[Todd D.]

Then you should be pro-Voucher system. It gives you the option to go to most any school, public or private.

A voucher program wil do nothing more than bring public school problems to private schools, since they would basically now be under federal regulation. What if you are a woman that get's a voucher and decides you want to go to an all-boys school since it's close? Heck, since you can afford it (through the voucher) you can claim discrimination. Sound ridiculous? You bet, but don't think that it wouldn't happen. Vouchers do nothing more than make private schools public, it will someone increase competetiveness, but it will also bring a lot of federal regulation to otherwise private industries, something that I think is the cause of, not sollution to, the original problem.[/quote]

As for what EnLight said, I agree, culture really has a huge impact on how people perceive education, especially in the public schools. It's one of the most powerful forces in any consumer decision, and it is damn near impossible to change. It's one of those things that economists look at and go "damn externalities".

Maxim, as for teachers, increasing accountability has always met opposition from Teacher's Unions, since it basically hurts their job security. However, by effecting their job security, it also offers them an incentive, albeit a negative one, to increasde their level of output into educating their students. Throwing money at public schools has been proven empircalyl to show no substantial increase in the real as well as perceived value of education. The only thing that can change that is increase in teaching quality (by raising accountability as well as competetiveness), and a change in the culture. I think that the former has the capacity to change the latter.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Maxim, as for teachers, increasing accountability has always met opposition from Teacher's Unions, since it basically hurts their job security. However, by effecting their job security, it also offers them an incentive, albeit a negative one, to increasde their level of output into educating their students. Throwing money at public schools has been proven empircalyl to show no substantial increase in the real as well as perceived value of education. The only thing that can change that is increase in teaching quality (by raising accountability as well as competetiveness), and a change in the culture. I think that the former has the capacity to change the latter.

1] Yes, I agree setting tests and standards for teachers will get opposition from the Teachers' unions. This means that if the government does try to up-the-ante in terms of standards, it is liable to be met with *less productive* teachers, and strikes etc. unless it does something to soften the deal.
2] What you are saying is that - making it harder to become a teacher, making it harder to stay a teacher, and not making it any more profitable to become a teacher will raise the level of teaching standards. I disagree. It will lower the incentives to become a teacher, lower the number of teachers, and produce many angry teachers.
3] You, as a good capitalist, should know that the way to raise competitiveness is to provide 'incentive' for competition. Incentive normally comes in the form of higher wages, or better perquisites.
4] Again, you employ the "throwing money at it" fallacy. Of course, 'throwing money at it' is not a solution. But for many problems - a whole range of problems - providing targetted and reasoned funding is what is needed.
5] So, a more conventional argument for teaching might be - raise the perks and pay of teachers, and at the same time raise the bar for current and future teachers. You will have more people wanting to do teaching for the increase in pay, you will have an opportunity to get past the unions and replace dud teachers, and by raising the pay of teachers you will raise the general 'prestige' value of being a teacher. This, in turn, will have an effect on the 'culture'. By putting further barriers in front of teachers, without increasing their remuneration, your plan will - if anything - have an opposite effect in terms both of teacher and morale outcomes.
6] There are, of course, reasons to adopt the 'throwing money at it' fallacy. Because *no-one*, least of all those without children, wants to spend more money on teachers. So, it makes political sense to suggest that all the profession needs is 'tweaking' - changing around the 'efficiency' of teachers. Tweaking without money, however, will never give you the results you need and is really a misleading and soft option.

[MrCackle]

Sure, clownboy. I agree. Being crippled from birth is probably a bigger encumberment than being born in a very poor country. A moot point, though.

No problem, in a roundabout way, I was trying to say that I don't think being born rich is all that great. NOT saying I was - we tar-papered our roof weekly in the winter. I've known more than a handful of born-to-wealth folks, at all different ages. They DO have an initial boost, but then, without exception, they've all struggled with life. I think overall, it evens out - at least opportunity-wise.

I'm excluding the Hilton ultra-rich (billions) set from this point because:
1) I've never even known someone who knows someone like this.
2) The .001% at both ends of the scale are beyond my understanding.

2) I shall quote a UN report titled "Kofi Annan's ASTONISHING Facts" of which numerous sites can be found by google search but my specific source is http://members.fortunecity.com/husom/Kofi.html

"The world's 225 richest individuals, of whom 60 are Americans with total assets of $311 billion, have a combined wealth of over $1 trillion -- equal to the annual income of the poorest 47 percent of the entire world's population. "

You can't seriously think that FORTY-SEVEN percent of the WORLD deserve to be SO poor that their COMBINED earnings equal that of the 225 richest people.

"Of the 4.4 billion people in developing countries, nearly three-fifths lack access to safe sewers, a third have no access to clean water, a quarter do not have adequate housing and a fifth have no access to modern health services of any kind. "

Now I don't see how if a person in this situation, who is, at the LEAST (one fifth) one of 880,000,000 could POSSIBLY work their way up to decent living.

"The richest fifth of the world's people consumes 86 percent of all goods and services while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent. Indeed, the richest fifth consumes 45 percent of all meat and fish, 58 percent of all energy used and 84 percent of all paper, has 74 percent of all telephone lines and owns 87 percent of all vehicles. "

I thought that this quote illustrated just the scope of the rewards for those who are born into a wealthy family whilst others are ruthlessly exploited for their benefit.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

A voucher program wil do nothing more than bring public school problems to private schools, since they would basically now be under federal regulation.

It's already come up in reguards to religious schools.

They weren't required to change to fit government standards.

Private means private. Vouchers are a way of taking your tax dollars back and spending them where you want.

[glinert]

Even socialist and communists would say no. By potential to be born wealthy, we can all be equal (we are not though). By intelligence and skills we not and can never be.

In terms of groups of people on whole. If you took groups of people from around world, all different nations, you would find they have same potential to be as succesful as eachother, but external factors prevent their potential from be reached.

Therefore, on average, all people equal.

[1skull2hands]

fuck the classes, I am for 1 class!

yes, we are all equal, race, color, religion, culture, whatever, we are all human beings and deserve peace love and unity, universalism is the future for mankind, beleive in mankind, and be kind, peace yall