Someone explain to me...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thanks for the help. I still don't get this guy's motive, unless he could really be that narrow mindedly stupid. Pre-rich, huh? In other words, people who think they're gonna make a lot of money and don't want to share that with anyone. In other words, "I believe schools should be private yes, but since we DON'T have vouchers, then it really isn't financially possible for me to go to a private school". In other words, hypocrisy.

Where do these fuckers come from? They MUST breed somewhere. Maybe Starbucks.

"Pre-rich" = I will be wealthy someday, so I don't want to fuck it up for the rich.

The means by which they will someday be wealthy are never made clear, however.

And Joe the Plumber is their mascot GOD. 

Fixed.  And he turned out to be a loser.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So I keep thinking about the libertarian mindset and why so many poor people seem to dislike government assistance.

They've been sold a bill of goods about the "rugged individualist" that never existed.

[Eater of Clowns]

Whenever I see debates like this I wonder why charter schools are never part of the discussion.  They're public schools that take their own directions in the education of their students.  New Orleans, home to one of the worst school systems in the country even pre-Katrina, is becoming a beacon for charter school movement, attracting a lot of education reformers as a place to rethink how it's done.

As for special education, what I find the most interesting is how the laws were written in its regard.  While currently a great deal of funding goes to kids with special needs, it obviously only goes to a relatively small percentage of students and only the ones on the far low end of whatever measurements they're using.  The laws are written for students with special needs, though, which technically includes kids that are on the far high end of these measurements.  So there are a lot of students who are in classes that are the equivalent of putting an average student in special education classes.

Once again, I had a bunch of work to do before I could finish this thought completely so I'll end it here.

[Jenne]

Hm...not sure if what you said above fits the scenario I see played out here in CA, EofC.  You see, CA is now identifying more and MORE kids with IEPs so that they GET what they need in order to get through school.  This has repercussions of good and bad proportions, of course.  There's a serious encroachment on the General Fund (i.e. the kids WITHOUT IEPs), and this means that as resources dwindle for the general public population that relies upon public education as a system to not only rear and train their children but also to feed them, keep them safe and give them some tertiary form of health care, there's less and less to do so with in the way of resources, staff and financial wherewithal.

I don't see the federal mandate for special education doing anything other than making sure that kids with IEPs get a better deal in the end than the ones without, esp in CA.  You see, the kids with IEPs are tracked, the parents are better informed, and the teacher-to-student ratio is ALWAYS necessarily low.  I am not saying the kids with IEPs don't deserve or shouldn't GET this treatment--on the contrary, I'm very grateful for it for I have a dear little niece who's used it to good measure and will have a great education ahead of her because of it.  Not to mention the fact that this is what I think society should do--protect and support the weak so that they are given every chance to keep on keepin' on.

On the other hand, as to the measurements, this is something I sat in on a seminar for last year, and I have to say they are quite complete and have been revised multiple times for the current state of health affairs.  Doctors and teachers (not to mention school administrators and nurses) are much better at identifying the children who need this classification, and so there are now more and more of them.  Instead of sidelining a child as "difficult" or "has a discipline problem," they now give them a diagnosis and a plan to move forward.  This is great, as there are less throw away cases than there were when I was younger.  Kids with health issues are no longer pitched into the forever--to-be-ditch-digger category, and it's not just the kids with wealthy parents who'll actually go somewhere and do something other than sit drooling in an institution where they drug them into vegetative states.

The problem of course is that this makes it more difficult for those who are not part of the IEP system to get any sort of anything that doesn't involve great sacrifice on the part of the students, the staff, the district, etc. (depending on who you talk to, it's a matter of degree who actually sacrifices the most--I'd wager it's the ones who are too low-performing to get the accolade but not low-perfoming enough to engender an investigation and therefore slip silently into lower mediocrity that get the worst of it).

Anyway...this is sort of a bailiwick of mine...so I apologize if I went off.

[Eater of Clowns]

Jenne, are you saying that in California kids who achieve on the high end of the spectrum are also given IEPs?  Because my post was to convey that special needs legislation is written to include "gifted" kids as well as "underperforming" kids (or whatever the terms are).  We all tend to associate the term special needs with kids who are on the low end of the spectrum but really a high performing student has special needs as much as a low performing one.  In trying to e-prime the ever loving shit out of my post I think I lost that point.  Also, I didn't want to use percentages that were dated two years ago when I first heard them so I didn't explicitly say that a HUGE amount of education funding is spent on a special needs students, which as I said tends to mean low performing ones.  That does mean they'll get better tracking, more teacher attention and correspondence, etc.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also:  schools are at least a place where a kid who doesn't get fed or get medical care at home can get some.  Ask a school nurse in urban schools about this someday.  It's pretty mind-blowing...

^This. My mother teaches in a very poor school and I hear all sorts of things. Like access to psychologist. I've heard some horror stories about what her kids have seen at home and at least this way they have someone to talk to about it (one kid she has this year saw a man shot in the head--he said the resulting mess looked like a broken egg). Plus, teachers are required to call child services if they suspect abuse which isn't something they get if it weren't for public schooling.


In addition to a distinct lack of compassion, I'll add that I've noticed in libertarians the idea that "if you're poor, it's your fault." They don't seem to take circumstances into account.

Irony being:  a lot of THEM are not too well off either.  That kind of shit always amazes me.

I think they believe that they would be wildly successful under a Libertarian system, not realizing that if they cannot be successful now, an economic environment that protects them less is not going to help them attain riches.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"

Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.

Right, because that's why its illegal... not for revenue purposes, no not never.

That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"

Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.

I believe that people should have a legal right to make or grow whatever they damn well want to make or grow, and consume it as they please, provided it doesn't pose a pubic hazard (distillery explosions, meth labs etc) because whether they get it right or poison themselves should be to them.

They should have to be inspected and licensed in order to SELL it, though.

100% Troof

Oh, yeah, I can agree with that.

Pfffft, just cause she is hot and I am not.

I grok your ways, old man.

I would like to believe, both to his credit and to mine, that it's because I clearly and concisely stated a logical argument.

[Kai]

kai is you libertarian friend arguing for vouchers or all out privatization?

I wouldn't consider him my friend since he openly hates socialists and I'm pretty open about my socialist leanings (use the transitive property). He WANTS all out privitization, but apparently would take vouchers if they were available. I can't recall the number of times he said he would close all the public schools if he was president.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So I keep thinking about the libertarian mindset and why so many poor people seem to dislike government assistance.

And then it hit me... I think they may be like the paraplegic that refuses help to get into his wheelchair, even if he falls headfirst into the toilet trying to do it himself. Pride, insane pride... I DON'T NEED THE POOR DON'T NEED A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT.

I'm a little bit like that... I'm dragging my feet at applying for food stamps, partly out of pride and partly out of a fear of humiliation.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Jenne, are you saying that in California kids who achieve on the high end of the spectrum are also given IEPs?  Because my post was to convey that special needs legislation is written to include "gifted" kids as well as "underperforming" kids (or whatever the terms are).  We all tend to associate the term special needs with kids who are on the low end of the spectrum but really a high performing student has special needs as much as a low performing one.  In trying to e-prime the ever loving shit out of my post I think I lost that point.  Also, I didn't want to use percentages that were dated two years ago when I first heard them so I didn't explicitly say that a HUGE amount of education funding is spent on a special needs students, which as I said tends to mean low performing ones.  That does mean they'll get better tracking, more teacher attention and correspondence, etc.

Well, one thing for sure is that in Oregon, TAG is unfunded and highly intelligent children are definitely not considered "special needs" for funding purposes. Charter school question raises a good point, my understanding is that they're funded the same as any other school but are able to set a different curriculum. The charter school that my kids go to has a specialized staff and a strong focus on individualism and student-led education, with a curriculum completely different from PPS standard, but they're struggling financially just like the regular neighborhood school.

[Jenne]

Jenne, are you saying that in California kids who achieve on the high end of the spectrum are also given IEPs?  Because my post was to convey that special needs legislation is written to include "gifted" kids as well as "underperforming" kids (or whatever the terms are).  We all tend to associate the term special needs with kids who are on the low end of the spectrum but really a high performing student has special needs as much as a low performing one.  In trying to e-prime the ever loving shit out of my post I think I lost that point.  Also, I didn't want to use percentages that were dated two years ago when I first heard them so I didn't explicitly say that a HUGE amount of education funding is spent on a special needs students, which as I said tends to mean low performing ones.  That does mean they'll get better tracking, more teacher attention and correspondence, etc.

Charter schools here don't end up helping anything but those children who are lucky enough to go there.  The system here is too closed to fix anything longer term for a larger group of people.  In the end, they are publicly-funded, smaller-populated schools that can still syphon off resources from the general fund creating a hole with no filler for those that cannot join in.

As for the higher-performing students (c'mon, we're talking GATE and other higher-IQ'd kids here), no, they are given some benefit of extra-help (in my school district there's a GATE-mandate where all can take the test on recommendation of 1) teacher and 2) parent(s), and once they are "GATE-identified," they go on to get "special" treatment in class and they are invited to a volunteer class after school, once a week usually for an hour for about 6 mos out of the 9-month schoolyear--then they are put into a "homogeneous GATE" class that moves throughout jr. hi and hi school with them, setting up a cohort of the "good kids" who get high grades in the higher classes).

No, there's not enough resources for the higher-functioning/gifted and talented kids.  We are struggling with that even now, because the basics are all that the school districts want to pay for.  We're talking not even school supplies and copy machines now.  Our parents fund the copy machines in the school--the paper, the toner AND the contracts.  We outsource to a publication department in the school district to make our own copies.

So there you have it.  IEPs do protect the lower end of the school spectrum, but I'm not sorry for it.  I think that's actually a societal good that will go far.  I would rather make a child with mild autism someone who can lead a more fulfilling life than not.  But yes, of course, I'd rather broaden the whole spectrum and fulfill EVERY child's need to perform to the point where they get the best out of their education.  Eventually, hopefully, that vision can be realized.  In today's market, not so much...maybe in MY kids' lifetime?

Who the hell knows.

[fomenter]

kai is you libertarian friend arguing for vouchers or all out privatization?

I wouldn't consider him my friend since he openly hates socialists and I'm pretty open about my socialist leanings (use the transitive property). He WANTS all out privitization, but apparently would take vouchers if they were available. I can't recall the number of times he said he would close all the public schools if he was president.

your libertarian is a nutter... for the reasons given in this thread all out privatization is crazy

vouchers are an interesting idea... i would like to see it given a better/fair test, i have heard good things about the outcomes, i have also heard they got cut off everywhere they have been tried, and that because of it the good results may not be conclusive..

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Once, long ago, I was in favor of vouchers, but the more I thought about it and the bigger my pictureframe got, the more I started to realize that they utterly defeat the purpose of having a taxpayer-funded public school system. Yes, it's socialism, but the idea is that everyone pays in whether they have children in public school or not, in order to ensure a better educated and therefore healthier and wealthier society. If you start taking money out of that pool and feeding it into the private sector, you weaken or damage the system. The next step would be for people who do not have children to receive a tax credit, so that only people with children in public school are paying for public school. Clearly, at that point, public school would be prohibitively expensive for the poor, and it would not be feasible to mandate education. The public school infrastructure would be gutted, and privatization would be the only option.

What would America look like if children from working and lower-class families never went to school, I wonder? Certainly many would still learn to read and do arithmetic, but most would not surpass a fairly elementary level. The middle class would probably vanish completely. There would be an educated upper class and an ignorant laborer class, for the most part.

Public school has many failings... it's not a perfect system. We would all like to believe that we, left to our own devices, would be the ones who would come out on top. But who really wants to be among the wealthy in Detroit? What public school does is helps mitigate the effects of idiocy, incompetence, apathy, and laziness on the society that WE live. I know perfectly well that half the parents in my city wouldn't bother educating their brats, and then I'D have to live with the fallout. A socialized school system seems a small price to pay for not having to live in a borderline feudal society.

[fomenter]

since only limited trials have been done i will wander into pure speculation i have no idea if this is what the credit system would look like or if it would work.. i imagine the ones that were tested wouldn't end up looking this way at all ..

i see everyone paying in and everyone reviving the credit back, if you don't have kids, grand-kids, nephews, nieces to spend the credit on, you can donate it to a school you care about (poor neighborhood or alma mater) or pool it with other peoples unused credits and create scholarships and if you don't do that it goes back to the gov and they put it where they think it is most needed..

pure speculation whether it could work or not, public schools would compete with each other and private schools some would go out of business others might expand there are undoubtedly problems with it i don't see..  


every one needs to be educated  no new system or modification of what we have should be allowed to change that...

[Jenne]

Nigel's 169% right, though--whether or not you believe in a voucher system--the answer is always to provide free education to those who are ALIVE and can't afford or don't want otherwise.

I can give you a country my husband comes from where the price of education is a girl's life, and we do NOT want to be THAT place, now do we?  DO WE?

(short answer:  fuck no, never, nah.)