Non-tertiary/basic education should be free, or the cost close to negligible. I'm in the opinion if this is the case, hopefully every child will go to school. At a young age, children do not have the maturity to distinguish or appreciate the usefulness of education. So, parents/society/government should make that choice for them.
Should education be free? - Page 17
Forum Index > General Forum |
Do not derail the thread with discussions about other topics like global warming. | ||
vasculaR
Malaysia791 Posts
Non-tertiary/basic education should be free, or the cost close to negligible. I'm in the opinion if this is the case, hopefully every child will go to school. At a young age, children do not have the maturity to distinguish or appreciate the usefulness of education. So, parents/society/government should make that choice for them. | ||
liberal
1116 Posts
Here are some facts: The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math. Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency. How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary. http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09f33pub.pdf Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year. http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/05/_outrage_over.html Here is a NJ Commission investigation report which includes countless other examples of abuse: http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/SCIHigherEdReport.pdf New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids. Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode: Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant? Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated. And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money. If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it. Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it. | ||
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:09 Brosy wrote: Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here. For those saying Universities are overly expenses, there are tons of scholarships that you can apply for and FASFA is a huge help, I know without those plus an a scholarship from my university I could never afford to attend. I'm not saying university is as affordable as it could be, but university is a choice and part of that choice is figuring out how to pay to attend, and choosing a university based of what you can afford. edit for spelling The world changes. It's much much harder now to find a decent job without a good postsecondary education. | ||
TheKefka
Croatia11752 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:09 Brosy wrote: Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here. For those saying Universities are overly expenses, there are tons of scholarships that you can apply for and FASFA is a huge help, I know without those plus an a scholarship from my university I could never afford to attend. I'm not saying university is as affordable as it could be, but university is a choice and part of that choice is figuring out how to pay to attend, and choosing a university based of what you can afford. edit for spelling Well you see,the way we see it in some other country's is,the purpose of higher education is not only to land you the big bucks and save you from manual labor,but to help you find and give everyone the equal opportunity to find out and pursue whatever they feel like is the best profession for them. Oh and the job your dad got 20 years ago or whatever,he would never get today because the requirements for the same job are higher now than they were back than so its a pretty baseless argument. | ||
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:11 TanTzoR wrote: Studies have proven that, for instance, in a case of a disable child it will be by a huge margin the woman who will stay home to take care of their kid. Why? Mainly because the dad makes more money. Why would it be different for home schooling? Which is irrelevant because that is a familial matter. It is their business and their choice. What are you suggesting exactly? Should there be laws saying the man must stay home in such a situation? | ||
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
For most western countries I think around 1500-2000$ is a reasonable amount, you could easily earn that while studying if it's needed and doesn't mean to high of a barrier to stop people from going to education at all. Lowering it too much will just let too many go to study though and fool around, something that has happened in some countries already. | ||
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
I spend about $8000 CAD per term studying at U of Waterloo for tuition + food + housing + misc expenses. Thanks to our co-op program, I'll be graduating debt-free | ||
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On March 14 2012 00:28 meadbert wrote: "Investing" in college for the student only pays back fantastic returns if the student would not have gone to college without the government paying for it. In most cases the student would have still gone. It is true that high income taxes discourage education, because increasing one's income. If this becomes a significant problem, it will not be unique to education but will affect all kinds of investment. The solution to this problem is to lower the income tax. Making investment in educational capital subsidized while heavily taxing traditional capital you create a system that provides great rewards to the intelligent at everyone else's expense. Except that it's not a zero sum system and enabling and benefiting the intellectuals to do what they do best will benefit everyone in society. It's all very logical. I would rather have recruitment by merit than recruitment by money. | ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:08 TanTzoR wrote: When you get out of scientific subjects everything is ideology. The kid is impregnated by ideology at home as well. The only thing you can do about it is provide him with critical thinking. Last I checked, politics wasn't a high school subject. | ||
saynomore
Norway149 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:01 Freddybear wrote: It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology. I had a hard time understanding what he really was trying to say with his speach as well. There are no easy answers and he does not give any either. Those who say free education is bad, are completely wrong. Studies and history have shown that more education is a very good thing for the society as a whole. It is almost exclusively a positive thing. After all everyhing should be free, but that is a utopia. But how to finance it is a completely different matter. Giving black and white answers and views like the most post I have seen in this thread. This is not how the world works. Milton Friedman was a smart man, but if I remember correctly, his economic views have shown its faults as well. But at least we could try to give others a chance instead of pushing others down for your own good. | ||
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:09 Brosy wrote: Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here. if more people would think like you then there wouldnt be an autoplant. | ||
Googity
United States127 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:09 Brosy wrote: Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here. For those saying Universities are overly expenses, there are tons of scholarships that you can apply for and FASFA is a huge help, I know without those plus an a scholarship from my university I could never afford to attend. I'm not saying university is as affordable as it could be, but university is a choice and part of that choice is figuring out how to pay to attend, and choosing a university based of what you can afford. edit for spelling When did your dad start his career at this auto-plant? Times have changed, and if you were interviewing for that position today, I can almost garauntee a degree would be required. Almost any non minimum wage job requires one now. And yes, you can apply for FAFSA, scholarships, and whatever else you need... but guess what? FAFSA is made up mainly of loans... it's not free money my friend, and you are going to be severely in debt upon graduation. Pell Grant funding has been slashed by massive amounts the past few years. My main loan is a Federal Ford Direct Loan... current balance on the principle is right around $21k. And that's just one of 3 I'm still paying off. Scholarships do help, but unless you are incredibly lucky, the ones you get are only going to cover a grand or two of expenses and most scholarships only apply to a single year. And why should someone be forced to go to a second rate school because of their family's income if they're qualified to go to the best? | ||
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: Here are some facts: The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math. Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency. How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary. http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09f33pub.pdf Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year. http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/05/_outrage_over.html Here is a NJ Commission investigation report which includes countless other examples of abuse: http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/SCIHigherEdReport.pdf New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids. Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode: Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant? Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated. And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money. If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it. Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it. Well in this case it's not a problem of education being free, it's free in Finland as well. It's an issue of a proper use of the money, that's it. You draw big conclusions of a simple matter. | ||
saynomore
Norway149 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:18 paralleluniverse wrote: Last I checked, politics wasn't a high school subject. Politicians decide what you need to be taught, and in public schools they decide on almost everything that you will be taught. His statement is true to a large extent. It is especially easy to see in the "history" class. Most of the "ugly" things about your own country is removed. Especially if you were the "winner" in the war. All the winners of WW2 have been quite good and effective on removing the uglier parts of their own history. Thats just how things work. | ||
Freddybear
United States126 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. | ||
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:23 TanTzoR wrote: Well in this case it's not a problem of education being free, it's free in Finland as well. It's an issue of a proper use of the money, that's it. You draw big conclusions of a simple matter. Please actually read my post before you try and comment on it.... | ||
TheKefka
Croatia11752 Posts
But hey whatever,I'm a guy from a country that was part of a socialist system not too long ago so I may have a twisted point of view. | ||
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: Here are some facts: The US is among the highest spenders in childhood education per pupil in the developed world, and is the highest spender in higher education per pupil. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm What do we get for that spending? Poor results. In a recent PISA test for math proficiency, which normalizes to 500, the US scored a 474, ranking below 24 other nations, some of them less developed, such as Slovak Republic, and Hungary. The governments own testing through the Department of Education, the National Assessment of Education Progress, shows only 35 percent of high school students scored proficient in reading, and only 23 percent scored proficient in math. Let's take a look at the state which was number 1 in per pupil spending: New Jersey. Only 39% of 8th graders scored proficient in reading. Math, 40%. They spend more than any other state, and yet can't reach 50% student proficiency. How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary. http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09f33pub.pdf Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year. http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/05/_outrage_over.html Here is a NJ Commission investigation report which includes countless other examples of abuse: http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/SCIHigherEdReport.pdf New Jersey has 15 times the number of administrators compared with Maryland, which is also a small state with high population density. That alone should prove that the state is in the business of paying administrators and union jobs, not educating kids. Ok, now I'm jumping into editorializing mode: Why do I bring all these facts and numbers up? Why are thy relevant? Because they illustrate that the problem is not financial, and never has been. We could throw countless billions at education, we could provide more free education than any nation on Earth, that doesn't mean the students will actually be more educated. And the reason for that is because government monopolies do not adhere to the same principles and incentives as a market. There is immense fraud, waste, abuse, and absurd union contracts. There is no accountability, neither to the public who are consuming their product, nor to the government which is paying for their product. There is no incentive to cut costs, in fact the incentive is typically to raise costs, because any reduction in spending is met with a potential reduction in next year's budget. There is no competition, because parents do not have a choice of the public school they can send their child to, and besides, they are all run under the same system anyway. Their largest financial incentive is to invest in convincing the public that the schools need more money. If I gave you $436,096 per year and 18 students, you are telling me you couldn't get over half of them to know reading and math at a proficient level? Most of us could, quite easily. In fact, most of us would be GLAD to receive such pay for such a job. But public education is a government run monopoly. Everyone who is saying education should be free: I agree with you. That just means the government should be PAYING for it, not RUNNING it. Here is the solution: Take the money away from the schools and administrators, give that money to the parents. Give the parents the option of where to send their child and their money. If you still want government run schools to exist, fine, but give parents the CHOICE. Accountability, competition, choice... That's better than a union cartel dictating policy and funding to the consumers they are supposed to be serving, and returning less then mediocre results for above average funding. That is hands down the best way to improve education in America, and people have been saying it for decades. The unions have spent millions to prevent it. I'm not sure how the public school administration system works in the US. When it comes to schools (universities are different), I completely agree that throwing money at the problem is quite pointless. In Australia, there's recently been a report asking for 5 billion in funding public schools. To teach kids, you don't need gimmicks like smart boards, school halls, a iPad for every student, or anything else that money can be thrown at. All you need is a blackboard, and a teacher that know what the fuck he or she is doing. It seriously can't be that expensive to hire competent teachers and have a blackboard in every classroom, can it? About universities, you might say America's education system is crap, but America has by far the best universities in the world, no other country is even remotely close. | ||
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:26 liberal wrote: Please actually read my post before you try and comment on it.... Read all of it, going to read it again if you want. | ||
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary. http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09f33pub.pdf Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year. Interesting statistics but as far as this "waste" goes, there are more expenses than the teacher's personal salary. You have 1. Rent for, and maintainance of, the property in which you teach. 2. Administrative personell (which should probably be around another 50k$ per classroom) 3. Cleaning staff, also salary for any fulltime maintainance worker, on a big school this might be several people. 4. Books, educational material, nowadays, computers and technical equipment. Also lab equipment, protection. 5. Extra expenses. (Perhaps you need to make sure you follow a certain standard or code set up by the state, requiring you to hire an expensive consultant. Or fix vandalism to a number of lockers. Etc) Obviously this is a lot more than the estimated 55k$ per teacher. At least try to be honest when presenting problems such as this one. I'm sure there are a lot of problems and a 740k$ severance package is obviously unacceptable. A year's pay might have been more in line (rather than just over 6 year's pay). | ||
| ||