"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't know if that actually happens in history.
Nor do I care.
My experience with Australian History seem to involve many unsavory chapters in our nation's history, but it also involved sheer and utter boredom and indifference on my part.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
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.
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.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
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.
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).
As a former auditor of school districts, I can safely say teachers benefits and pay are the biggest expenses of a school district. Teachers pensions in this country run on a basis where it doesn't have to be completely funded, much like the Social Security system. The problem is that this is not reflected on the books of a school district, so when a district shows a pension liability of say $10mil, it's more than likely something more around the range of $20-30mil.
If school districts had to go to report this liability in full, and make sure the pension was 100% fully funded, every school district in the U.S. Public School system would be beyond bankrupt.
P.S. That's why the United States Postal Service is in so much trouble now when they had been fine for years... Bush put a law into effect where the pension for employees has to now be completely 100% fully funded.
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.
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).
Textbooks and educational material is another thing I generally found quite worthless at a high school level. Kids don't read them, and you don't need them to teach.
It was only in year 12 and at universities that I read textbooks seriously.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please actually read my post before you try and comment on it....
Read all of it, going to read it again if you want.
No need to. I read it as well. By looking at his conclusion you can see he is not well educated at all. The only thing that really bothers me how the americans hijacket the word "liberal". It have lost all its meaning now days. USA have the same problem with a lot of other things, including the amry and not the least health care.
I dont say I have the/a answer, but being ignorant is way worse. Having such strong opinions on subject you have no to little knowledge about is mostly just depressing. Just look at this thread. Almost no one have any idea what they are talking about. But then again, that is what you get for living in a democracy, and it is my biggest argument for having a free education for everyone, so that they can make the right choice now and in the future.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"? University? Medical/Law school? Graduate school? Art/Music school? Culinary school? What should and shouldn't be "free"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please actually read my post before you try and comment on it....
Read all of it, going to read it again if you want.
No need to. I read it as well. By looking at his conclusion you can see he is not well educated at all. The only thing that really bothers me how the americans hijacket the word "liberal". It have lost all its meaning now days. USA have the same problem with a lot of other things, including the amry and not the least health care.
I dont say I have the/a answer, but being ignorant is way worse. Having such strong opinions on subject you have no to little knowledge about is mostly just depressing. Just look at this thread. Almost no one have any idea what they are talking about. But then again, that is what you get for living in a democracy, and it is my biggest argument for having a free education for everyone, so that they can make the right choice now and in the future.
Debt and deficits... in fact, economics, in general.
Every member of the electorate is an armchair economist.
Education is ALMOST free here. Also our healthcare system is regarded as one of the best on the planet. Im glad that i live in a social democracy like that and not in the US(no offense)
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
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.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
Or the ones where teachers whip out some Howard Zinn and throw the assigned textbook in the garbage. AKA my high school.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"?
So true with the over-broad mention. Honestly, I think it should be paid for, but a person should still have to qualify to get into higher education. You can't just throw money around to those that don't deserve it. If you busted your ass to get in, then fine, but to pay for someone that doesn't give a shit and is just going to fail out their first year, they should be paying for it on their own.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"?
So true with the over-broad mention. Honestly, I think it should be paid for, but a person should still have to qualify to get into higher education. You can't just throw money around to those that don't deserve it. If you busted your ass to get in, then fine, but to pay for someone that doesn't give a shit and is just going to fail out their first year, they should be paying for it on their own.
Like everyone said for higher education subsidies should be based on merit.
I think education should be free. It is what separates people in society from eachother if education was free and had easier access I am pretty sure poverty and other issues might disappear. Of course this could be just wishful thinking and of course its just my opinion.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"? University? Medical/Law school? Graduate school? Art/Music school? Culinary school? What should and shouldn't be "free"?
It's not a problem, schools are already categorized. In Sweden, studying in medical school is obviously free, you're studying to become a doctor. Studying french at folkuniversitetet (as an adult because you think it's fun) costs money.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"? University? Medical/Law school? Graduate school? Art/Music school? Culinary school? What should and shouldn't be "free"?
It's not a problem, schools are already categorized. In Sweden, studying in medical school is obviously free, you're studying to become a doctor. Studying french at folkuniversitetet (as an adult because you think it's fun) costs money.
Then it's a question that should be addressed for each category, rather than the over-broad question "should education be free?". You should be asking the questions "should medical school be free?" or "should university be free?".
Phrasing the question in an over-broad way is, intentionally or otherwise, going to inject bias into the discussion based on peoples' interpretation of the question.
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.
The problem with America's education system is that we look to scores on standardized tests, and business as the overall determining educational factors. Since we pay, and treat K to 12 teachers like they were part of a prison chain gang in terms of our political and business views, the quality of education suffers greatly; also, political and religious (passing laws to limit the teaching of evolution in schools, for example) are influences exist that severly limit what a public, K to 12 education is in all actuality by setting the bar increasingly low, and generalizing/inculcating all of the students into lump sums based on ISTEP scores, thereby incentivizing schools to teach only to the test.
Not only are these all problems, but the huge costs of obtaining a college degree severly limits us as well. When people have to choose between putting bread on the table, or getting an education, they're going to choose the logical route. The problem is that employers treat a college degree with increasing scruntiny, and wages are exceedingly static. How are those people that cannot afford the costs, or don't choose to do so, going to be able to find jobs that are now asking for a college degree? State minimum wage is roughly 7 to 8.25 dollars an hour, and I really doubt you can carve out much of a life for yourself on it--especially if you want anything. As it stands, they'll have to incurr the costs as the system of employment and business in America both demands and asks for it. So it's all a frustrating situation that delegitmatizes the actual education in America for the profits of a few.
On March 14 2012 01:33 Zteel wrote: Education should definitely be free.
Look at it in this way: Free education will make the population smarter which in the end will create a better democracy as a larger part of the population will vote more intelligently.
The problem is that "should education be free" is over-broad.
Of course at some level, education should be free. The question is, as with healthcare, how much should be free? Where do you draw the line between "this level of education is necessary" and "this level of education is a luxury that should be paid out of someone's own pockets"? University? Medical/Law school? Graduate school? Art/Music school? Culinary school? What should and shouldn't be "free"?
It's not a problem, schools are already categorized. In Sweden, studying in medical school is obviously free, you're studying to become a doctor. Studying french at folkuniversitetet (as an adult because you think it's fun) costs money.
Then it's a question that should be addressed for each category, rather than the over-broad question "should education be free?". You should be asking the questions "should medical school be free?" or "should university be free?".
Phrasing the question in an over-broad way is, intentionally or otherwise, going to inject bias into the discussion based on peoples' interpretation of the question.
I don't know, I think it's pretty obvious what is meant with a general question, it's obviously education for careers since it's about people affording it. It wouldn't really be an interesting discussion if you included luxury hobby schools.
In Sweden we get PAID to go to college. we get like 400$ monthly just to go to college. And people in Sweden complain that sum is to low because you can't afford apartment/food with it.
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.
The problem with America's education system is that we look to scores on standardized tests, and business as the overall determining educational factors. Since we pay, and treat K to 12 teachers like they were part of a prison chain gang in terms of our political and business views, the quality of education suffers greatly; also, political and religious (passing laws to limit the teaching of evolution in schools, for example) are influences exist that severly limit what a public, K to 12 education is in all actuality by setting the bar increasingly low, and generalizing/inculcating all of the students into lump sums based on ISTEP scores, thereby incentivizing schools to teach only to the test.
Not only are these all problems, but the huge costs of obtaining a college degree severly limits us as well. When people have to choose between putting bread on the table, or getting an education, they're going to choose the logical route. The problem is that employers treat a college degree with increasing scruntiny, and wages are exceedingly static. How are those people that cannot afford the costs, or don't choose to do so, going to be able to find jobs that are now asking for a college degree? State minimum wage is roughly 7 to 8.25 dollars an hour, and I really doubt you can carve out much of a life for yourself on it--especially if you want anything. As it stands, they'll have to incurr the costs as the system of employment and business in America both demands and asks for it. So it's all a frustrating situation that delegitmatizes the actual education in America for the profits of a few.
Doesn't every country use standardized tests?
The alternative is different tests for different schools, which can be rigged to be easier so that no fair comparison between scores can be made for university admission.
Teaching to the test isn't a problem in math here (it is for science though), since the last few parts of the final year 12 test generally ask quite creative questions, with requires some ingenuity to solve.