They grew up and moved out of the house, but young families aren't moving into the area with new kids going to local schools. That's one explanation for yesterday's article in the Everett Herald talking about declining enrollment in Snohomish County public schools.
Note the only districts showing student growth are in the exurbs of Monroe and Marysville (and even those only saw real growth in alternative programs). The Everett District also has a pocket of growth in its south end, where relatively rapid growth in new housing continues in previously underdeveloped neighborhoods between Lynnwood and Everett proper.
Note also the most rapid decline was in the Edmonds district, as brutal housing prices are increasingly prohibitive for young families with children. "1st ring" suburban districts around Seattle such as Shoreline are already experiencing profound problems thanks to declining enrollment. If "2nd ring" districts such as Edmonds start regularly succumbing to similar such problems it will be full testament to this region's utter failure at growth management and related policy planning to ensure a reasonable supply of affordable housing for young and/or working class families.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 24, 2007 12:40 PM | Email ThisGovernment schools are in addition to being inefficient, also promoting government dependant children. My children will learn to be independant and caring from a private institution.
I have noticed the schools getting much worse the more the federal government gets involved. Pres Bush has more than doubled the federal department of education despite it being unconstitutional and just a plain horrible idea. The No Child Left Behind act is yet another example of big government republicanism that Ron Paul is trying to rescue us from.
Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate with a plan that will improve schools. He will do everything he can to get the federal government complelty out our childrens lives. He will end the dept of education much like the GOP voters demanded not more than 15 years ago.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 24, 2007 12:54 PMAs for Travis and Guthrie - if they're products of public education then I have to agree with them.
Posted by: BA on November 24, 2007 02:47 PMThe fact that some people who are able to be successful in making a logical argument graduated from a government school, does not mean that private schools with vouchers for the poor would not create better, overall educational outcomes for the poor and rich.
Government schools have a near monopoly. So this is like saying, "anyone who got to this debate on a government-funded road can't argue against government funding of anything." Well, that would be an absurd position.
I want to make things better for the poor and the rest. School privatization could do that, even if a few people already get decent educations from the government schools we have now.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 03:15 PMJust a thought.
Posted by: tc on November 24, 2007 03:16 PMSo, Travis and Bruce, how do you expect to educate the populace w/o any Education department or public school system? Who will set the standards, monitor the schools, and make sure the public's interest is being met? Again, it is a liberterian utopia world, which assume everyone, including corporations, will do everything in each other's best interest. No concern for the less fortunate of the world, only concern for themselves.
I would agree there are a lot of useless programs in the Department of Education (at both State and national level), but there are also wastes and useless programs in the Department of Defense. The Navy's NMCI program is a classic example, where it costs PSNS three to four times what they were spending on desktop computing management and resources for barely 1/2 the service, all the while padding GW's Texas-based EDS companies pockets. No different than the padding of Halliburton's pockets, and the oil industries pocket's. You think a publically traded company, whose goal is to maximize shareholder profit, will be concerned whether the general public gets educated? People call me naive, geesh!
Posted by: tc on November 24, 2007 03:33 PMDelusion is so liberating, just look at liberals......disconnected with facts, reality and history. Just like the Paullies....
As noted on other posts, will the Pollyites support the GOP nominee?
Who knows, who cares.......
Resume condition normal.....
Posted by: Hank on November 24, 2007 04:58 PMWho would set standards and monitor schools? Here is a list:
Private accreditation orgs such as PNAIS
Newsmedia school rating reports
Activist parents
Teachers
Other individuals
Non-Profit orgs like Bill Gates Found.
etc.
PLUS. schools will be kept honest through competition with other schools. If quality slips, they lose business. With the government school monopoly, if quality slips, we find out about it decades later, and then they cover up the WASL stats so we can't really see what is happening.
Look, why do we have such high quality restaurants in Seattle? Is it because of the health dept? Hardly. It is because of the profit motive and competition. The same thing works in education. It does not rely on all parents becoming experts. The few, who shop around at the margin and do their homework, serve to improve service quality for all, even the lazy parents of some poor kids.
Your next paragraph, about defense department spending and defense contractors, only makes my point for me. Government is an inefficient monopoly. That's one of the many reasons it makes sense to privatize whatever you can.
Defense probably can not be privatized, and even if you think schools can not, there are many good arguments for getting the feds out of it and leaving it to the states:
1) Forced national uniformity goes against community and local diversity.
2) Power corrupts, and there is no authority in the Constitution for the feds to meddle in education. It is left to the states because it needs to be more responsive to community needs.
3) Small bureucracies tend to work better than big ones, especially where creativity is involved. I'm a teacher, and let me tell you that good teaching involves creativity and passion.
I want there to be an abundance of grants for students going to college, but what is the best way to get the most of this? I say we will have more college aid if we reduce taxes, allow the economy to grow and create more wealth, and let private charities handle college grants. If we tax people more to provide these grants, we slow down the economy, and this hurts everyone, especially the poor.
College students are on their way to the middle and upper classes. So giving them subsidies, which the poor pay for as well as the rich in their income taxes, is a kind of reverse Robin Hood! Steal from the poor and give to the future rich. I think if there is welfare at all, it ought to go to the poor only.
Loans are perfect, because they allow education to be funded by those who benefit most from it; the students. Lots of companies want to grant student loans because they tend to be good investments.
At the state level, for K-12, we should have totally privatized schools, with needs-based vouchers funded by property taxes going only to the bottom 20%, and usable almost everywhere. With this, we could reduce property taxes, which would help the poor who rent, and improve educational quality for the poor. The elderly poor with no children would get a freebie! Lower rent or property taxes and no tuition payments if their kids are grown!
I think it is a Green Party principle to do things at the lowest possible government level, so that it is most responsive to the will of the people. If you really want to socialize education, and have it more monolithic and Soviet, and have it pass one-size-fits-all programs like the Republican/Neocon No Child Left Behind Act, that stifle teacher creativity and diversity, then increased federal involvement is the ticket.
But I think this would leave the poor worse off.
You ask: who should set the standards? Who should decide? I say, in a free country, YOU should decide. Parents should decide where to send their kids. To force people to do things your way is intolerant and paternalistic.
You call my libertarian ideas utopian, but I think the idea that the government can run high quality education programs for all is utopian. It is a fantasy that has never been achieved anywhere. All the best schools are private.
The wealthy have choice. Why do you want to deny choice to the poor? Privatization with needs-based vouchers gives the poor a choice.
Liberals are supposed to like Gandhi and non-violence. So why do you like to force people to pay for and attend the government monopoly schools, especially when they are failing so badly for the poor?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 05:32 PMI'll vote for the partisan, Libertarian candidate, even if that is Steve Kubby or George Phillies. In fact, if the R's do nominate Ron Paul, it will be a major blow to the Libertarian Party. The L's partisan candidate will hardly get any votes, as the L's voters defect to vote R. It's a real problem for the LNC. Few L's are donating to L prez. campaigns because Ron Paul is soaking up all the dollars.
None of the others, D or R, rise to my standards.
Ron Paul fans are a diverse group. I'd say the major segments are these:
Partisan Libertarians- these, like me, will just vote Libertarian if Ron Paul is not nominated by the R's. That's about 1% or 2% of the vote at the Presidential level.
Small "l" libertarians who have always thought of themselves as Republicans. The Reagan/Goldwater wing of the R party. Many of these will vote for Giuliani, but fewer will turn out if Ron Paul is not nominated. That's about 9% of the vote.
Former and current military- Ron Paul got more donations from this group than any other Republican candidate. That could be about 5% of the vote.
Independent voters- some of these will vote R, but most of these will be lost to anti-war D's if Ron Paul is not nominated. That's about 30% of the vote.
Independent, formerly apathetic voters- Ron Paul has brought thousands of people back into politics, who before had been disgusted. Since less than half of the electorate actually votes, this is a potentially massive segment... If Ron Paul is not the R choice, then most of these will not vote at all. That's about 50% of the vote.
Now, you can't add all these percentages together, because the groups overlap, and not all will defect from the R's if Ron Paul is not nominated, but I'd say that the Republicans will lose a lot more swing votes by nominating another candidate than by nominating Ron Paul. They can't win just by appealing to the hawks. There aren't enough of them in the electorate.
Ron Paul is a great candidate if your strategy is to attract the swing voters! Ron Paul is a great candidate if you need to diffuse the two biggest bombs the R's have strapped to their backs: the Iraq war and the poor economy.
Let me flip your question the other way: do you think that the R's will lose a lot of fiscal conservatives if they nominate Ron Paul? I doubt it! Will they lose a lot of social conservatives? No way! Paul is pro-life! Will they lose a lot of foreign policy hawks? Well, possibly, but only 30% support the war these days, and 80% of Americans are church-goers. The hawks won't vote for Hillary, even though she has voted for the war on many occasions. I think they will stick with Ron Paul because he talks tough about defending US borders, and because he is a former flight surgeon.
Will YOU, Hank, vote D or L or stay at home if Ron Paul is nominated? I doubt it. I think you'd vote for a cockerspaniel if it had an R painted on it! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 24, 2007 08:38 PMSouth Everett's growth is likely due to the growing immigrant population there.
In our North Everett neighborhood, the demographics are gradually shifting in a direction that the school districts ought to be happy about. Less rentals, and more owner occupied. Young families with small children. But many of us are homeschooling.
Posted by: Michelle on November 24, 2007 10:07 PMUm, tc, this is extremely illogical: "Let's see if Ron Paul is against Dept. of Education, then he must be against children getting higher education." Since I am against public funding of the Mariners' stadium, does that mean I am against baseball? Come on. Think!
And then you said this: "how do you expect to educate the populace w/o any Education department or public school system? Who will set the standards, monitor the schools, and make sure the public's interest is being met?"
Right, because before there was a public school system, the poulation was almost completely uneducated. Not even close. That said, yes, education has improved since the introduction of public schools, but that's meaningless in this argument, since we can have private institutions do the same thing, and with television and computers and other widely available media, it's become extremely easy for people to become educated.
As to the rest: why should an Education Department set standards, let alone monitor anything at all? Even with a public school system, what makes an Education Department any better, whatsoever, to run the schools than the local school boards? Are they supermen?
"Again, it is a liberterian utopia world, which assume everyone, including corporations, will do everything in each other's best interest."
You have it absolutely backward. Libertarians assume everyone will act in their own best interest. And as you may have noticed, a great many wealthy people (most notably, of course, Bill Gates) believe that a well-educated populace is in their own best interests, and contribute much of their own resources to that goal.
Or did you think Bill Gates contributed all of that money out of no concern for himself? No, it is entirely out of concern for himself. Even the apparently altruistic things he does, he does because he DESIRES to, because he WANTS to, because it makes him feel good (or because not doing it would make him feel bad). We all act solely in our own interests. The trick is to see how our own interests -- both materially and metaphysically -- lie in helping others.
There is zero reason to suspect that private schools, if on the scale of public ones would do any better. As it stands private schools only do marginally better then state schools and even then only in certain grades.
As for where the children went, they simply weren't born. People are having fewer kids and at later ages. This is not a bad thing as modern society doesn't need such a huge young labor force, nor d owe have to contend with high mortality rates among children. One can see it see it as market forces, in this case regarding thee need and desire for children working.
This also provides a good reason for immigration. Immigrants are willing to to do the more unpleasant jobs for low pay so their children get better lives. We essentially get the hardest working and most intelligent people for many countries to work for this country. For much of history the only way to come close to doing this was to invade countries and steal people.
Their kids then become the wealthy ones who have few kids and enjoy life while another wave of immigrants provide labor.
Posted by: Giffy on November 24, 2007 11:16 PM------>See: Social Security
Posted by: Aaron on November 25, 2007 06:44 AMMakes you wonder doesn't it.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 25, 2007 08:14 AMAlso having been to department stores far to much this month and having had to deal with calling some service providers with annoying frequency as of late, I am far from convinced in the greatness that would be private companies controlling education ;)
@19, Antidotes ate not arguements. Studies done on performance of kids show that private school preform only slightly better then public schools when demographics are taken into account. However, unlike public schools, private schools can be more selective in admitting students and hiring teachers. This is not a union thing, its a size thing.
Posted by: Giffy on November 25, 2007 08:41 AMA second factor is the cost of private education. More than likely, higher income children will attend private schools versus public schools. This means two factors, one is private schools often have endowments funded by families that have kids in the school or had kids attend this school. The endowments help the school provide a lot more education that public schools provide. For example, if you look at Bellarmine Prep, the approx. $10K per year tuition only covers 70% of the educational costs. The other 30% are funded by endowments. Therefore, Bellarmine is really providing a $14.2K per year education, which is at (or near) the top for high school costs across the state. A second factor with having higher income families providing more of the makeup of private schools, is the income level alone. Studies have shown that how well kids peform in school does have a direct correlation with income level of the family.
If one looks at private school costs, in addition to the question of how much does tuition cover the costs, one also has to ask does the costs cover transportation. With most private K-12 schools, transportation is an additional cost. If you look at a public school's budget, transportation can be a significant factor (up to 20% for urban schools, and more for remote schools).
Just some thoughts.
Posted by: tc on November 25, 2007 10:11 AM2. I think many here are confusing the concepts of school choice, competition and privitization.
a. For nine lies about school choice go to this
site:
http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=825
b. I even agree with the Paultards that the real issue is the monopoly that government run schools have. Now, having said that, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about a public school run by the government. What impedes the ability of any school to educate its population of children is the amount of regulation which is put in place by government. Every population of kids is different and solutions will have to be tailored to that population of kids. That is what regulations impede. That is why charter schools that are not hampered by state regs regarding how they deliver education to their children and homeschoolers kick the butts of public schools. I remember reading research doing my dissertation research of a couple of cities that wanted to privitize janitorial services and gardening services. The public employees as a group were allowed to bid against private companies and they won the bid. They produced better results because they were not hampered by regulations which often bore no relation to their health or safety but added cost. These were the same government employees. In Belgium, the state allocation follows the kid and parents are allowed to choose the school. Even government schools have gotten better as they respond to the forces of competition. So, it is not the fact that a school may or may not be government run. The key questions are monopoly and are failing schools of any type allowed to fail.
c. The definition of privitization is:
To change (an industry or business, for example) from governmental or public ownership or control to private enterprise....
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/privatization
Paultards and others make the theoretical error that Marx made. For schools, the issue is educational outcome not shilling for some political theory. The goal of education is to make sure that students receive a good basic education and if one reads the Washington Supreme Court opinion in the case of Seattle School District I the Washington Court said that schools should provide students with basic skills which would allow them to participate in civic activities and participate in commerce.
3. Regarding the original question where have public school students gone:
a. Smaller family size
b. People choosing options outside of public schools
c. I have heard people say that they will be moving to areas such as the midwest when they start families because house prices are cheaper
Competition in education is needed. Privitization is just a buzz word.
Posted by: WVH on November 25, 2007 10:35 AMThat is not true in Belgium where the money follows the kid. Also, Caroline Hoxby who holds a joint appointment with Harvard and MIT, her research indicates in areas where there has been competition, public schools have measureably improved. So, Pudge is this your opinion or can you cite some articles?
The goal of education is to ensure that each child receives a good basic education. There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a government school. Parente and Prescott wrote a monograph which theorizes that the problem is regulation which creates a monopoly. Once the monopoly is removed, all segments improve.
Your citations, please?
Posted by: WVH on November 25, 2007 06:15 PMMoney is not the most important factor in school quality. School size and teacher quality ARE. The problem is that bad teachers can't be fired. The unions prevent it. Teacher passion is dependent on their freedom to be creative. Big schools and Ed. Dept. bureaucracy crushes that.
Private schools can fire bad teachers. They can hire better teachers, AND TEND TO PAY LOWER SALARIES, because good teachers aren't motivated primarily by money! Duh! Otherwise they would get higher paying jobs! They love teaching, and they want to teach with passion and creativity. Private schools allow them this. The passion inspires the students, who do better work. You don't need more money. You need less bureaucracy.
The government system can not be reformed from within. Competition from without has a chance. That is one reason I support private schools and homeschooling.
Secular private schools are also pretty good. In Seattle we have Lakeside, Bush, U Prep, Seattle Academy, Chrysalis, Eastside Prep... All of these are way better than the government schools. And money is not the main reason. Selectivity may, but I'd like to see private schools come "down-market." Let's allow poor and low-functioning kids to have choice and private schools with needs-based vouchers!
By the way Org. Man @ 15, homeschooled students tend to score better than government AND PRIVATE school students on standardized tests. They also tend to get in to better colleges than either group! You can disparage homeschool parents, but they tend to do a better job than institutional teachers! :)
I still don't respond to WVH. Too many personal attacks. Why have a dialogue with someone who continues to insult you? Not in my interests.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 25, 2007 06:38 PMIf you never respond to me, could care less. The fact that you occasionally feel the need to cite your mantra is sufficient. That means that there is a demonstration that Paultards crumble when challenged and are really hothouse flowers that wilt when exposed to challenge. This I can't deal with you because you are a meany is so girly and middle school. Paul/Chavez/Mugabe doesn't respond to Medved, either. I'd take Medved over your leader any day. Anyhow, I have made my point on prior threads.
The key to improved schools is a combination of many things:
1. Competition is key
2. This next concept is going to get Paultards and Lameotarians in a twit. Government has an impact on family support and family creation by its policies. The Great Society destroyed many families. There has to be a look at taxation policy and support for children. Many secular progressives do not support the two-parent heterosexual family and policies show that disdain. There has to be promotion of families by the policies of government.
Posted by: WVH on November 25, 2007 06:59 PM"I have heard anecdotally that a more than average number of Snohoco kids are being home schooled, and also that it may explain the relatively poor high school performance evident in Snohoco districts. Many parents are either not qualified or do not take it seriously."
What exactly do you mean by this? As a homeschooling parent, I find this comment offensive. I do not know what evidence you could have to back this up. Most homeschoolers do not take WASL so what 'high school performance' evidence are you using to make such a claim?
Wilda: you are grossly ignorant here. EVERY government school NECESSARILY lacks freedom. Can I use that money, as a parent, to teach my children about anything I wish them to learn? No. So therefore, it lacks freedom, and therefore, it is suboptimal.
That you do not understand these basic principles and yet hold a doctorate in the subject is troubling to me.
Homeschooling is by default the best possible education a child can have, if the resources are available to the parent to do it. There's not even any rational debate on the subject, and the primary reason is that the parent is free to do what is best for the child.
Oh, I know, some people like to wring their hands and say that many parents are "unqualified." Such people are morons. It is the extremely rare parent who is unqualified to teach their own children up through junior high, and past that, most parents and children can work together using libraries and the Internet to advance their learning perfectly well without the help of any school, let alone a government school.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a government school.
Yes, there is: it lacks freedom. Not to mention that it takes away the freedom of the taxpayers if the funding is forced upon any taxpayers, and -- even worse -- the freedom of the families if it is forced on the children. Thankfully, Washington is ALMOST free in this regard. Our state is still very fascist in one area: the government still "requires" parents to have a certain amount of training before opting out of government schools, and then, incredibly, it actually "requires" the parent to subject the child to government testing.
Posted by: pudge on November 26, 2007 12:05 AMIf you think money doesn't matter, take a look at two public school disctricts in Milwaukee, WI area that were profiled a few years back on one of the nightly news magazine shows. One was in the rich northern suburb of Milwaukee and one was the inner city. The schools were night and day. Why? It wasn't due to state funding, which was the same. It was due to the additional funding the suburb community collected to pay for the additional "features" of the school, plus the parents were more involved with their kids schooling, and the kids came from higher income families to start out with (i.e., additional access to learning resources, like computers, tutors, etc.).
It is hogwash that money doesn't mean a thing. You are telling me that Harvard or Yale would be able to attract and keep their distinguished staff, their rich libraries, etc., without the endowments provided to those universities. I don't buy it. To get talent, you need to pay for talent and you need to provide the environment the talent wants to work in. All this costs money.
Why do you think Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is concentrating so hard on offering grants to underprivileged areas. They get it. Warren Buffet gets it.
Posted by: tc on November 26, 2007 07:50 AMMy kids are learning with very little money. Just time and care. I don't believe money makes a big difference. And simply adding money certainly doesn't make a school good.
Posted by: pudge on November 26, 2007 08:46 AMDon't kid yourself, however, given your single data point. The evidence across the country is profound. For example, when inner city schools get grant money to fully equip classrooms, hire/retain good teachers, refurbish the neglected schools, student performance goes up. There are examples from New York City and Chicago, to start out with. Note, however, this isn't a case where the state just throws more money at the situation (in general), or teachers across the board get raises. These are targeted dollars at very specific problems.
The other factor in dollars, however, is not what is spent on schools, but also family income. Rich kids get a lot more opportunities. Rich kids that live in rich suburbs that go to rich suburb schools (private or public) get the best education (in general -- there are exceptions).
I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm a Stadium student and, if you've seen the district lines, you'll understand why it is the "preferred 'rich' kids' public school" (using that term fairly loosely - this is Tacoma, after all, and very few of us are "rich"). But this just suggests that schools that take from wealthy areas perform better.
Stadium may be located in the inner-city, but all of its student base pulls from North and Northeast Tacoma. There are very few kids in the downtown area, after all, and no one (save for a few hotel/motel owners) lives around the Port of Tacoma. This phenomenon (wealthy pull areas = better scores) is probably not news to anyone.
I think Garfield High School in Seattle would be a better example of inner-city schools becoming "preferred."
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 26, 2007 09:50 AMYes, I hold a doctorate in the subject. Do you?
Now You said:
you are grossly ignorant here. EVERY government school NECESSARILY lacks freedom. Can I use that money, as a parent, to teach my children about anything I wish them to learn? No. So therefore, it lacks freedom, and therefore, it is suboptimal.
Frankly, troubling some one like you doesn't bother me. Do you have any cites for the fact that government schools are incapable of providing a basic education for children? Do you have any cites to counter Dr. Hoxby as opposed to
Pudge? It's all Lameotarian theory, right?
Your cites please. Right now you are expressing an opinion based upon your Lameotarian views, right?
Now, you siad:
"Yes, there is: it lacks freedom. Not to mention that it takes away the freedom of the taxpayers if the funding is forced upon any taxpayers, and -- even worse -- the freedom of the families if it is forced on the children. Thankfully, Washington is ALMOST free in this regard. Our state is still very fascist in one area: the government still "requires" parents to have a certain amount of training before opting out of government schools, and then, incredibly, it actually "requires" the parent to subject the child to government testing."
Pudgie, the Washington State Constitution makes education the paramount duty of the state, so unless you amend the Constitution, then government will have a role.
Lets see, this thread so far you haven't called me a liar, just ignotant. Waiting for your cites to educational researchers who back up your theories.
Must be troubling to lose so many elections in Sno County with your lame theories. I understand that there is a vacuum for your type in Hayden Lake Idaho.
Got in cites, Pudgie?
Posted by: WVH on November 26, 2007 10:20 AMThere is a corrollation between income and achievement, but this gap can be overcome with specific strategies tailored to a particular population of kids. Also, there does tend to be higher parental involvement among certain classes of the population. These differences can be overcome by providing a variety of institutional choices. In order to provide a good basic education for most children there should be a variety of school type options.
The government will have to support families. The "Great Society" programs went a long way in the break-up of the nuclear family. The best situation for raising children, single consenting adults can do what they want, is a heterosexual two-parter home. There are some great single parents of either sex and I am not dissing them, just talking optimum. There are some cultural issues as pointed out by Bill Cosby and others and children have to come to school, ready to learn.
Posted by: WVH on November 26, 2007 10:30 AMOne measure, although not totally telling, is if you went to school demographics, you would see a lot less minorities at Stadium than Foss. You would also see a lot higher level of kids on free school lunch program at Foss. A more dramatic shift in economics would be comparing Foss to GH High School, which is one of the tops (test score wise) in the state with regards to academics. It also does it for less than state average. It kind of blows the hole in the private school proponents argument. It does support the economic class argument, however, quite well, especially if you look at the test scores between the minority and low income groups in the school and the overall school. It is an extremely tough high school that is geared to college prep and those who don't wish for the extreme class studies try to open enroll to Peninsula High School, if they can. Peninsula School District has really tried to restrict movement between the two high schools. Open enrollment has to be done on a yearly basis. Just because one went one year, doesn't guarantee them a spot the following year.
Posted by: tc on November 26, 2007 10:46 AMEducation is a common good just like roads, water treatment, and garbage.
Posted by: giffy on November 26, 2007 11:04 AMI do not play degree games. I do not respect degrees, and don't find them of relevance. I just have a pet peeve about people who have degrees yet still maintain significant ignorance about their subject of supposed expertise.
Do you have any cites for the fact that government schools are incapable of providing a basic education for children?
Um ... do I have any cites for a "fact" I never claimed, stated, or implied in any way? Why would you even ask such an irrelevant question?
Pudgie, the Washington State Constitution makes education the paramount duty of the state, so unless you amend the Constitution, then government will have a role.
I wonder if you even realize the fact that this has nothing to do with what I said. I never denied this. I simply stated the clear and unassailable fact that government schools are necessarily suboptimal because they are anti-liberty. No cites are necessary. I do not need a citation to assert that shooting someone for crossing the street against a light is cruel and unusual punishment. Nor do I need a citation to assert that an educational system run by the government, under government's rules, necessarily subverts liberty, because the government decides how the educational system will be conducted. That is how it works. That is what the words mean.
Typical doctorate-holder rubbish: believing that no valid idea can exist without a citation. It's an extremely un-American idea, you know. Our founders, while they relied heavily on those who came before them, also weren't afraid to assert self-evident truths and come up with original ideas based on the others.
Posted by: pudge on November 26, 2007 02:32 PMThe reason you don't play degree games is you have a BA and in what subject? You said:
"That you do not understand these basic principles and yet hold a doctorate in the subject is troubling to me."
You brought up the degree, not me dearie.
You said:
1."EVERY government school NECESSARILY lacks freedom."
The purpose of school is to give each child a basic education. Now, what your definition means is what? Is this just a lameotarian slogan?
2. "It is the extremely rare parent who is unqualified to teach their own children up through junior high,"
Dude, I have met many parents who are not qualified. Stats for this statement?
Keep in mind, i support homeschooling in the proper circumstances.
You don't have any cites because you have no clue about education and really are simply relying on your lameotarian theroies, right? You have an interesting tactic when discussing issues. First, you attack, then the next move is to call the person a liar, and then the next move is to attempt to dimiss the other person because they actually citing an authority who has done research on the subject which doesn't jibe with your lameotarian theory. Your idea of discourse is to rant uncontrollably. You need to increase the meds, deary.
Actually, educated people like Jefferson, Madison, Hammilton, and Washington and others had plenty of support for their theories. Now, the founders got their ideas from Plato, Aristole, Rousseau, Hobbes and others. So, dude, cite some of the classics. Dearie, you just aren't in the same league. I must scare the heck out of you and Brucie.
Now, do you have any support such as actual research studies for this comments:
You said "Homeschooling is by default the best possible education a child can have...."
Even Brucie admits that there are some great secular schools as he puts it.
You and a mind is wasted on lameotarian theory Brucie have some homework. I'm sure you two dolts can together come up with a response.
False. I had every opportunity to get an advanced degree, like all my siblings did (including one with a doctorate). None of them care that I don't have an advanced degree, and I don't care that they do. It's just different paths.
You brought up the degree, not me dearie.
Yes, but not to try to lord it over you. I was just expressing the sad state of academia that you could have a doctorate in education and not understand fundamental issues of education and liberty.
The purpose of school is to give each child a basic education.
The state's purpose in giving a basic education is to create cogs in the machinery of a functioning society, which is the primary reason why caring parents should opt out of it. By definition, a public school is not interested in your individual child first and foremost, but the "common good." My child is far too imporant and valuable to subject them to such a thing, where their best interests are subjected for what someone else things is best for everyone else.
Now, what your definition means is what?
I offered no definition. What are you talking about? Do you mean to say, what does "EVERY government school NECESSARILY lacks freedom" mean? Sigh. I already explained that, quite clearly.
Dude, I have met many parents who are not qualified.
No, you have not. You have incorrectly perceived them to be not qualified.
Stats for this statement?
I need none, because my views have nothing to do with statistics. Educating a child is literally no different than raising a child. Indeed, the two are the same thing. Anyone can do it, unless they have a severe functional debilitation.
Keep in mind, i support homeschooling in the proper circumstances.
No, you do not, because your definition of "proper" is flawed.
You don't have any cites because you have no clue about education
False. You're the one who is woefully ignorant here. You're the one who thinks education needs some sort of special training or education or understanding. It doesn't. Education only requires normal functioning parents who care and have the time to do the job. Period, end of story.
First, you attack
So sayeth Wilda, Queen of the Ad Hominem.
Actually, educated people like Jefferson, Madison, Hammilton, and Washington and others had plenty of support for their theories.
I never said they didn't. Try to keep up.
I said they didn't have citations for everything. Go ahead, show me where Jefferson provided a citation that all men are created equal. He even EXPLICITLY STATED that there was no citation necessary for this, because, as he put it, it was "self-evident."
Dearie, you just aren't in the same league.
The sad thing is that you're right. I am way ahead of you. :(
Now, the founders got their ideas from Plato, Aristole, Rousseau, Hobbes and others.
Oh, come off it. You were asking for STUDIES and CITATIONS, not philosophical agreement. If all you want is philosophical agreement from classics, that's easy. But it's not what you were asking for. But now that you've opened the door: You say: "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property. -- Frederic Bastiat
You said "Homeschooling is by default the best possible education a child can have...."
Even Brucie admits that there are some great secular schools as he puts it.
I never said or implied there weren't.
Maybe you should have taken some more classes in English.
Posted by: pudge on November 27, 2007 06:16 AMI freely admit I make typos, you have brain lapses and rant. You provide no support for your views other than you have them. Typical loon. Maybe you should have gotten more education. When it comes to attacks, that is all you. You rant, name call and then yell liar because you have no facts, have done no research and slectively quote. I remember one little discussion about passports where you left out an entire section.
When I posted the document in its entirety, you went off on a rant.
Oh, the quote goes like this,
Those that have the law on their side, argue the law. If they don't have the law, then
Those that have the facts on their side, argue the
facts, If they have neither, then
Those that have neither the law nor law, just argue and call others liar.
If you had any facts to support your arguments, you would have produced then because you are a
Type A hypercompetitive. You have no facts.
Because you are hypercompetitive and "chose" not to continue your formal education, you now have a disdain for learning and those who have continued with their education. A form of "little man syndrome."
You are a pathetic little mind with no support for your lame therories otherwise you could produce some researcher in agreement with you. Win any elections in Sno County? Oh well, the Paultards love you.
Notice that WVH resorts to belittling cutisms by calling us "Pudgie" and "Brucie?" More personal attacks.
She resorted to arguments from authority by claiming that her degrees were more advanced than ours, as if someone with a more advanced degree would always be right. Such a foolish argument!
She calls us Nazis and Jew haters and KKK types, using guilt by association, even though she does not know us at all.
Yet if we stick to the issues, she has nothing to say, other than to ask for references. Well, this is a political forum, not a social science research journal. "I don't got to show you no stinkin' citations!"
Pudge, your reasoning, especially @ 46 has cut off WVH's arms and legs. She is like the Black Knight in Monty Python. She still taunts us, though she hasn't a leg to stand on. All she has left is taunts.
"What are you going to do, bleed on me?"
So I say we "call it a draw." :)
Wow.
You attack me for not providing any support for views which, because I believe them to be essentially self-evident, NEED no support beyond very basic philosophical deduction (which I provided).
Then when I provide some support (that YOU demanded), you attack me for "selectively quoting." You ASKED me to do that, and then attacked me for it. And it is also precisely what YOU did, too: picking only research that supports your own view.
You then attack me for attacking and name-calling, when you have done far more of that than the rest of the people in here *combined.*
What you are doing is extremely dishonest. And I am not sure if you understand that. You are either a terribly dishonest person, or a terribly stupid one. Witness:
I remember one little discussion about passports where you left out an entire section.
Yes, where you thought that I was trying to hide something, when in fact what I left out had nothing -- either pro or con -- to do with my argument. Again, this shows quite clearly that you are either extremely dishonest, or extremely stupid.
If you had any facts to support your arguments ...
I need none. Just like Jefferson needed none to assert that all men are created equal. Anyone with a Ph.D. should understand the difference between philosophical assertion and factual assertion.
Because you are hypercompetitive and "chose" not to continue your formal education, you now have a disdain for learning
False. I have a problem with people who wasted their life getting an advanced degree and ending up just as ignorant as when they began. For me, the purpose of education is to grow and learn and become wise. And you didn't do that, and that's what bothers me.
I love talking to people who have really earned an advanced degree and are true experts in their subjects. You are not one of these people.
And it is just astonishing that after going off about people who "have no facts or the law" who resort to ad hominem, and your post is FULL of ad hominems. "little man syndrome," "Paultards love you," winning elections (which yes, we have, by the way, a whole bunch of them), those are all ad hominems. And your thing about "facts" is a straw man and a red herring.
And them's is facts.
Posted by: pudge on November 27, 2007 06:20 PMYeah, a draw. ;-)
Alright, I am in a St. Petersburg hotel right now for the debate tomorrow. Check me out on the 'Tube the next couple of days ...
Posted by: pudge on November 27, 2007 06:21 PM1. Now Brucie said:
"She resorted to arguments from authority by claiming that her degrees were more advanced than ours, as if someone with a more advanced degree would always be right. Such a foolish argument!"
a. at post 13 I said this:
"Until I get back, will masters candidate, Brucie state what facts he has about privitization of education in the K-12 sector? Is your masters on this? "
b. Pudgie dear said this a post 32
"That you do not understand these basic principles and yet hold a doctorate in the subject is troubling to me."
Pudgie dear is the one who mentioned the advanced degree. I simply asked Brucie a question.
2. Pudgie said:
"You attack me for not providing any support for views which, because I believe them to be essentially self-evident, NEED no support beyond very basic philosophical deduction (which I provided)."
Now, Pudgie your belief is simply your belief and since you are an idiot, your belief is not authority. I need to amend my assessment to add God complex in addition to Type A hypercompetitive. Now, Brucie either has or will take a research class. Brucie, tell Pudgie the definition of a recognized authority on a subject.
3. Now Pudgie said:
"Typical doctorate-holder rubbish: believing that no valid idea can exist without a citation. It's an extremely un-American idea"
Pudgie, who defines what is American or unAmerican for that matter, you? What do you base your opinion on?
4. Now Brucie said:
"She resorted to arguments from authority by claiming that her degrees were more advanced than ours, as if someone with a more advanced degree would always be right. Such a foolish argument!
She calls us Nazis and Jew haters and KKK types, using guilt by association, even though she does not know us at all."
a. I have on a prior thread asked Pudgie the following questions:
I am not a Christian Identity member, are you?
I have never associated with Nazis, KKK, and Aryan Nations types, have you?
Care to answer Pudgie?
b. I repeat the same questions that Medved and others are asking Paul/Chavez/Mugabe:
Do you receive money from Nazis, KKK, Aryan Nations and other groups of like kind? If so, will you give it back?
Do you have a 20 year history of association with Nazis, KKK, and Aryan Nation type groups? As a presidential candidate do you disavow their support?
I have asked those questions, I have not discussed your associations. Since Pudgie has never responded, I can't say anything about his associations, I haven't found any press about him. I haven't asked you the same questions Brucie, but I don't want to leave you out. Same questions I asked Pudgie.
After all, this little exchange is all about Paul/Chavez/Mugabe, isn't it?
Posted by: WVH on November 27, 2007 10:24 PMYou have not given one single example where I have lied. Feel free to call me a liar, but shouldn't you back that up?
When you do, I will answer your questions (the ones that have to do with me, that is). HAND HTH!
Posted by: pudge on November 28, 2007 04:38 AMThis just published American Thinker article details the tactics of Paul/Chavez/Mugabe supporters when challenged:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Now, Pudgie dear, I on this thread asked you specifically the following questions:
a. I have on a prior thread asked Pudgie the following questions:
I am not a Christian Identity member, are you?
I have never associated with Nazis, KKK, and Aryan Nations types, have you?
Care to answer Pudgie?
Posted by: WVH on November 28, 2007 09:35 AMOK, still waiting for one single example where I have lied!
I probably won't check back in today for your example, because I am going to be on CNN tonight for the debate, and I am busy getting ready for it.
Posted by: pudge on November 28, 2007 12:08 PMYou routinely call everyone who doesn't agree with you a liar. The instance of lying is saying that Paul/Chavez/Mugabe is not a bigot. Care to dispute the American Thinker article?
Interesting, you don't want to answer the questions. I suppose in this instance, the answer is obvious. You still are a big fat liar if you claim that Paul/Chavez/Mugabe is other than what is portrayed in the article. So, dearie, care to call me a liar again.
I believe in the debate process. Best wishes on your debate preparation. Hopefully, some one will get Paul/Chavez/Mugabe to address the Nazis, David Duke, and Identity movement issues.
Posted by: WVH on November 28, 2007 09:24 PMI disagree with Bruce a lot. Eric too. I don't believe I've ever called either of them a liar.
You are the bigot here. You are the race-baiter. You are the one demanding that I answer whether or not I am affiliated with racist groups, despite that there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that I have ever said or done a racist thing or been affilitated with any racist group.
You are, once again, doing evil by demanding I answer such questions.
Posted by: pudge on November 29, 2007 08:58 PM