of initiative even if you marinate them in it?

      Yes, people can rise above their circumstances. But the folks who are willing, are able, and will succeed are the exceptions. Until you implement a grand plan to snuff out the rest of us, there's still a problem to be dealt with.

    66. Re:Hey Republicans: by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      You talk about how you never went to a public school, and did two years of private school. By this, I think it is safe to assume that you had financially stable parents (maybe even well-off) that made a choice to value your education and invest their own resources and lives into helping you get an education. Good for you. I honestly mean that, even though it can easily come across as a sarcastic snip - I think the world would be a lot better off if every parent took their role as a parent seriously.

      What about the family where both parents work in order to feed their children? What about children who have parents that don't give a shit about them? While it is certainly true that *some* of them will be self-motivated enough to rise about their situations without outside help, the overwhelming majority won't.

      The unfortunate reality is that some kids live in a home environment that is outright hostile towards any kind of learning. Our choice as a society is to either try to educate them as children, to give them a chance at life, or we can just lock them in prison when they inevitably run into trouble when the figure out that society doesn't give a shit about them. That is the point of the article - prisons are a poor investment in the future, but schools are a great investment in the future. Meanwhile, we are putting a lot more money per person into locking people up as opposed to educating them.

      That is messed up.

    67. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not mistaken. Assessment requires it. Tests have to be graded, essays read. Many teachers are involved in so-called extracurricular activities. The time spent in class makes up a sizable but not all-encompassing fraction of the commitment one makes to one's students as a teacher. In High School, I knew teachers who would arrive at 6:00 in the morning and wouldn't leave until 7:00 or 8:00 in the evening. Certainly they were the exception rather than the rule, but to claim that teachers work significantly fewer hours than they would otherwise have in comparable professions is misleading.

    68. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not Republican, but this is bullshit. Why does everyone think the only way anyone can learn is if they are in some sort of group (i.e. school)?

      Because both parents have to work to pay the rent, you spoiled brat.

    69. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You do understand a true meritocracy requires you to SPEND."
      Um, anyone notice that we're going/are broke following that process?
      " Oh i"m sorry, nevermind, that's "socialism.""
      That's correct. The simple fact of the matter is that life isn't fair, while sucking, it's reality. You have to help who you can, when you can.
        " Those poor rich, people trying to rob them of the money they made completely by themselves"
      Yeah, so look around, those rich are the only ones actually PAYING taxes, a small miniority pays for an overwhelming amount of the infrastructure you use. They are also called by another name, "employers". Think your employement/pay is decided by someone making $27,000? Think that someone making that kinda money is anywhere close to qualified for CEO position at Exxon? Let us follow your logic. My aunt and Bill Gates go out to eat. They both have $50 meals. Obviously bill should pay $90 of that check.
      "that poor Americans should hurry up and die".
      I'm trying not to use the term spoiled little bitches, but I've been to dozens of countries around the world and poor aint what you think it is. In America, poor means you only have 1 car, 1 television 1,200 square foot section 8 housing. Tax payer funded health care, cell phones, food, clothing, shelter, transportation.
      Welfare isn't assistance, with the occasional exception, it's a career.
      Everywhere else it tin roofs and drinking water that your goat just pissed in. Do you know how stupid Americans look when we say obesity is a medical problem? Bet they would love that virus/genetic imbalance.
      Where in the blue fuck to you plan to get the money to pay for your Star Trek level fantasy world? I have very serious doubts that we, as americans, will be able to pull ourselves out of debt without a major financial collapse.
      The only way to fund the fantasy world in your above posts is to have ALL personal and business income go to the government and they will distribute it evenly. Seriously, how else would you do it?
      Thank god you weren't in charge of one of the Titanic life boats. Trying to stack 200 people in your 25 man boat, guess what happens?
      Everything you posted requires MORE money. If you took the entire wealth of the top 5% in this country, you couldn't pay off our debt.
      This country is going to cease to exist when someone in office makes up new "rights" every election cycle.
      I hope your world pans out, I really do. Wouldn't have to work anymore.. Get to spend more time with my kids.

    70. Re:Hey Republicans: by Bardwick · · Score: 1

      My problem is not about building a bridge. My problem is that your building it because you beleive someone has the "right" to walk on bridges. My problem is that you are borrowing money which you can not pay back to fund someones "right" to walk on bridges. My problem is that after 2.4 trillion dollars in bridges, you bitch about schools not being funded. My problem is that you are going to let the entire country go down the shitter building bridges. When the economy collapses, niether the useful bridges, nor the worthless ones will be built. What part of that was difficult to follow?

    71. Re:Hey Republicans: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go home Commie!

      The poor people can do the same as I'm doing for my kid(s) right now... HOME SCHOOL. But wait, that would mean that one of us SHEEPLE (that are too dumb to make our own decisions about any aspects of our lives, thus the need for the goverment to tell us all what to do) are teaching our own.. Oh no! That can't be good can it.

      I didn't take my kid out of public school because of the all the "poor" people, I took them out because of all the "stupid" people who didn't want to learn, yet hold the rest of the class back because "no child left behind" you know. When the teacher has to repeat everything to the class in 2 different languanges, it was obvious to me, that my childs time was being wasted. Add in the fact, that half the crap they teach our kids now is this new Religion of "Eco-environmentally-friendly-treehugging-save-the-planet-BullS**T" and I'll live poor and pay for private school before letting them go back there.

    72. Re:Hey Republicans: by makomk · · Score: 1

      Well sure, if by 'eating the poor kids' you mean my proposal of having the market forces directing them to various apprenticeships and whatever levels of education they could pay for, though this would require dramatic reduction in the costs

      There's pretty much no such thing as apprenticeships anymore - the free market decided it was cheaper to employ a worker that someone else trained than to train them up yourself, and everyone stopped offering them. (Besides, most of the jobs that had apprenticeships aren't in the US anymore.) I somehow doubt there'd be a dramatic reduction in the cost of education either... education providers seem to charge as much as the market can bear.

    73. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      There's pretty much no such thing as apprenticeships anymore - the free market decided it was cheaper to employ a worker that someone else trained than to train them up yourself

      - as all government money, this subsidy of public education does misplace free market and incentives that are sustainable with the kind that only can exist while there are subsidies.

      I somehow doubt there'd be a dramatic reduction in the cost of education either... education providers seem to charge as much as the market can bear.

      - this is a false demand, created by the loans provided by government.

      The students are used as collateral in this money transfer from government to the universities, we have discussed it a bit earlier on this site.

    74. Re:Hey Republicans: by bye · · Score: 1


      Money is only a store of value, which I store in gold, because in reality I don't trust any government with a printing press.

      You are free to invest into whatever you desire to (I hope you liked the recent 2% drop in the price of gold and the resulting 2% reduction in your purchasing power), but do you realize that the idea you are promoting here and elsewhere, the return to the gold standard would mean to force everyone else to use gold as money? Do you also realize that returning to the gold standard would be equivalent to theft of unparalleled proportion?

      Why is the gold standard theft? The math is very simple: most of the gold that can be mined has already been brought above ground, only about 30% remains to be mined.

      That means that if you today force everyone to accept gold as a 'store of value' and use gold to do that, then all future value that is produced (in excess to dwindling gold production) is forcibly redistributed to current owners of gold ...

      A well managed monetary base grows proportionally with the combined value of the economy. Proof for that is the 'gilded age' era of the 19th century USA: it was on a "growing monetary base gold standard", because massive amounts of gold (relative to the output of the economy) was mined, which kept the monetary base growing and stimulative . There was always enough 'new money printed' for investments: 65 metric tons of new gold was mined every year.

      What happened once this 'gold stimulus' effect became much smaller, near the end of the 19th century? (gold production was still constant 65 metric tons a year - but the US itself was 10 times more populous and had 10 times higher GDP than at the beginning of the century): frequent bank crashes and panics where depositors lost all their "hard money", recessions, periods of high unemployment and periods of deflation.

      If we introduced the gold standard, "hard money", "sound money" today it would become a hidden tax on civilization: paid to those who already own gold. In other words, it's a hidden tax on the poor, paid to the rich. It results not only in injustice but economic stagnation as well: as most hard money countries learned the hard way up to 1937 by which time all developed economies dropped the gold standard like a hot potato - and those who dropped the gold standard faster recovered faster from the Great Depression.

      Most voters seem to prefer visible taxes and visible inflation instead, and I prefer a fee structure where those who benefit from modern civilization most pay a fee for the riches they earn utilizing modern civilization. Civilization is not cheap . One of the simplest metrics to determine how much a person benefits from modern civilization is "annual personal income".

    75. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I hope you liked the recent 2% drop in the price of gold and the resulting 2% reduction in your purchasing power

      - I hope you don't find your 76% reduction of purchasing power since 2003 too destructive for your life's decisions.

      but do you realize that the idea you are promoting here and elsewhere, the return to the gold standard would mean to force everyone else to use gold as money? Do you also realize that returning to the gold standard would be equivalent to theft of unparalleled proportion?

      - nonsense. The theft of unimaginable proportions is the inflation, that the governments of the world are perpetrating upon their entire populations.

      That means that if you today force everyone to accept gold as a 'store of value' and use gold to do that, then all future value that is produced (in excess to dwindling gold production) is forcibly redistributed to current owners of gold ...

      - gold prices counted in US dollars will be going up and up.

      Gold can even drop in price in USD and/or other currencies, as it does once in a while, because prices are unstable, but you believe for some reason, that the coupon value on the greenback in your wallet stays within the same purchasing parameters, simply because the NUMBER on the dollar bill stays the same. Well, it's a silly notion, one that is costing you over 10% loss of purchasing power year to year.

      A well managed monetary base grows proportionally with the combined value of the economy.

      - as gold sees its value increase, more business comes to gold mining and other ways of production, but that's irrelevant to the point.

      The entire supply could be constrained by the metal that is already above the ground, and it still would be a healthy economy, as opposed to the inflation, that the government is pushing upon everybody.

      You don't actually have to own gold, to benefit from the gold monetary base, as the inflation would immediately be replaced with deflation of the supply of money and the result will be increased economic activity, due to lowering prices for all materials, assets, equities and labor. The cheaper things are, the more of them anybody can afford, the more competition there is, due to the increased affordability of materials and labor, the more production there is and the wealth of the society goes up, not down. You are in an imaginary inflationary trap, that the government indoctrinated you into, but they are not making you any favors, as they are trying to inflate their debt away, they are making your life less and less affordable, so when the currency is destroyed, you'll have no purchasing power at all (as if the 76% reduction in it since 2003 is any good for you).

      frequent bank crashes and panics where depositors lost all their "hard money", recessions, periods of high unemployment and periods of deflation.

      - wrong. The bank runs, etc., they were equally spread out throughout the 19 century, they were contained to specific banks, not to the entire banking institution, they had to do with banks, that were unscrupulous, promising large gains in place of risk aversion, so they were playing the unsustainable fractional reserve game, which eventually destroyed them.

      But that's just healthy market - some banks must go out of business, so that their lessons are learned by the depositors, and they don't put their gold into banks that behave that way, and also so that banks have enough private insurance, covering them, so that the companies that do certifications, can look at their finances and at their insurance levels to put out certificate statements, for the customers to be able to compare those, against other banks.

      If we introduced the gold standard, "hard money", "sound money" today it would become a hidden tax on civilization: paid to those who already own gold. In other words, it's a hidden tax

    76. Re:Hey Republicans: by bye · · Score: 1

      I hope you liked the recent 2% drop in the price of gold and the resulting 2% reduction in your purchasing power

      - I hope you don't find your 76% reduction of purchasing power since 2003 too destructive for your life's decisions.

      Liar.

      Here's the purchasing power of the dollar, versus per capita real disposable income.

      Purchasing power of one USD went down by 19.5%, but personal income (measured in dollars) went up by 28.5% - so the per capita purchasing power of the average US citizen went up by about 9% in the time-frame you stated.

    77. Re:Hey Republicans: by cs668 · · Score: 1

      I really don't think it's fair to say every other country has figured this out. I grew up in Germany and moved to the US. People in the US think that the Germany system is so ideal because kids get paid to go to College. But, they don't look beyond that. In order for the government to make that work they do things that would not be acceptable in the US.

      Around 7th grade some standardized tests determine if you will go on to 9th grade and then trade school or an apprenticeship, or if you will get to finish high school and do all 13 grades. Then people get stipends to go to collage, but only in fields where they are needed and only if they test well enough. So, government works with the private sector to figure out what skills are needed and then those people get in and get stipends. So, what happens if you are a late bloomer? You are screwed unless your parents can send you so school somewhere else or pay.

      Most of Europe works the same way, and Americans would think it was completely unfair and complain, the same people that hold those systems up as a model would be crying foul if they were told, yes we will pay for your sisters chemistry degree - but sorry we don't need any art history majors right now.

    78. Re:Hey Republicans: by bye · · Score: 1

      Btw., what is most telling is not what you choose to reply to, but the historic proof portion of my argument that you left out completely and left unanswered :


      Proof for that is the 'gilded age' era of the 19th century USA: it was on a "growing monetary base gold standard", because massive amounts of gold (relative to the output of the economy) was mined, which kept the monetary base growing and stimulative . There was always enough 'new money printed' for investments: 65 metric tons of new gold was mined every year.


      What happened once this 'gold stimulus' effect became much smaller, near the end of the 19th century? (gold production was still constant 65 metric tons a year - but the US itself was 10 times more populous and had 10 times higher GDP than at the beginning of the century): frequent bank crashes and panics where depositors lost all their "hard money", recessions, periods of high unemployment and periods of deflation.

      You did not expect that the main object of your affection (the 19th century US, the 'gilded age') would prove you wrong , right? A monetary base that 'prints money' by mining gold it is not something that fits into your rigid model, right?

    79. Re:Hey Republicans: by bye · · Score: 1

      frequent bank crashes and panics where depositors lost all their "hard money", recessions, periods of high unemployment and periods of deflation.

      - wrong. The bank runs, etc., they were equally spread out throughout the 19 century, they were contained to specific banks, not to the entire banking institution, [...]

      Liar.

      The panic of 1873 was triggered by bank failures that snowballed into a full-blown banking crisis that quickly crashed the stock market and then spilled over into the real economy and caused a real depression that lasted several years with peak unemployment of 14%: .

      Effects in the U.S.

      The failure of the Jay Cooke bank, followed quickly by that of Henry Clews, set off a chain reaction of bank failures and temporarily closed the New York stock market. Factories began to lay off workers as the United States slipped into depression. The effects of the panic were quickly felt in New York, more slowly in Chicago, Virginia City, Nevada and San Francisco.[11][12]

      The New York Stock Exchange closed for ten days starting September 20. Of the country's 364 railroads, 89 went bankrupt. A total of 18,000 businesses failed between 1873 and 1875. Unemployment reached 14% by 1876. Construction work halted, wages were cut, real estate values fell and corporate profits vanished.[13]

      Tens of thousands of US families lost their entire life savings - there was no FDIC nor any Fed-of-last-resort in those years yet, so people were completely unprotected against bank crashes.

      Many innocent people lost their entire savings and committed suicide after such crashes - it was a cruel, heartless dog-eats-dog "hard money" system.

      And you really want those times to come back? Do you also want to bring back slavery, public lashings, witch trials, fiefdoms and nobility? The history of mankind produced centuries full of cruelty, you have a wide selection to pick from.

    80. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I remember now, you were giving me similar nonsense in this earlier thread, and I pointed out that I can add and proved that inflation was 76% since 2003 counted in US dollars..

      So you like being beat up, don't you? You don't like that I can add numbers and call me a liar? Go fuck yourself.

    81. Re:Hey Republicans: by bye · · Score: 1

      hey, dumb ass, I just went outside, asked my neighbors - they are going to vote for the next income/corporate tax cut in 2012. 50% cut. We can't wait till 2014, the canton is going to vote to reduce the income taxes ... to 0.

      I don't think you really live in Switzerland, as you know so little about the country. Are you still living in Russia?

      Firstly, the Swiss government sector is certainly not small, it spends a third of the country's GDP (32%) on services like compulsory, universal healthcare covering not just every Swiss citizen but everyone who resides in Switzerland for longer than 3 months.

      Swiss insurers are forbidden from discriminating against pre-existing conditions, and they are not allowed to make a profit on the basic health insurance plan.

      Swiss regulation, government control, socialism!! :-)

      Secondly, the average Swiss tax burden (29.4%) is higher than that in the US. (!)

      So good luck convincing the rest of the country that Switzerland needs to abandon their current very high level of civilization, in favour of your ridiculous 0% tax proposal. Do you think Swiss citizens like free-loaders like you?

      Thirdly, if you really keep your investments in gold then my condolences: in the past year the price of gold dropped from a peak of 1450 Franken down to the current 1300 Franken price - a more than 10% reduction in your purchasing power, in a single year.

    82. Re:Hey Republicans: by bye · · Score: 1


      proved that inflation was 76% since 2003 counted in US dollars.

      In that thread you've told yet another lie: that inflation is somehow coupled to the current gold price bubble. That is not how inflation is defined, but nice try :-)

      In reality, despite two commodities bubbles food prices increased by only 20-25% since 2003 (not 76%) - and the second bubble is at its peak right now.

      Note that from the graph you can see that since early 2009 (since post-financial-crisis 'money printing' began) up to late 2010 food prices have changed very little: the effects of deflationary forces. Even the commodities bubble of late 2010 and early 2011 has increased prices only by 5%.

      That puts another nail into the coffin of your "an increasing monetary base means hyperinflation" hard-money economic theory.

      You need to start proving your points with real data and real arguments and you need to stop coming up with new lies if you do not like being called a liar.

    83. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely free to stay with your government provided nonsense, you are calling me a liar while taking the government numbers at their face value, while I am adding the numbers together, and showing the actual real inflation (and yes, gold is currency).

      Here is what you need to do: stop reading my comments. bye bye.

    84. Re:Hey Republicans: by bye · · Score: 1

      [...] while taking the government numbers at their face value, [...]

      The last refuge of the delusional liar: "your numbers must be wrong!".

      Here go check the data of an independent inflation tracking project, the Billion Price Index: a daily updated price index derived from literally millions of online prices published not by the government but by thousands of businesses.

      The BPI confirms the CPI metrics.

      So this confirms once again that you are a serial liar.

      Here is what you need to do: stop reading my comments. bye bye.

      The last refuge of the fake libertarian: "go, go, go away, I do not want to read your comments, I'm unable to counter them!".

      This is Slashdot, not Fox News :-)

    85. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You are calling me delusional while you are denying the actual numbers added together from 2003 and compared to actual numbers added together in 2011, the numbers that are compared and percentage calculated with simple math, so while I am doing the actual calculations and actual math, showing that USD lost 76% of its value since 2003 to inflation in only 8 years, you are calling me a serial liar, while pointing to propaganda printed by government that has no bearing in reality, and you are calling that real?

      I am serious, the irony is lost on you, but I think at this point you are not just delusional, you are a shill. Are you a shill? I think you are a shill, there is no explanation how the simple math of numbers, freely available in the history of prices over the years can be called 'lie', while the fake reports by government can be held as the real deal.

      You are more than welcome to continue doing this nonsense, but all I am going to do from now on is just type in numbers. Like now. I am not even going to bother with any new numbers, I'll just repost the same ones over and over.

      Here we go:

      Here is coffee price chart it was between 60 and 72 USD per contract in 2003.

      Here is coffee price chart now It's between 259 and 290.

      In fact, if measured in coffee, the value of USD decreased at the lows by 76%.

      select 27 May, 2003 - you will find out that gold closed at 367.20.

      Select 27 May 2011, you will find out it closed at 1536.50.

      In fact, if measured in gold, the value of USD decreased by 76%.

      oil traded between 20 and 28 in 2003, May 27, 2011 it is 100 Do I need to do the math?

      --

      I am calling you a shill, not just a liar, a shill - a liar with an agenda. You can come back for more abuse, it's your business.

      Cheers.

    86. Re:Hey Republicans: by bye · · Score: 1

      Let me just recount the last 3 days of your "hard money arguments" here on Slashdot, for everyone's education and amusement:

      You lied about US purchasing power.
      You lied about 19th century US economics.
      You lied about taxation levels of the country you supposedly live in.
      You lied about 19th century depressions.
      You lied about the current level of inflation.
      You lied about the consumer price index.

      That's just the first 6 lies of yours I found interesting enough to counter - there's many more.

      But instead of trying to prove your viewpoint fairly, instead of working to remove your
      stigma of a serial liar you come up with yet another new lie?


      if measured in coffee, the value of USD decreased at the lows by 76%.

      Oh, now we at last learn about the big underlying concept of your ideology,
      you re-defined everyday purchasing power to mean the price of 37,500
      pounds of raw coffee bean standard contracts
      and the price of
      troy ounces of gold?

      So out of tens of thousands of products and services that shape our everyday life
      whose average price influences our purchasing power you managed to pick the
      two (raw, unprocessed, with no labor costs included) luxory commodities that have
      experienced the largest bubbles in recent history?

      Wow! :-)

      How about the price that impacts most families in the most direct way: the price
      of rent (or the price of acquiring a new house)? How about the price of of a loaf
      of bread, which has remained virtually unchanged despite a huge increase in grain
      prices due to the record hot weather in 2010? How about the price of a car and
      the cost of a haircut?

      These are the various everyday living cost components that modern price indices
      weigh and which influences purchasing power, and yes, the price of coffee is a small part of
      it as well, but not just the price of the raw beans, but the price of a
      finished coffee product such as a cup of coffee, which has various
      types of labor and service costs included ...

      If you do that, you get nuanced inflation metrics like this one - which not only
      shows how moderate inflation is at the moment but also shows how the US was (and still is)
      flirting with dangerous deflation territory ...

      Not the 76% big lie you are trying to tell us here.

    87. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      sugar Dec 2003: 20.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 36.97 cents/pound, price up by over 81%

      Beef Dec 2003: 105.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 193.00 cents/pound, price up by over 83%

      Barley Dec 2003: 100.77 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 208.70 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 107%

      Rice Dec 2003: 197.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 500.57 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 154%

      Cocoa Beans Dec 2003: 1,646.58 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 3,113.52 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 89%

      Tea Dec 2003: 205.22 cents/KG, Apr 2011: 325.33 cents/KG, price up by over 58%

      Rubber Dec 2003: 57.31cents/pound, Apr 2011: 265.49cents/pound, price up by over 363%

      Corn Dec 2003: 111.98 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 318.45 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 184%

      Bananas Dec 2003: 371.43 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 1,013.47 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 172%

      Propane Dec 2003: 0.63 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 1.45 USD/Gallon, price up by over 130%

      Wheat Dec 2003: 165.57 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 336.30 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 103%

      Oranges Dec 2003: 583.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 881.00 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 51%

      Salmon Dec 2003: 3.12 USD/Kg, Apr 2011: 7.86 USD/Kg, price up by over 151%

      Chicken Dec 2003: 68.98 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 86.42 cents/pound, price up by over 25%

      Pork Dec 2003: 48.68 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 92.06 cents/pound, price up by over 89%

      Silver Dec 2003: 565.33 cents/Troy ounce, Apr 2011: 4,279.79 cents/Troy ounce, price up by over 657%

      Alluminum Dec 2003: 1,557.78 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 2,667.44 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 71%

      Uranium Dec 2003: 13.35 USD/pound, Apr 2011: 57.84 USD/pound, price up by over 333%

      Iron Ore Dec 2003: 13.82 cents/dry Metric Ton, Apr 2011L: 179.26 cents/dry Metric Ton, price up by over 1197% (yeah, almost 1200%)

      Gasoline Dec 2003: 0.89 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 3.18 USD/Gallon, price up by over 257%

      You are a shill, you are the liar, you are quite despicable actually.

      As to this:

      of rent (or the price of acquiring a new house)? How about the price of of a loaf of bread, which has remained virtually unchanged despite a huge increase in grain prices due to the record hot weather i

    88. Re:Hey Republicans: by bye · · Score: 1


      In fact the prices for homes and rent must be falling in normal market conditions in a recession (depression actually)

      That's the first sliver of truth in your long series of lies - and it promptly contradicts your earlier position - you did not realize that, right? :-)

      First note that it's not just residential housing that is in decline - but commercial real estate as well, affecting businesses and the cost of services: it's now cheaper to rent space in the mall, for example.

      So what happens, liar, if you combine the deflationary effects of "lower housing prices" (which you finally admitted exists) and other price drops (such as lower labor costs, lower capital costs, etc.) with the inflationary effects of "higher raw commodities prices" which you too pointed out exist? We get to the real inflation data that is an average formed by the price drops and the price increases - not the 76% lie you are still propagating :-)

      Btw., the inflation data I linked to here is not government published but it's the MIT Billion Price Index which is a daily updated index derived from the prices published by thousands of businesses. Do you claim that those thousands of independent businesses are all complicit in some sort of vast global conspiracy to hide true price levels? :-)

      Also, you have still not replied in substance to the earlier lies of yours that I've exposed:

        You lied about US purchasing power.

        You lied about 19th century US economics.

        You lied about taxation levels of the country you allegedly live in.

        You lied about 19th century depressions.

        You lied about the current level of inflation.

        You lied about the consumer price index.

      Are you able to think and reason for yourself, liar, or are you only repeating right-wing talking points without knowing what they really mean and without being able to defend them?

    89. Re:Hey Republicans: by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      That's the first sliver of truth in your long series of lies - and it promptly contradicts your earlier position - you did not realize that, right? :-)

      - and you are a shill, but also you are stupid.

      So how is it, to be so stupid? My position is what you don't understand, because you are stupid. What, you, dumbass, don't get, is that the prices for houses must be falling, because they were in a huge bubble, created by the government, but since you are stupid, you didn't notice that.

      So since you are so dumb, you don't understand that government bail outs and printing of the money is specifically designed to prop up the housing market by propping up all of the failed lending institutions, but you are stupid, so you don't see that the money that is being printed to hold prices up in the housing market, are the inflation, which causes the prices for everything else to rise in USD, so that the housing prices fall in real terms, while staying up in nominal value.

      But you are stupid, so stupidity in your dumb head does not allow you to understand this, also you are a shill, which combined with the fact that you are an idiot, makes a potent combination, ripe for various discussions of your stupidity on /.

      Because you are so stupid, you will keep coming here for more abuse, which shows that you are even more stupid than originally indicated.

  25. Juvenile prisons actually have their own schools by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    First of all, juvenile prisons actually have their own schools (sometimes their own special school districts), and those schools are often even more poorly funded than public schools (since they don't have a property tax base to rely on). Most of the money for juvenile justice agencies and their facilities goes toward security, probation/parole supervision, facilities maintenance, etc. NOT just for education (as this letter writer seems to presume). And some adult prison systems don't have any real education system AT ALL.

    So the average prisoner is getting much *less* per person for actual education than the average student in any given state. As to his points about free health care, threes square a day, etc.; well that's getting in much larger social issues that has little to do with direct school funding.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  26. He is relying on ingorance by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    and by the graduation rates in Detroit and the surrounding area I am very sure he has an audience who buys into this.

    If anything I would love to ask him the same question I would pose the law enforcement. Each year we spend more and more money per person served in your respective professions but where is the improvement or meeting of goals?

    School spending alone has increased at an incredible rate since the founding of the Department of Education but scores and graduation rates aren't on the same course. The War on Drugs hasn't exactly benefited this country either, if anything it has gotten us some of the most onerous laws (think seizure laws) that only were trumped by the current War on Terror

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:He is relying on ingorance by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The Department of Education is not there to improve schooling, but to politicize schooling. As such, we should expect performance to decrease, not increase with DoE on the job. We get national laws like NCLB to hold back the schools, requiring greater funding and lowered standards. Schools are spending more every year, but without the increase in classroom funding. It's spend on the DoEs and NCLBs and standardized tests and administrators to make sure they are satisfying the latest laws and regulations.

      The point of public education is lost and has been for at least 50 years. And it will never be regained until we have school vouchers. I'm against school vouchers, but as long as we don't have them, those who do want them will purposefully sabotage schools with things like NCLB, driving up costs and driving down education until the system fails. Yes, I'm stating that NCLB wasn't just poor legislation. I'm stating that it was very effective legislation designed to sabotage public schools while looking, at first glance, to be pro-education.

    2. Re:He is relying on ingorance by Glothar · · Score: 1

      While I agree for the most part, I would add that I've talked to a few people who work for the DoEd and none of them liked NCLB. In fact, they all hated it. Even worse, they hated the humiliating schoolhouse-style entrance placed on their office building with "No Child Left Behind" emblazoned across it, implying that it was something other than a stupid law shoved down their throats.

      Since NCLB, the DoEd has doubled in size (by the estimates I've seen), yet none of that has accomplished more than forcing students to take standardized tests that show nothing, prove nothing, and are only used by people who don't understand statistics to justify their love of vouchers and private schooling.

      I won't say that the DoEd was all that useful before NCLB, but it did help organize some national programs to help out struggling schools. Now it just buries all schools under pointless tests and additional costs. And convinces a generation of ignorant people that there is some shred of value in them. I know that when NCLB started enforcement, some of the local schools were seriously trying to see if they could just refuse federal funds and ignore the law. It would have been cheaper, as NCLB costs them far, far more than the federal government supplies.

      Funny that NCLB seems to be so popular with neo-cons and FOX who are supposed to like small government and local independence. Of course, neo-cons and FOX also love rich white people and NCLB is well designed to help them save a buck by encouraging vouchers. They get an extra thousand a year (income: 201,000 now, thank god...) while inner city and rural schools choke and die. Welcome to America.

  27. Ever hear of parents? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    They get three square meals a day. Access to free health care. Internet. Cable television. Access to a library. A weight room. Computer lab. They can earn a degree. A roof over their heads. Clothing. Everything we just listed we DO NOT provide to our school children

    Last I checked, students have parents who are, or should be, responsible for meals, healthcare, clothing, and "a roof over their heads". I have never been to a school without a library. Computer labs, weight rooms, and internet access are nice to have but not necessary. Cable TV has no place in school. And, every student who graduates earns a degree.
     
    Maybe that school superintendent should propose all kids be put in government run creches until they reach maturity so the parents don't have to be responsible for providing for and raising the kids at all.
     
    But, then, I don't think prisoners should have Internet, Cable TV, weight rooms, and computer labs. Library access and courses should be earned privileges if they are available at all. I think prison and jail are too comfortable.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  28. This may well be the right step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yesterday's story had many references to research in the comments about how children did, in fact, have a net negative effect upon their parents. Not when they recall the decision of being a parent; in that moment, they tend to remember the decision of doing it, or some other little positive tidbit. Rather, the day-to-day horrors involved with the whole process.

    Incarcerating the child instead for K-12 would have many obvious benefits. First, there would be no doubt about what the "home environment" is really like. A big thing now among lower income families, such as in the south, is that when the student goes home, there isn't a chance to study or do any school work. The environment is loud and abusive; it creates, if anything, the exact same type of individual.

    Second, schools already are a prison for the students. The distinction between prison and non-prison is small, and that between prison and boarding school even smaller. It is often only a matter of the freedom to be taken out (by an outside source, usu. the parent, never the student itself), and curriculum. The term "prison" as used for a school may be inflammatory, but "prison with curriculum" is more along the desired result. Instead of doing sub-minimum wage labor, there is educational content being delivered to the students.

    The largest benefit is squaring the apparent parenthood circle. A parent, particularly the smart ones, may be motivated to breed just so they can have their DNA put into another individual. We then ignore every good thing we know about the division of labor, and have parents raising their own children at great expense to what they could be doing to advance scientific frontiers and so forth, when the reality of it would likely find a true minimum of what parent and child would actually need for any actual emotional rewards associated with parenthood.

    Remember, the choice isn't between some idea like this and every part of how it violates some ideal. It's between this kind of choice and what occurs today, where the prolific breeders are the uneducated, the stupid if you would like to call them, and where that ideal genetic parent decides not to do it at all or only have one, because they know the negatives and aren't given real incentives otherwise.

  29. Money != Good Education by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    If you think spending money is how you obtain a good education, I invite you to send your kids to Camden, NJ. One of the poorest crime-ridden cities in America. Which happens to spend upwards of $13K per student (last time I checked).

    The keys to a good education are parenting and hard work. And while money helps, you don't need lots of money to get a good environment. From what I've read the best thing you could do is kick out troublesome kids.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:Money != Good Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think spending money is how you obtain a good education, I invite you to send your kids to Camden, NJ. One of the poorest crime-ridden cities in America. Which happens to spend upwards of $13K per student (last time I checked).

      The keys to a good education are parenting and hard work. And while money helps, you don't need lots of money to get a good environment. From what I've read the best thing you could do is kick out troublesome kids.

      Which is precisely why kids coming out of private, catholic high-schools do much better in college irrespective of the amount of money the school actually spends to educated each student. They somehow magically make do with less money per student and turn it into an advantage...

      Could it be that their teachers just want to teach and have no use for (ridiculous) union set wages? I think it's a big part of the equation.

    2. Re:Money != Good Education by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I disagree. It's about the parents. A parent who is motivated enough to apply for (and pay for) the catholic school is going to be motivated to make sure their kids do their homework.

  30. And no cable TV by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The old "these guys sit around all day watching cable TV" crap is also a tired old myth. AFAIK, no mainstream prison system in the country offers prisoners cable TV (some will allow a prisoner to purchase a small TV for their cell on their own dime and watch whatever over-the-air broadcasts they can get). And, far from sitting around, all juvenile prisoners in the U.S. go to school every day (just like their non-prison counterparts) and most adult prisoners have some sort of job (either in the prison or, for lower risk offenders, outside). So the idea that these guys in prisons are on some sort of vacation is just ridiculous.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:And no cable TV by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Can you cite sources about the job claim?

      Most prisons I've seen(in VA), the punishment is the monotony of nothing to do, ever. They're basically indoor cattle pens for people, and that's how the people in them feel.

      You can see Morgan Spurlock go to a VA jail for a month in "30 Days", season 2, episode 6. Preview on Hulu and available on DVD and instant streaming on Netflix.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    2. Re:And no cable TV by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Well, I was talking about prisons, not jails (there is a big difference). Jails don't have much employment because they're generally short-term facilities. Prisoners, though almost all have some sort of "job" to do. I couldn't find any citeable numbers for the entire country, but here in Alabama about 10%-15% of prisoners work in "prison industries" (i.e. for outside contractors), another 10% work in odd state-contracted jobs (other state agencies here can "rent" prison gangs for dirt cheap), another 15% work on the prison farm system (prisoners grow and raise most of their own food here), and almost all of them are responsible for duties within the prison (i.e. cleaning bathrooms, doing odd jobs around the prison itself) in some form. So very few prisoners (especially at the lower security levels) just lounge around all day. They have incentive to work too, because the 38 cents an hour they're paid (some jobs pay more, but that's "minimum wage" in prison) goes into their canteen account for buying stuff in the prison.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:And no cable TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the idea that these guys in prisons are on some sort of vacation is just ridiculous.

      Which also makes it better than school. At least these guys get to do something. In a school, you have to sit there whether you really need to be there or not.

    4. Re:And no cable TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent five years in prison, and you are correct. Most prisons do have satellites for tv. But this is because they are always located in BFE and there is not way to receive tv through rabbit ears. The satellite is %100 paid for by the inmates, and receives ONLY broadcast channels. They don't get HBO, TNT, etc. Also yes, they have to work some form of job if for no other reason than security. Idle hands are the devils something, cant remember it exactly. A bored prisoner is dangerous thing.

    5. Re:And no cable TV by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, no mainstream prison system in the country offers prisoners cable TV

      From here:
      Oklahoma's 17 prisons and five community corrections centers all get cable television. The yearly cost: $280,000.

      There is at least one company that specializes in correctional cable programming.

      From this MSNBS article about the digital switchover:
      The Federal Bureau of Prisons receives cable TV service, so officials don't anticipate any interruptions, spokeswoman Felicia Ponce said. Federal inmates are allowed limited viewing in common rooms with some restrictions â" for instance, they can't watch R-rated movies.

      It took a whole 10 seconds to find two mainstream prison systems that have some form of cable TV, and a company that is dedicated to offering mainstream prisons cable tv service.

    6. Re:And no cable TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michigan Department of Corrections does. MDOC has an "Inmate Benefit Fund" program where the inmates run the prison store and profits (capped at about 8% overall but with some spread) are used to pay for recreational activities including cable TV packages. These packages vary from prison to prison as each has it's own contracts; some even include a budget for rentals of new release DVD movies (at a higher rental rate as obviously the audience is in the hundreds). I know this because I was in prison for 12 years, during which time I was frequently in the position of "Warden's Forum Chairman" and acted as a go-between between the inmates and the prison administration. Although I was a prisoner myself, I was able to sign contracts on behalf of the inmates - including cable television contracts. I've seen packages as small as 22 channels and packages as large as 48 channels, with prices comparable to hotel package rates. ESPN was particularly popular. Although I was discharged in 2005, I still keep up on the politics and this is still the practice in the MDOC.

      As for prison jobs, most of the places I stayed at (mostly four level 2 and secure level 1 facilities) simply didn't have enough jobs for prisoners. Kitchen jobs paid about $0.17 to $0.63 per hour, based upon skill, plus productivity bonuses. Most were able to get about 120 to 170 hours per month but the kitchens usually only hired about 80 to 130 inmates total - on compounds of over 1000. Tutor and teacher's aid jobs paid from $1.77 to $3.63 per day, with about 17 to 21 days per month, but most facilities only had about 15 to 20 of these jobs. An handful of odd jobs (like assistant to an ARUS) had comparable pay but that still only took the number of "good" jobs to about 200 to 250 per facility - equal to about 20% to 25% employment. Unless the facility also happened to have a factory (which only one of the places I was at in 12 years actually had), that leaves 75% to 80% of the population to janitorial and "make-work" projects for about $0.23 per half-day (normally 3 or 4 hour shifts). Even with the various make-work projects, and forced GED schooling, unemployment was over 20% - over 70% if you discount supposedly "half-day" jobs that really only took about 15 minutes to complete.

      Most people in the prisons where I was at tended to have a "half-day" make-work job that took 15 minutes to an hour. After that, they walked the track, lifted weights, read books, played cards/dominoes, or watched TV. Jerry Springer was pretty popular back in the day, generating as much whoops and excitement as Monday Night Football.

      Prison is 99% boredom with 1% of excitement that makes you long for the boredom. Exactly three fights in 12 years for me - one of which was over a $0.50 bottle of pepsi. Not exactly a vacation, but not what people commonly expect.

    7. Re:And no cable TV by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      the city prison I visited on field trip had cable TV. They could watch it all day as long as they didn't fight over it.

    8. Re:And no cable TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullsh*t. I went to jail once and the inmates there referred to Geiger County Prison as "Camp Fluffy", citing the treatment and specifically the television programs.

  31. Re:Whats a school super? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    A school superintendent is the person who oversees the whole school district and the school principles. Principals oversee individual schools.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  32. Was it really that long ago... by Caraig · · Score: 1

    ...that Jonathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal?" I mean, I've seen some people make rather ham-handed attempts at a satirical suggestion, and everyone goes 'Yeah, yeah, Modest Proposal, uh-huh," but are folks on /. actually thinking this guy is being anything but satirical? Yeesh.

    --
    "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    1. Re:Was it really that long ago... by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Satire is for Onion articles, not open letters to your boss.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:Was it really that long ago... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If he'd had one tenth of Swift's skill at writing, then perhaps it might have come off.

      Also, if you're going to pay homage today, you have to just go ahead and take a bite. Entertainment dies a little every time a sequel reuses a line verbatim in exactly the same way and place, or when someone explains an in joke that could be found out by anyone with patience and google. But you pretty much have to beat people over the head with stuff and then they laugh anyway. Idiocracy FTW.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. This is a stupid comparison by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

    This has to be one of the stupidest comparisons I've heard in a while. Children are not prisoners. The intended goals are different from the start. We must, out of necessity, keep prisoners confined at all times, for the safety of society. Things like TV, libraries and weight rooms are not luxuries, but investments, because studies have shown that if you stick a violent psychopath into a cell for 20 years, you get a violent psychopath out. These things are intended to help reduce the recidivism rate for criminals, not to make them comfortable.

    The educational system doesn't need to provide healthcare to students. Unlike prisoners, we haven't taken away the students' (or more accurately, their parents) ability to provide healthcare for themselves. We don't need to house them at night because that's not in any way part of the mandate of the educational system. Our educational system isn't charged with keeping students separated from the general populous, and it isn't responsible for punishing them for crimes they have committed.

    This is like saying "The government provides NASA with $65 million per astronaut trained. I demand that the government provide my school with $65 million per student." When we have idiots like this superintendent running school systems, it's no wonder they're in trouble.

    --
    -Arthur
    Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    1. Re:This is a stupid comparison by anyGould · · Score: 1

      The educational system doesn't need to provide healthcare to students. Unlike prisoners, we haven't taken away the students' (or more accurately, their parents) ability to provide healthcare for themselves. We don't need to house them at night because that's not in any way part of the mandate of the educational system. Our educational system isn't charged with keeping students separated from the general populous, and it isn't responsible for punishing them for crimes they have committed.

      I think most schools would disagree with you there - while rules saying "you can't leave the grounds" makes sense at the elementary school level (no-one wants an eight-year-old disappearing), there are high schools that prohibit students leaving the grounds during school hours (including "free time" such as spares or lunch hour).

      And for better or worse, schools have found (or put) themselves in the position of being responsible for the student's care, and that's extending to issues that shouldn't involve the school. School lunch programs exist because kids couldn't learn because they were too hungry to concentrate. And there are just enough teachers who give a damn that they won't let a kid suffer just because it's not their job.

  34. Skinner by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered if Principle Skinner was named after B.F Skinner (inventor of the operant conditioning chamber).

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  35. ...except for the typo in the first paragraph by bi$hop · · Score: 1
    The "super" says:

    Schools are the one place on Earth that people look to to “fix” what is wrong with society

    Really? We look to to schools to to fix the problems with with society?

    1. Re:...except for the typo in the first paragraph by Whalou · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert but I don't think it's a typo.

      He's saying we look to schools to fix the problems. The repetition is voluntary.

      Whether we really look there is debatable.

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    2. Re:...except for the typo in the first paragraph by bi$hop · · Score: 1

      Even if what you surmise is correct, his sentence structure is still abysmal. At the very least, he should have separated the instances of "to" for clarity:

      "Schools are the one place on Earth to which people look to fix what is wrong with society."

      However, this sentence is still really weak. He could deliver a lot more impact by removing the dramatic reference to our planet and saying something like: "We depend on schools to educate our youth and prepare them to solve the problems society has created." Then again, maybe his feeble letter is an ingenious attempt at demonstrating just how lacking our schools truly are.

    3. Re:...except for the typo in the first paragraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing your English teacher didn't explain parallelism in infinitives. Allow me:

      "We depend on schools to educate our youth and to prepare them to solve the problems society has created."

    4. Re:...except for the typo in the first paragraph by runningman24 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he was just trying to communicate an idea and wasn't worried about being graded.

  36. Rights and privileges by operagost · · Score: 1
    The superintendent's point is well taken, but I hope no one really thinks that students have a "right" to three meals at school. Because we have compassion, we pretty uniformly offer free or reduced lunch to poor students. But now, many schools offer free breakfast or even dinner. Should our kids be in a de facto state boarding school? If mom and dad-- ha ha, just kidding about the dad part-- can't provide two lousy meals to their kids, maybe that issue needs to be resolved directly. Prisoners get three squares because, even in prison, obviously you still have your right to life. Speaking of rights:

    We provide all of these things to prisoners because they have constitutional rights.

    There's nothing in the constitution that indicates everyone, much less prisoners, are entitled to weight rooms, libraries, internet access, or "free" health care.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  37. Sad that it has to come to this. by cshark · · Score: 1

    Can't say I can see any holes in his reasoning. If we even spent half the money on our children as we do on our prisoners, there would be no issue with America's future. But we don't. So there are huge concerns.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  38. He answered his own request. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    By pointing out that the kids were likely to end up in prison, thus receiving what they need, he made his argument moot.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:He answered his own request. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      By pointing out that the kids were likely to end up in prison, thus receiving what they need, he made his argument moot.

      Wouldn't it be more efficient if they bypassed the whole school thing altogether, then? It would cost less money to not have the whole broken 'school' step involved

    2. Re:He answered his own request. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Considering the guberment's position is total control over everyone, I don't see why not. It would also insure they are not allowed to vote. Now that I think about it, making the school part of the prison system might qualify as being enough to take that right away from the kids attending. Better not tell let the Gov of Texas read this. He'd probably be able to get it passed.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  39. Slashdot mod-speak by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I find myself using actually slashdot moderation speak outside of, including the phrase "+1 Informative" in a reply to a post or somesuch.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  40. A modest proposal by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Instead of trying to reclassify (or whatever the correct term is) schools as prisons, why not do the opposite? Reclassify prisons as schools and require inmates to attend regular classes. Who would teach these classes? Well, the Teacher's Unions/School Districts have "rubber rooms" where teachers who have been removed from the classroom are sent (along with full salary and benefits, btw). NYC has some 650 teachers in rubber rooms as of a year ago. These teachers could be reassigned to teach inmates.

  41. Here we go again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. "It is someone else's fault...not mine!" says the Super

    2. "More money will fix the problem if we just spend enough!" How much is enough?? More money in education has not worked yet.

    1. Re:Here we go again.... by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Or, alternatively:

      Why do we pamper criminals and starve the future?

      Why does a criminal get better access to education than the education system?

  42. Winston Churchill by mangu · · Score: 2

    At least the commas decided to show up this time, but the preposition at the end... ugh

    "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put."
    Winston Churchill

    1. Re:Winston Churchill by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Try, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something which I will not tolerate."

    2. Re:Winston Churchill by PSandusky · · Score: 1

      Try, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something which I will not tolerate."

      I'm fairly certain ol' Winnie's waiting on your insight with bated breath.

      Literally, in fact.

      --
      "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
    3. Re:Winston Churchill by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      You failed to comprehend such a prevalent allusion. I shall forever dismiss you are naught but an ignorant, uninformed troglodyte.

    4. Re:Winston Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't fail to anything. I merely think Winston Churchill's example was a rather lousy and contrived one if he was trying to make the point that it's sometimes better for a sentence a preposition with which to end.

  43. Air Conditioning would be a nice start by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

    I went to a southern small town high school in the 90's and it wasn't air conditioned. 90-100 degrees and 100% humidity for several months out of the school year. During that time, a nearby state prison was closed because it was not air conditioned.

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
  44. Metrics aside by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    I think Superintendent Nathan Bootz has a point.

    The budgetary axe falls on those least able to defend themselves. Children, seniors, the sick and homeless have all "taken one for the team" (in most cases more than once).

    In the meantime, other areas in the budget grab bag are given a complete pass. "Defense" spending on the Federal level, the prison industry, the multiple "soft wars" (Drugs/Terrorism/Crime/et. al), as well as others, all remain sacrosanct.

    For decades politicians have screwed up in prioritizing what's really important, versus what's politically palatable, or profitable. Bootz is simply trying to make the point that once again politicians are making more poor choices when it comes to being "fiscally responsible".

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  45. Your model ignores any other income sources by fantomas · · Score: 1

    First off, fair call by you to post a correction to your original post.

    But perhaps a further correction: you note the private/ independent school you went to had fees of $15K. However, I would think it's very unlikely that the school income was solely based on students fees, so the likelihood is that your education may have cost more than $15K. Other factors include: private schools in the UK registered as charities so receiving tax breaks, VAT breaks, donations from alumni, sponsorship from other commercial partners, value of investments (your $15K would likely have been invested rather than just divided amongst the teachers ;-) ). Though of course maybe they spent less on you and kept the rest as profit :-)

    But you're correct about state schools struggling for money though.

    1. Re:Your model ignores any other income sources by xaxa · · Score: 1

      First off, fair call by you to post a correction to your original post.

      But perhaps a further correction: you note the private/ independent school you went to had fees of $15K. However, I would think it's very unlikely that the school income was solely based on students fees, so the likelihood is that your education may have cost more than $15K.

      My old school (the accounts were easy to find online at opencharities.org) received over £10M directly from fees and £80k from donations, but "gave" £375k worth of education to poorer students. 0.8% of their income came from investments.

      My dad teaches at a private school, and he says they don't have much money in reserve -- just enough for unplanned essential expenditure, like a recession causing lots of parents to lose income (the children may get a discount in this case, so they can stay).

      Both these schools are at the cheaper end though, probably the famous schools charging several times more have more to spare, and richer alumni.

  46. Slashdot: the 1 week reddit mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations Slashdot, on stealing the reddit frontpage article a week later.

    Like seriously, what the fuck.

  47. Calling BS On This One by guttentag · · Score: 1
    Here's the letter from TFA (copied and pasted, emphasis mine):

    Dear Governor Snyder,

    In these tough economic times, schools are hurting. And yes, everyone in Michigan is hurting right now financially, but why aren’t we protecting schools? Schools are the one place on Earth that people look to to “fix” what is wrong with society by educating our youth and preparing them to take on the issues that society has created.

    One solution I believe we must do is take a look at our corrections system in Michigan. We rank nationally at the top in the number of people we incarcerate. We also spend the most money per prisoner annually than any other state in the union. Now, I like to be at the top of lists, but this is one ranking that I don’t believe Michigan wants to be on top of.

    Consider the life of a Michigan prisoner. They get three square meals a day. Access to free health care. Internet. Cable television. Access to a library. A weight room. Computer lab. They can earn a degree. A roof over their heads. Clothing. Everything we just listed we DO NOT provide to our school children.

    This is why I’m proposing to make my school a prison. The State of Michigan spends annually somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 per prisoner, yet we are struggling to provide schools with $7,000 per student. I guess we need to treat our students like they are prisoners, with equal funding. Please give my students three meals a day. Please give my children access to free health care. Please provide my school district Internet access and computers. Please put books in my library. Please give my students a weight room so we can be big and strong. We provide all of these things to prisoners because they have constitutional rights. What about the rights of youth, our future?!

    Please provide for my students in my school district the same way we provide for a prisoner. It’s the least we can do to prepare our students for the future...by giving our schools the resources necessary to keep our students OUT of prison.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Nathan Bootz, Superintendent, Ithaca Public Schools

    I doubt the superintendent wrote this. My high school English teacher would have thrown the book at him! I highlighted all the typo and grammar mistakes in bold. Not only would a superintendent have better writing skills... he would have proofread a letter he was sending to the governor. I'm thinking someone else wrote this and is falsely attributing it to this guy... unless Mr. Bootz is trying to make the point that budget cuts have been so severe the district is only paying for the use of part of his brain.

    1. Re:Calling BS On This One by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Superintendents are administrators, not teachers. Their behavior is the same as you'd expect from any PHB.

      On a ratio basis, administrator hiring and expenses have been outstripping teacher hiring for about 20 years. It's a blind spot for a lot of people. http://bctf.ca/publications/BCTF-research.aspx?id=18410

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    2. Re:Calling BS On This One by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      A full 50% of your complaints are stylistic choices that many educators (incorrectly) teach students are bad English. A sentence can absolutely begin with the word 'and', especially if the writing is being done in a conversational tone of voice. Ending a sentence in a preposition has not been grammatically incorrect for something like 250 years.

      Your other complaints, however, are completely valid; a little proof reading would have gone a long way towards preventing embarrassment.

  48. Schools are already prisons by rlglende · · Score: 1

    Schools have a captive audience : students and parents have no choices in schools or curriculum, something that most nations take for granted. Consequently, schools don't have to care, and they don't have to hold themselves to high standards.

    Abolishing the public school system is necessary for the USofA to recover from the social and economic disaster we are in. The schools cost far too much and have a very high rate of failure, both obvious and hidden. The obvious failures are dropouts and illiterate graduates. The hidden failures are the students who learn to hate learning, who start drugs or anti-social activities as a result of their bad experiences in school.

    Around the world, adult illiterates only require 90 hours in a classroom to become literate enough to continue their education, entirely on their own. This is with books, not a computer and the internet. They can then begin college in 2 or 3 years.

    There is an 'unschooling' movement in the US that shows that children in groups, given access to games, computers, books, ... teach each other to read, write, do arithmetic. Continued through high school, these students go to college just like everyone else.

    So, schools are completely obsolete. There is no more hope of 'reforming' the public school system than there is of patching Windows to make it a robust, reliable and secure OS.

    --
    "The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
  49. The reason the prisonner get those is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One can argue a normal citizen can with his money, choice, do whatever he wishes, eat 7 meals a day, get health care, 7 clustered computer + Xbox, PS3 and whatnot, or stay at the bibliothek all the day. But what about prisoner ? Well prisoner are removed liberty due to a crime. But since no cruel and unusual punishement are allowed, you need to provide them with replacement for what they annot provide themselves : healthcare, meal, and distraction. Providing those in a good enough quantity allow to easily fend off accusation of being unusualy cruel, lower the tensions between prisoner, and make the prison job easier.


    School on the other hand , are a service offered, which is more or less voluntary (forced under 14/16, voluntary after ward). Parents are supposed to be able to provide and educate the children as if they were not in school : meal ? To be provided by the parents. Nonetheless as a service again the school *MAY* provide a meal. Not always an obligation tough.


    So yes, because prison are imposed on the adult prisonner, without possibility of alternative, but school instead is a voluntary service, and for many subservice there are indeed alternative, school get less base service. But it is not that the school get a short schrift, it is that the prison get a much better deal to avoid "the cruel and unusual punishment" clausus.


    If you wish add an amendement that "pupils should not be taught in a cruel and unusual teaching condition/punishment".

  50. Sad but true by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    How bad does the school system have to be for a school super to ask for his school to be made into a prison to get his kids more substance.
    All in all, if inmates enjoy more reading materials, better quality food, better quality security, etc...etc.... I guess it goes to show you how badly set up our government is. The fact is, if the budget allows for inmates to get more for being incarcerated, then the student does for going to school in the US, there is a gross negligence on the governments part for keeping their eye on the ball. The government will know exactly how much you make and how much you owe in taxes over the course of your life, and be able to pinpoint exactly at what time or line in your tax return you made a small 30$ error, which they will charge you interest for, but
    ask them to come up with a better system where inmates DONT get more then students....and they will just ignore you and leave you thinking they are just inept at what they do. .....sad, really sad.

  51. Sorry but by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    effectively killing public education (which is GOP Job #2 after zero taxes for the rich and corporations) is the quickest way to destroy an egalitarian society and replace it with Fuedalism 2.0, where landed gentry have educational access and the permanent poor are left to sink or swim in a cesspool of Darwinian Economics.

    Yes, Public Education is flawed and in need of fixing (including tenure for the incompenent and ambivialent), but actively pushing for its destruction is pretty damn un-American.

  52. Same message minus satirical format by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between the school and home, X% of American children have access to 3 squares, healthcare, books, computers, internet, not just a weight room but athletic fields, as well! (100% - X%) of American children don't have these opportunities. This country does a lot to bring X to 100. Many people believe a way to bring this about is to provide schools with the monetary power to provide its students with books, computers, internet, athletics and exercise, and 1 or 2 meals a day (school lunch is a given and increasing availability of school breakfast is often advocated). With his letter, Nathan Bootz is indicating he is of this opinion. (Presumably, he is advocating universal health care for school children, not that schools become health care providers.)

  53. WRONG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds like another libertarian rant.
    Culture has more to do with it than most and parenting are likely the biggest factor.

    The USA did quite well until recently on its antiquated system. The politicians and the pursuit of perfection (politically its impossible even if it was possible --which it is not) have done a great deal of harm to the system that was largely left alone by them. It was acceptable to just have a dumb kid and let them out of high school unable to read-- it was a small minority and it doesn't sound nice; however, in trying to leave no child behind we are wrecking the system that served us well during the nation's most successful years. I'm all for applying modern science to education; however, I'd rather just go back 50 years than have the broken political process and selfish ignorant (but confident) American parents of today attempt to "fix" the system because it usually gets worse each time they mess with it.

    Technology has done more harm than good to education; I'm sure that will upset some people's beliefs (and that is all it is) but as a 'nerd' I can admit it has not been helpful overall. Maybe that will change but it has not been the case up to now. I'm including television, which is greatly harmful to all of society. Its called the boob tube for a reason....

    I would have taught myself; but I'm a 'freak'. I wouldn't have learned some useful things if I were not forced to do so; so I will admit that the education system was beneficial.... now if it was worth it... that I can't say for certain.

  54. Hyperbole counts as insightful here? by Shivetya · · Score: 0

    No one is not talking about funding education. Not funding the Department of Education or doing away with that position does not have to affect the money going to the states. If anything it could open more money.

    States should be given block grants towards providing education. Forty years of DOE have proven one thing, the Federal Government can't do the job.

    So, show me the Republicans who are saying CUT ALL EDUCATION MONEY... really, do it.

    When a city system can spend twice that of a rural system and get results that are far far worse it tells you one thing, the current system does not work in the cities. What is the dominant trait of big city education? They are run by Democrats and have always marginalized the poor who they only use as a weapon against political opponents.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  55. The disingenuous part is in the number of hours by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Sure, kids who are uninvolved in any extracurricular activities and don't use the school bus for transportation are only "on the clock" 8 hours per day. But this ignores extracurricular activities, sports, bussing, breakfast programs prior to the start of the school day, etc. It's not unusual for a child to catch the bus at 6 or 6:30 in the morning not be dropped back off until 3:30 or 4:00 in the afternoon. Some schools also offer breakfast programs prior to the start of the school day. And if a child is involved in sports programs, drama programs, has been assigned detention, etc., he or she may be on campus until late evening. It also ignores dances (homecomings, proms, etc.) and attendance of spectators at sporting events. And what about summer programs?

    So a simplified 180 * 8 calculation for hours per child per year isn't really any more fair than just comparing annual amounts spent per warm body.

  56. Is this a 'majority minority' (yeuck) area? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be a good reason for turning the school into a prison - cut out the middle man!

  57. Schools are expensive to run by sjbe · · Score: 2

    I went to an independent school in the UK, and the school fees were less than that, even accounting for inflation.

    Being a product of a private school education myself, the tuition does not (usually) pay for all the costs of a school. The $7000 per student per year figure is total cost Tuition is a form of revenue which has nothing to do with cost. At the school I went to, tuition paid for about 2/3 of the school budget and the rest came from alumni donations, fundraisers, the state and various other sources. In public schools, tax revenues typically pays for all the costs.

    Actually $7000 per student per year is fairly low by US schooling standards. There are a lot of costs that most people never consider. Administration, maintenance, physical plant, insurance, security, lunches, athletics, supplies, busing, heating, cooling, phone, internet, power, benefits, and more. Schools are very expensive to run and it's not easy to find ways to make them more efficient. (productivity doesn't scale well in schools) Teacher salaries are the biggest cost but there is a HUGE amount of overhead in any school. $7000 doesn't go nearly as far as most people seem to think it does.

    Disclosure: I'm am a certified accountant

  58. Just a thought by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    I think that's exactly what he is suggesting, just in a Modest Proposal sort of way.

  59. See also "The War on Kids" by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://thewaronkids.com/

    Compulsory school already is essentially a day prison, or, as this superintendent points out, in some ways worse.

    Homschooling is becoming an option for more and more... But ultimately, we need a change like giving the funds directly to parents instead of the schools so the free market can supply the educational services (or the family), as I outline here:
        http://www.pdfernhout.net/towards-a-post-scarcity-new-york-state-of-mind.html

    Or a more general basic income...
        http://basicincome.iovialis.org/e00.html

    See also:
        http://the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html
        http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
        http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:See also "The War on Kids" by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Homschooling is becoming an option for more and more... But ultimately, we need a change like giving the funds directly to parents instead of the schools so the free market can supply the educational services

      Hm... how about this.... (1) Create a social-security like program for schooling. When an individual births a child, an additional 'child tax' will be due from their pay, as an offset for the cost to society of services that will be utilized by the additional child before they are an adult, based on their number of children, a "cost to the public" is assessed which may be amortized over the child's lifetime, or any number of years the parent chooses to pay the tax over (with interest).

      Basically.. the idea is people who have 6 children should not pay the same school taxes, as the couple who marries and chooses to have only one (or no) children. Given the overpopulation issues, it is most fair to distribute the cost burden to those who create the most cost.

      (2) Issue parents a "voucher" that can be used at any accredited school, to pay for schooling. Vouchers are paid from the child taxes, and no other taxes are allowed to be used to fund these. Also, no other funding is allowed to be made to education. Research and availability of certain services from public universities is another matter [and still merits taxes from the general public].
      (3) At the end of every school year, issue parents a financial reward / "rebate" on taxes based on their minor child's performance in primary and secondary school, and with any improvement -- the better the child's performance, the better the reward - if the performance is poor, a large improvement nets an improvement award in addition to a paltry performance reward. Any disciplinary issues, serious misbehavior, whether cause is medical, or otherwise, incur a penalty.
      In this manner, there is a financial incentive for parents to encourage good performance; and a disincentive to allow bad behavior.
      (4) If the child is accused by staff of cheating, committing a felony, assaulting another student, or any similar act, and determined verified guilty by the school administration, or a recurring problem occurs, the reward is cancelled, at the school's discretion, the following year's voucher will be restricted to a "punishment" / "prison" school that specializes in dealing with problem children, with mandatory transfer, attendance, and will work like a prison.
      (5) For children that meet the reward criteria -- a percentage of the award goes to the parents to encourage them to support their child in school, and the rest is held by the government and redeemable by the child with interest upon entering college or reaching age 25.

      For children that don't meet reward criteria, the reward they would have had is forfeit, and shared among those meeting the top performance criteria. Any penalties are added to the parent's child tax, used to help compensate the school for any damage, and to fund prison school accomadations.

    2. Re:See also "The War on Kids" by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      There is no current "overpopulation" problem. Almost every human produces more than they consume. See Julian Simon's writings, for example:
      http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

      There is also room for quadrillions of people in space habitats in the solar system built from asteroidal ore, even if the Earth itself might be deemed at some point by some people to have, for aesthetic reasons, too much of a crowd. So, that notion of "overpopulation" is just bunk for an advanced industrial society such as ours. We can produce lots of energy and recycle resources and prevent or clean up pollution if we want to, the problem is that our mainstream economic system does not properly account for externalities. Mainstream economics is broken, not the idea of the more the merrier.

      So, since children are net producers over their lives, my your logic, should not parents be credited from society with a lot of money for having a child or raising a child? :-)

      You are also pushing some notion of merit pay or punishment fines, trying to somehow turn parenting or being a child into a series of economic calculations. But for any job involving creativity, it turns out that merit pay reduces performance. That is what research really says, despite conventional wisdom that says something else. See:
      "RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us "
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

      Or:
      "Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes"
      http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm

      So, IMHO, your analysis and recommendations are based on two very flawed assumptions about both resources and motivation. However, your suggestions are in accord with the kind of implicit and explicit curriculum in most schools. So, your plan in itself probably a result of schooling and the ideas about "human nature" it embedded in you, like people do not do things without external motivations.

      Also, as you probably believe in a "free market" based on your approach, why should money be forced to be spent through specific places that call themselves schools? Why not let parents decide how best to spend the funds, including by just having the time to spend with kids educating them? Why create and support soulless institutions to raise children instead of prosperous families and healthy neighborhoods?

      Related as an alternative if you really want to follow your free market suggestions to perhaps better conclusions:
      http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
      "Some form of free-market system in public schooling is the likeliest place to look for answers, a free market where family schools and small entrepreneurial schools and religious schools and crafts schools and farm schools exist in profusion to compete with government education. I'm trying to describe a free market in schooling just exactly like the one the country had right up until the Civil War, one in which students volunteer for the kind of education that suits them, even if that means self-education. It didn't hurt Benjamin Franklin that I can see."

      Although as I believe in the importance of a redistributive "basic income" as a right of citizenship in our society, I still think each citizen is going to need a monthly check to make the free market work, especially as robotics, automation, better design, and voluntary social networks displace more and more paid work. That's another assumption implicit in your analysis -- that there will be "jobs" around for these kids and that productivity as citizens will be measured in monetary terms.
      http://en.wik

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    3. Re:See also "The War on Kids" by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There is no current "overpopulation" problem. Almost every human produces more than they consume.

      You're in denial. Just because there is not a space exhaustion problem, or people produce more items than they consume, does not mean there is no resource exhaustion problem.

      You see, the resources people produce are less useful than resources that have to be consumed for them to continue to survive, there is an increase in entropy, and there is a reduction in total available energy that humans can harness.

      For example, the earth has a net loss in available fossil fuels required for transportation of resources, fertilizing, growing crops, manufacturing everyday household materials, and special purpose materials used for medicine, etc.

      When fossil fuels are exhausted, there may be a mass die-off event within the human species, due to the massive reduction in possible food production and transportation.

    4. Re:See also "The War on Kids" by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      "When fossil fuels are exhausted, there may be a mass die-off event within the human species, due to the massive reduction in possible food production and transportation. "

      Baloney. Who is feeding this to you? Why? Who profits from your fear?

      We have centuries of coal (but it is polluting). Thorium can power our civilization for thousands of years. We have an effectively infinite supply of solar energy. People are working on zero-emissions manufacturing. We can grind up rock to make fertilizer. And so on.

      References off the top of my head:
      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/surface-area-required-to-power-the-whole-world-with-solar-power-wind.php
      http://nanosolar.com/nanosolar-technology-overview
      http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/993314-thorium-reactor-talk-at-ted/
      http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/dpg/slim.cfm
      http://www.remineralize.org/

      We may even have cold fusion thanks to one of the many people you perhaps wish was never born as he took up to many resources?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

      Who has infested your mind to what end with so much negativism so that you are less likely to have kids? Who is making money off of that? Are there much uglier imperatives at work in the people who tell you this? Example:
      "The Greening of Hate"
      http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/106-greening-of-hate.html

      Did the world end when we went through "Peak Whale Oil" a century or so ago? You're still here, right?

      Now, we may still blow ourselves up fighting over mis-perceived scarcity. But that is a different problem.

      Resources do not exist before the human imagination looks at the universe and turns things into resources. Otherwise, say, we would not have aluminum, produced because some imaginative people figured out how. We would not have solar panels without people figuring out how to make them. And so on.

      Here is a quick comparison of the beliefs of say, William R. Catton (who wrote "Overshoot") and Julian L. Simon (who wrote "The Ultimate Resource").

      Catton:
      * People are the problem
      * People consume resources
      * People take up space leading to overcrowding
      * There is a fixed amount of material resources on the Earth

      Thus he predicts (with some glee?) a big die-off.

      Simon:
      * People are the solution
      * People produce resources
      * People create spaces worth being in
      * The human imagination creates new resources

      Now, there is truth to what both of these authors say. But ultimately, you can decide for yourself which path leaning more to one or the other is more likely to produce a future more worth living in, given the truth about solar power, thorium power, grinding up rock, and so on.

      Our electricity and natural gas consumption might even go down if we switched to electric cars, by the way:
      http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
      "To extract one gallon of gasoline (or equivalent distillate): 9.66 kWh (maybe not all in the form of electricity*)
      To refine that gallon: 2.73 kWh additional energy (maybe not all in the form of electricity*)
      Total: 12.39 kWh per gallon.
      *Roughly one-third of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline produced from California wells is input from natural gas. Less than 2/3's is net energy (probably a lot less!).
      So I can get 24 miles in my ICE on a gallon of gasoline, or I can get 41 miles (at 30

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  60. You clearly haven't lived with a good teacher. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    My wife is a middle school teacher. She's taught in both public and private schools. She might only be in the classroom for roughly ten months of the year, but believe me, she works hard all twelve.

    Summer break is not a vacation -- she's busy developing curriculum for the next year and keeping current as a teacher. She teaches English and history. She spends these months of non-classroom time reading voraciously, watching videos, going to conferences, and otherwise boning up on her profession and subject matter expertise, in addition to pulling together materials for specific curricular segments.

    I can hear some complaints coming already, along the lines of Oh, sure, but why can't any teacher just use off-the-shelf materials, or at least recycle what they used before? How much has changed since last year? Surprisingly more than most people seem to think. For English, what was deemed the best practice for teaching grammar and mechanics, or writing skills, or reading comprehension, or what have you changes as teachers, researchers, and others learn what works and what doesn't. For history, new research is constantly changing, broadening, and expanding our understanding of what happened in the past. My wife has had to rework her "early man" unit extensively since she first began teaching it in order to include much new information that wasn't widely known even ten years ago, such as that Neanderthal did indeed interbreed with Homo sapiens in Europe, or that the Denisova hominin was a fully distinct third branch of humanity running around at the same time as Neanderthal and Homo sapiens that later worked its way into the gene base of the modern population of Melanesia.

    Any teacher that doesn't keep abreast of the state of the art in the field grows stale, and threatens to become a liability to their students. It takes considerable time and effort to stay on top of the development of human knowledge, so much that it is not possible to do this and teach a full load at the same time. This makes summer break extremely important for teachers' professional development, and for the development of the materials for the coming school year.

    Good teachers already *do* work hard for 12 months out of the year.

    (Note that I'm not saying one thing or the other about the public/private debate, or about tenure in general. Some of what you say, I find I agree with. I only take issue with the apparent assumption in your post that all teachers are somehow slacking off during the summer break.)

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  61. Small high schools can also be good by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    I had a graduating class of around 70 people. I knew them all, and had been to school with some of them since preschool.

    This was in the public system in northern Virginia. Granted, my school was the oddball, but even so, the smaller class sizes were a major factor behind the more cohesive community we were able to build there. The county high schools had staggered hours too, so kids wanting programs that weren't available at our school could structure their class schedules so they could go to another school in the county to participate for that particular program (generally sports).

    Talking with the people I grew up with, those of us who went to the smaller high schools (not just my own) generally had the better experiences. YMMV, of course.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  62. I left Highschool for private business at 10th. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Over 2 years (including summer), I was assaulted twice by football teams wanting me to join, harassed throughout summer extra-curricular classes when the teacher wasn't around, racist COPS induced their "inferior" inner-city kids to carry their angst onto us smarter peers, and then to top it off I was nearly physically attacked by 10 black men because of my objection to one of them bringing porn into a unwatched English class devolved into a racist debate where I was to blame yet again.

    The less that I help these bastards, the more society crumbles and they fail to survive amongst the slave-made Imports. Life is great being a nerd, so-long as I have my AK47 and .50Cal with me at all times to keep the bastards away. All that schooling is about is social interaction forced upon the scholastic peers to learn to tolerate the animals: now the animals are in US Army employment positions, and I have to deal with their strength-in-numbers bullshit yet again. Every aspect of society has become coerced association, passing laws preventing good people from avoiding business with others of questionable motivations and backgrounds. That is why in "nature" you see predatory animals pushing their prey into schools, where biologists say that schooling is a learned defense of weeker animals to avoid direct confrontation with predators but it is just that: government is forcing everyone to school with eachother just because they are still butthurt about the "class warfare" butthurt of hundreds of years ago when successfull productive people of society would pay private skilled professions to tutor their children in the many arts and sciences to secure their skills and abilities into their next generation of children, but instead today you see government directing schools to continue a long series of mistakes and assumptions for corporations to monopolise every facet of industry while making peers overly-dependent on eachother for the most miniscule of necessities that now people pray to God to receive and it's absolute bastardy.

    Shut down government, because it isn't correcting criminal felons but embracing and extending them. What's good for Haiti and generally all of Africa is what was good for all the so-called distaster Emergencies throughout America that idiots should know to prepare for but don't, so ignore the statistics and keep working hard is all I have to say, but you can't do that because government intervenes like a debt collector and slave-puncher.

  63. LOL, if ANYONE is "uninformed", it's you loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By letting you embarass yourself, starting here:

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1881444&cid=34343366

    (where you blew it hugely on a simple concept in computing)

    Then, after you trolled that ac later, here, where he exposed you for your outright fuckup above:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36293398

    and then here even more where your "high IQ" you stated you have, certainly didn't show itself after your "foaming @ the mouth raging replies" troll:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36334446

    and

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36350694

    AND LASTLY where you show you're a WASTE of education time in academia (and somebody's money) MORESO STILL, here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36358880

    and here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36359382

    You're a laughable joke, and undoubtedly a liar as well about your actually having done any academia after highschool period.

    I am going to have a field day with you, troll. Embarassing a loudmouthed, profane, lying, & trolling scumbag likes of you? Well worth doing.

  64. There's no shortage of dumbshits like you though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just letting you embarass yourself, starting here:

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1881444&cid=34343366

    (where you blew it hugely on a simple concept in computing)

    Then, after you trolled that ac later, here, where he exposed you for your outright fuckup above:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36293398

    and then here even more where your "high IQ" you stated you have, certainly didn't show itself after your "foaming @ the mouth raging replies" troll:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36334446

    and

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36350694

    AND LASTLY where you show you're a WASTE of education time in academia (and somebody's money) MORESO STILL, here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36358880

    and here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36359382

    You're a laughable joke, and undoubtedly a liar as well about your actually having done any academia after highschool period.

    I am going to have a field day with you, troll. Embarassing a loudmouthed, profane, lying, & trolling scumbag likes of you? Well worth doing.

  65. Time to EMBARASS YOU, boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By letting you embarass yourself, starting here:

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1881444&cid=34343366

    (where you blew it hugely on a simple concept in computing)

    Then, after you trolled that ac later, here, where he exposed you for your outright fuckup above:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36293398

    and then here even more where your "high IQ" you stated you have, certainly didn't show itself after your "foaming @ the mouth raging replies" troll:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36334446

    and

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36350694

    AND LASTLY where you show you're a WASTE of education time in academia (and somebody's money) MORESO STILL, here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36358880

    and here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36359382

    You're a laughable joke, and undoubtedly a liar as well about your actually having done any academia after highschool period.

    I am going to have a field day with you, troll. Embarassing a loudmouthed, profane, lying, & trolling scumbag likes of you? Well worth doing.

  66. Re:There's no shortage of dumbshits like you thoug by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 0

    In the Navy, there are buff men who jack off in the shower every day. They see the new, girly slashdot recruit, with his soft skin and shoulder length hair. They make fun of him constantly, his round ass bouncing through training, and always call him a fag. They haven't seen a woman since the start of the week. One day, they all hit the bar and get drunk and shit and laugh at everybody singing Karaoke. Some Army fags start to hit on slashdot, but his shipmates intervene and tell them to back off. Somebody throws a punch, and slashdot's knees go weak from the impact. His buddy chatches him and then grabs a beer bottle and smashes it over another guy's head, spraying clear liquid all over the floor. Another man rams his mug into slashdot's throat. Eventually he passes out. The next day they all get masted and put on 45 days restriction with forfeiture of half-month's pay for two months for fighting. JOIN THE NAVY.

  67. Pseudonym Authority: Are you mentally stable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you mentally stable? The reason I ask him this, is simple (see these 2 posts of Pseudonym Authorities' folks, and then decide for yourselves, especially after seeing the above also which I am replying to):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36370168

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2206226&cid=36370194

    WTF! Are you sick in the head, or what??

    We know you suck at computing already, based on your screwup on a simple principle in it here:

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1881444&cid=34343366

    But we had NO idea you needed mental help too!

    1. Re:Pseudonym Authority: Are you mentally stable? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 0

      My cock is indeed so huge that I always have to sit with my legs apart in a sort of slanted position, just to make room for it.

      Once a woman is filled with this wildbeast, it's hard for her to go back to anything smaller. I usually get charged with rape once I leave them, because what's what losing a cock with my girth and size feels like: Like a woman being robbed of everything she held dear. It feels like rape to them.

      Still, a lot of women are just too disgusting to be with, so I have to cut them lose, and I was born with this dick size, so it's not my fault that I'm the greatest gift to women. Like the guy with three wives says: Unlike other fellas, you have to EARN and DESERVE my cock. You can't be no whore because whores get thrown out of cock heaven.

  68. Pseudonym Authority - Take your meds, ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you mentally stable? The reason I ask him this, is simple (see these 2 posts of Pseudonym Authorities' folks, and then decide for yourselves):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36370168

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2206226&cid=36370194

    WTF! Are you sick in the head, or what??

    We know you suck at computing already, based on your screwup on a simple principle in it here:

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1881444&cid=34343366

    But we had NO idea you needed mental help too! Time for your medication now I think, troll.

    1. Re:Pseudonym Authority - Take your meds, ok? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      I wish I could take CmdrTaco out for dinner. We'd have a lovely meal together, three courses, but sharing a dessert. I'd pay the bill. After that, we'd go for drinks together at a little bar around the corner from the restaurant where we ate dinner. Him and I would both be fairly drunk at the end of the night, and while walking together back to a hotel room we'd booked earlier that day, we'd stumble into an alleyway, and start passionately making out with each other. I'd pull away for a moment, holding his face in my hands, and gaze into his eyes while telling him how beautiful he is. Then he'd kiss me once, take my head in his hands, and push me down onto my knees, at which point I'd give him the most incredible blowjob of his life. Once we were done, we'd hurry back to the hotel room, where he would throw me onto the bed, climb on top of me, and kiss me softly, before holding me down and taking me hard and fast, right there. Afterwards, I'd suck his magnificent cock again, before lying back in his arms, to spoon a while before dozing off to sleep together.

      >mfw I'm so sad this will never happen, while also a little ashamed at imagining it so much.