Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) I think that I know how the education system works. At least in New York and PA. Administrators are hired by the School Board. The School Board is elected by the community. If the community feels that the school is being run in a liberal matter, they are free to elect a conservative school board. That you think this would resolve the issue shows exactly how inaccurate your first sentence here is. Edited June 21, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 That you think this would resolve the issue shows exactly how inaccurtae your first sentence here is. OK guru. Explain away. The school board is ultimately responsible for the education that the students receive. If the setting is to liberal, why can't they change it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 OK guru. Explain away. The school board is ultimately responsible for the education that the students receive. If the setting is to liberal, why can't they change it? This appears to be way too complex to explain to you, but in an effort to keep it simple, why would you think that a society that has established itself as a self perpetuating establishment at its most basic & functional level be altered by the election of a very few individuals who operate predominantly outside the venue of that society? Especially when that society is run by relatively minimalistic capital infusion and has created a virtually impermeable monopolistic operating policy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 This appears to be way too complex to explain to you, but in an effort to keep it simple, why would you think that a society that has established itself as a self perpetuating establishment at its most basic & functional level be altered by the election of a very few individuals who operate predominantly outside the venue of that society? Especially when that society is run by relatively minimalistic capital infusion and has created a virtually impermeable monopolistic operating policy? yea.....what he said!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 This appears to be way too complex to explain to you, but in an effort to keep it simple, why would you think that a society that has established itself as a self perpetuating establishment at its most basic & functional level be altered by the election of a very few individuals who operate predominantly outside the venue of that society? Especially when that society is run by relatively minimalistic capital infusion and has created a virtually impermeable monopolistic operating policy? Wow. You really do have a condescending attitude. Why do you think that administrators are far to left leaning? For your tastes perhaps, but maybe they reflect the community within which they work. Are you saying that the school board has no control over who they hire as administrators and the policies that are instituted in their school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 yea.....what he said!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Wow. You really do have a condescending attitude. Why do you think that administrators are far to left leaning? For your tastes perhaps, but maybe they reflect the community within which they work. Are you saying that the school board has no control over who they hire as administrators and the policies that are instituted in their school? It's not condescending at all. It's a just a matter of understanding the way this syetem is set up and how it is virtually impossible to create enough inertia to make a significant change. Let's make it simpler - and again, this is not meant to be condescending in the least. Our capitalist society in this country has created a system of competition between companies that makes businesses the most efficient and effective that they can be within their respective environment. We have even used the government to ensure that the system maintains its competive nature and therefore ensures that the general public receives the maximum benefits of that competition. The free market in this country works for the overwhelmingly greater part and is a resounding success. Can we agree on that? That being the case, and given that I would presume that most people in the country consider education of children to be in the vital interest of the country, why is it virtually impossible to create any momentum at all for establishing that same competitive atmosphere in public education? Doesn't it make even the most basic sense that competition in public education would enhance the product? Then why doesn't our society simply vote to make the changes necessary to establish a competitve system in public education? Answer that one, and we'll expand into a larger discussion about the public education system as it exists in our country right now. Edited June 21, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Wow. You really do have a condescending attitude. Why do you think that administrators are far to left leaning? For your tastes perhaps, but maybe they reflect the community within which they work. Are you saying that the school board has no control over who they hire as administrators and the policies that are instituted in their school? i think what he's saying is not so much that the administrators themselves as individuals are left-leaning. he's saying the whole administrative bureaucracy itself is constructed atop a heap of left-leaning assumptions. you can't change that by plugging a few conservative individuals into positions within that bureaucracy. that is at least how i understand pony-boy's argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 i think what he's saying is not so much that the administrators themselves as individuals are left-leaning. he's saying the whole administrative bureaucracy itself is constructed atop a heap of left-leaning assumptions. you can't change that by plugging a few conservative individuals into positions within that bureaucracy. that is at least how i understand pony-boy's argument. Actually, those positions don't even function within the bureacracy, except at its very fringes. To expect intergral change from that situation is irrational. Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 It's not condescending at all. It's a just a matter of understanding the way this syetem is set up and how it is virtually impossible to create enough inertia to make a significant change. Let's make it simpler - and again, this is not meant to be condescending in the least. Our capitalist society in this country has created a system of competition between companies that makes businesses the most efficient and effective that they can be within their respective environment. We have even used the government to ensure that the system maintains its competive nature and therefore ensures that the general public receives the maximum benefits of that competition. The free market in this country works for the overwhelmingly greater part and is a resounding success. Can we agree on that? That being the case, and given that I would presume that most people in the country consider education of children to be in the vital interest of the country, why is it virtually impossible to create any momentum at all for establishing that same competitive atmosphere in public education? Doesn't it make even the most basic sense that competition in public education would enhance the product? Then why doesn't our society simply vote to make the changes necessary to establish a competitve system in public education? Answer that one, and we'll expand into a larger discussion about the public education system as it exists in our country right now. I have no issues with free market in this country. However, I see some issues with establishing a free for all in public education. The cost to construct a school that would accomodate a few thousand students over the grade levels is hugh. In order for a private company to repay that cost, they would need a contract with the local municipality to insure that they would have the required number of students for a long period of time. Otherwise, corporations wouldn't take the risk. If that is the case, have you really opened it up to competition? It's not like vendor services that can be bid every few years. So, considering the upfront cost to build a brick and mortar school, I'm not so sure that it makes sense to open it up to competition. Management of the school is another issue though, which may make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I have no issues with free market in this country. However, I see some issues with establishing a free for all in public education. The cost to construct a school that would accomodate a few thousand students over the grade levels is hugh. In order for a private company to repay that cost, they would need a contract with the local municipality to insure that they would have the required number of students for a long period of time. Otherwise, corporations wouldn't take the risk. If that is the case, have you really opened it up to competition? It's not like vendor services that can be bid every few years. So, considering the upfront cost to build a brick and mortar school, I'm not so sure that it makes sense to open it up to competition. Management of the school is another issue though, which may make sense. There's a fundamental misunderstanding right there. We aren't talking about creating a privately funded educational system to replace the existing system. We are talking about changing the existing system to create competition. It's actually pretty easy to do, relatively speaking, yet we can't get it done. Why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 i think what he's saying is not so much that the administrators themselves as individuals are left-leaning. he's saying the whole administrative bureaucracy itself is constructed atop a heap of left-leaning assumptions. you can't change that by plugging a few conservative individuals into positions within that bureaucracy. that is at least how i understand pony-boy's argument. His original post refered to "hard left thinking and acting admisitrators." So I took that as a reference to the individual. If he is talking about the system, that is a different discussion altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 There's a fundamental misunderstanding right there. We aren't talking about creating a privately funded educational system to replace the existing system. We are talking about changing the existing system to create competition. It's actually pretty easy to do, relatively speaking, yet we can't get it done. Why is that? We have two school districts that cover our entire county. How do we create competition in that setting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) We have two school districts that cover our entire county. How do we create competition in that setting? All you need is 2 districts, isn't it? Or on a more basic level, 2 schools. If one school offered a substantially greater benefit to students than another school to which students had been assigned because of geographical boundaries, do you think a significant number of parents would be willing to take responsibility for getting their children to the substantially better school despite the inconvenience? Especially if they knew the tax dollars assigned to their student would follow that student to the better school? Do you think that would compel the lesser school to improve itself because it was no longer being insulated from competition, thus inviting students to remain there, or even more desirable, attract students from without its geographical boundaries? It's basic free market principles. It's a proven system that works spectacularly. Yet it is rejected by the public education establishment outright - in fact, not only rejected but actively fought at every instance that people try to institute it. Why is that, exactly? Edited June 21, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 All you need is 2 districts, isn't it? Or on a more basic level, 2 schools. If one school offered a substantially greater benefit to students than another school to which students had been assigned because of geographical boundaries, do you think a significant number of parents would be willing to take responsibility for getting their children to the substantially better school despite the inconvenience? I'm not sure how many working parents could get their children to a school that is 30 miles awayEspecially if they knew the tax dollars assigned to their student would follow that student to the better school? Do you think that would compel the lesser school to improve itself because it was no longer being insulated from competition, thus inviting students to remain there, or even more desirable, attract students from without its geographical boundaries?So, do you bankrupt the lesser school district by taking tax dollars away when the students leave? If I have a 20 million dollar facitility, and half of the students leave for other districts (assuming that it was physically possible), the financial burden to those remaining is not realistic. It's basic free market principles. It's a proven system that works spectacularly. Yet it is rejected by the public education establishment outright - in fact, not only rejected but actively fought at every instance that people try to institute it. Why is that, exactly? Free market works great for selling products like soft drinks, where the choice is free, and suppliers can change their production capacity in response to demand. A school district can't accept large population swings from year to year and run effectively. Knowing people who work within the system, I agree that change is necessary. However, I don't think that free market is the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Free market works great for selling products like soft drinks, where the choice is free, and suppliers can change their production capacity in response to demand. A school district can't accept large population swings from year to year and run effectively. Knowing people who work within the system, I agree that change is necessary. However, I don't think that free market is the answer. A school district doesn't have to accept large population systems. It can ensure that it remains relatively stable (and full in regard to desireable teacher/student ratios and teacher/classroom ratios) simple by being at least as good, if not better, than its competition. That you dismiss a viable proven solution out-of-hand is part of the problem. The greater problem is that the current educational system refuses to even consider it as a viable solution with a very, very few exceptions, and actively fights it when the solution is proposed. Hard to blame the schools - it would make them accountable and disrupt their power base. Right now they control almost every facet of what should be a vital public ineterest. Unfortunately, our students (and consequently our society as a whole) just keep suffering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 A school district doesn't have to accept large population systems. It can ensure that it remains relatively stable (and full in regard to desireable teacher/student ratios and teacher/classroom ratios) simple by being at least as good, if not better, than its competition. That you dismiss a viable proven solution out-of-hand is part of the problem. The greater problem is that the current educational system refuses to even consider it as a viable solution with a very, very few exceptions, and actively fights it when the solution is proposed. Hard to blame the schools - it would make them accountable and disrupt their power base. Right now they control almost every facet of what should be a vital public ineterest. Unfortunately, our students (and consequently our society as a whole) just keep suffering... I am not dismissing this solution out-of-hand as you suggest. I am pointing out what I perceive to be issues with implementing your suggestion. If you went to a free market system, wouldn't all parents want to send their kid to the best district? If so, wouldn't that district see a large influx of students? If that district didn't have to accept the students that wanted to go there, are you really creating competition? In my situation, district A and district B serve the county. Say district A is better then district B. Parents in district B want to send their kids to district A. If district A says, "thanks, but there is no more room at the inn," there really isn't any competition at all. District B can still suck and see no change. If district A is running well, why would they want more students coming in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 If district A is running well, why would they want more students coming in? Ummm - more capital? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Ummm - more capital? What benefit does more capital bring to district A? Does it go in someone's pocket? I guess that you could use it to pay down the debt service of having to build a bigger school. But if those students left before you have it paid for, you're stuck holding the bag. We do work for several school districts. Expansion projects take years to plan and build. I don't see how you can allow for large enrollment shifts at will between districts. And if you can't shift between districts at will, is it really free market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 What benefit does more capital bring to district A? Does it go in someone's pocket? I guess that you could use it to pay down the debt service of having to build a bigger school. But if those students left before you have it paid for, you're stuck holding the bag. We do work for several school districts. Expansion projects take years to plan and build. I don't see how you can allow for large enrollment shifts at will between districts. And if you can't shift between districts at will, is it really free market? How does more capital help? Perhaps building more schools to accomodate more students, paying teachers better to improve its schools even further? Providing more & better services? There's a myriad of ways capital can be used in schools. We do engineering for schools. A school can be raised in a year. Contractors jump at the chance to be on school projects. Even if enrollment drops in a few years because the adjacent districts become more competitive, the properties become real assets and can be converted into capital, more probably with a return in investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) I am not dismissing this solution out-of-hand as you suggest. I am pointing out what I perceive to be issues with implementing your suggestion. If you went to a free market system, wouldn't all parents want to send their kid to the best district? If so, wouldn't that district see a large influx of students? If that district didn't have to accept the students that wanted to go there, are you really creating competition? In my situation, district A and district B serve the county. Say district A is better then district B. Parents in district B want to send their kids to district A. If district A says, "thanks, but there is no more room at the inn," there really isn't any competition at all. District B can still suck and see no change. If district A is running well, why would they want more students coming in? My situation is the same way. I live in the richest county in the state of Texas, Rockwall, which is also the smallest county, yet the city is divided into 2 segments. The Millionares of the south side and every one else. On the south side of town, computers are going in every classroom at the elementary school level, and new computers are replacing the ones now in the library and offices. . On the north side, the schools are getting the older computers from the south side Library, to finally have enough computers in this library for everyone to use during this class. And computers are not going into the classrooms on the north side at all. This is the same school board, and yet those with the most money, who are paying for campaigns, are greatly benefitted, while those on the north side, the majority, get the leftovers. Edit, This all seems to be coming to a halt at the next election, as unless it rigged, the complete school board will be dismissed by the majority and things will change. But its a process, and its showing how drastic a situation has to be, in order for the community to stand up and say enough is enough, and tell politicians etc.. to enjoy your time now, as your days are numbered. The mayor, will probably be clipped as well, as many councilmen, because they didnt stop this. . The majority of the community wants change, and they are determined to get it. Edited June 21, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 And thus we see the perpetuation of a large part of the problem -and not even from someone in the system itself. Everything is viewed in terms of "can't do" - not "can do". Despite all the evidence in our country to the contrary. If we keep perpetuating this monopolistic attitude on public education, there is little to no incentive for those reaping benefits from it to change. Hence, we won't see any meaningful improvement. That's been amply proven also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 My situation is the same way. I live in the richest county in the state of Texas, Rockwall, which is also the smallest county, yet the city is divided into 2 segments. Collin County is the richest county in Texas and is part of the richest 1% of counties in the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Looks like you are absolutely right. When I moved here back in 2002, It was the other way around, but the growth in Rockwall wasnt as many millionares, as the likes of families like mine. Even though we almost double the average median income for household in our county. Frisco and Willowbend probably tilt the scales for Collins Co, since 2002. Collin The median income for a household in the county was $70,835, and the median income for a family was $81,856. Males had a median income of $57,392 versus $36,604 for females. The per capita income for the county was $33,345. About 3.30% of families and 4.90% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5.10% of those under age 18 and 7.10% of those age 65 or over. Collin County is the richest county in Texas and is part of the richest 1% of counties in the United States. The county includes such wealthy neighborhoods as Starwood, Willow Bend, Stonebriar, Eldorado, Lakeside, Glen Eagles, Whiffletree, Stonebridge Ranch, Deerfield, Russell Creek, Shoal Creek, King's Cross, King's Ridge, Montgomery Farm, Twin Creeks, Preston Lakes, Chapel Creek, Craig Ranch, Ridgeview Ranch, Ridgeview Park, and Country Club Ridge. Rockwall The median income for a household in the county was $65,164, and the median income for a family was $71,448. Males had a median income of $49,636 versus $32,410 for females. The per capita income for the county was $28,573. About 3.80% of families and 4.70% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5.60% of those under age 18 and 4.10% of those age 65 or over. Rockwall County was ranked the third fastest-growing county in the nation by the US Census Bureau from 2000 to 2005, adding 19,870 people (a 46.1% change). Thanks for the heads up, as I will have to stop saying I live in the richest county in Texas now. Looks like these 2 are 1-2 in Texas, and both in the top 75 in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richest_count...e_United_States 23 Collin County, Texas $33,345 66 Rockwall County, Texas $28,573 Edited June 21, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Either way, change can be accomplished, but the community has to be aware of what is really going on, and want it changed. Otherwise, the rich get richer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.