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."

Comments

Very well written

[gomiam]

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

Re:Very well written

[digitalaudiorock]

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.

Re:Very well written

[BeanThere]

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.

Re:Very well written

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Very well written

[eln]

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.

Re:Very well written

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Very well written

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Very well written

[jeek]

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

Re:Very well written

[Methuseus]

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.

Re:Very well written

[causality]

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.

Re:Very well written

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Very well written

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Very well written

[Glothar]

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

Re:Very well written

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Very well written

[ekimminau]

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.

Schools are Prisons

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

Success, not failure

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Success, not failure

[elrous0]

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).

Re:Success, not failure

[Rob the Bold]

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

Re:Success, not failure

[elrous0]

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.

Re:Success, not failure

[cayenne8]

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...

Re:Success, not failure

[SomeKDEUser]

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?

Re:Success, not failure

[elrous0]

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.

Re:Success, not failure

[SomeKDEUser]

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.

Re:Success, not failure

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:Success, not failure

[electrosoccertux]

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

Re:Success, not failure

[CanadianRealist]

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.

Re:Success, not failure

[tbannist]

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.

Re:Whats a school super?

[c0mpliant]

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

Clever but inane

[SniperJoe]

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.

Re:For a school superintendant

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not the school's place to provide those things

[OhPlz]

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.

Re:Not the school's place to provide those things

[Ephemeriis]

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.

Re:Not the school's place to provide those things

[drinkypoo]

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.

Hey Republicans:

[circletimessquare]

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.

Re:Hey Republicans:

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:Hey Republicans:

[nmccrin1]

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.

Re:Hey Republicans:

[Tom]

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?

Re:For a school superintendant

[poor_boi]

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

And no cable TV

[elrous0]

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.

Re:For a school superintendant

[AK Marc]

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.

Winston Churchill

[mangu]

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

Schools are expensive to run

[sjbe]

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