I was going to say Finland - then I googled it...................

http://uk.businessinsider.com/wef-ranking-of-best-school-systems-in-the-world-2016-2016-11/#1-finland-67-11


the majority of these are publicly funded systems - even in Qatar where for the most part employers contribute to fee's for staff, and the employer's received their reimbursement from the state

Population of about 5.5 million. I wonder if that is easier than running a school program for 330,000,000 would be easier, more efficient or just the opposite?

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

If you pull your kids out the likelyhood is that expenses per pupil increase - do you understand overheads?

the size of the school can not be reduced in half simply because half the pupils leave, it can not be left un-maintained and in terms of what happens to the balance of kids - shools that are currently marginal but have a sub-set of parents that if given the option of a voucher and who chose to use it would see a decrease in the number of kids who receive support at home, attainment would decrease, good teachers when confronted with fewer reasons to be optimistic about the kids that remain would seek other opportunities.

Your responses here seem to be; I want a voucher for the cost of my kid and I'll subsidise it to send them to somewhere of my choice and broadly - I'm reading between the lines - you could not give a monkeys about the residual impact

here's the thing though - vouchers if they have a fixed value, will become less and less valuable unless schools are also limited by how much they can increase fee's.

Successful schools where demand far outstrips supply - we have schools where their are hundreds of applicants per place - have two ways of managing the demand - increasing their size and possibly diluting their offering or hiking fee's.

School's are not agile businesses so they can not expand and contract in response to annual demand based on results so the best way to manage it is to increase fee's.

The best school's increase in fee's outpace inflation elsewhere in the world and are still massively overly subscribed

do you want the government to limit the extent to which private schools can increase fee's on an annual basis?

my local schools - the private ones - there are 4 within a mile or so of my house - fee's start at approximately 45k / year excluding uniforms, activities, food, we also have new "free schools" which are essentially the application of a voucher system where you can choose to remove your kid from a public school and send them to these newly established "semi-private" school's.

the consequences of the alternative schools being established and parents being given the option to opt out of public and remove the funds with them is the medium and long term sustainability of the schools left behind. If you are worried about your local community, then perhaps that would be a concern, if, on the other hand you couldn't give a shit about it, then its neither here nor there.

look - you asked, I provided an answer knowing full well that whatever it was there would be a problem with it.

I've absolutely no issue with Private Schools OR Public Schools, and in fact at a policy level, there should be no difference between setting a national curriculum for 500k and 100m if the fundamentals are reading, writing and arithmetic.

I have as much skepticism as the next about bureacrats or technocrats but the issue with setting a national policy direction is that you need to have EITHER a solid grasp of the brief and the subject matter at hand OR a demonstrated willingness to seek out advice and to use the best evidenced based knowledge to underpin the direction of travel.

Now I may have misunderstood here background - but I am pretty certain that she does not have a background in education or a solid grasp of the brief and her professional background is investing in quackery (brain performance centers)

I'm not worried that on a day to day basis her views on education are going to filter in to a classroom and teachers are going to move away in the short term from focusing on fundamentals, but there are questions as to whether, in the absence of a solid understanding of education systems and policy decisions, that we are left with someone who is a heavy investor in a business that is supported by no clinical research - snake oil saleman and I am not sure that that is the sort of person you want making "informed" (or not) decisions on something like education

I paid tax for 26 years before I had kids and resent that
I resent subsidizing kids seats on aeroplanes
I resent paying road tax when I walk
I, most of all, resent paying property taxes for services I NEVER use
I resent subsidizing public healthcare - if they get sick - fuck em if they can not afford it
I really resent people getting social and welfare payments because I will never need them WTF should I pay for someone else to receive money just because they could not save enough.........

Can you see how that might not be a strong argument?

Can you also see that if you do not want your kids to go to a crappy school - move OR pay for them to go somewhere else

Do you think that if the school is doing a good job that 10, 20 or 50% of the kids would leave? Do you think it is fair to the kids to keep them in a failing school? My wife and I chose where we live based upon the schools. Luckily we have the means to make that choice. Seems like the voucher system will allow everyone to make that choice of sending their child to a good school. And yes, the bad ones will probably suffer the most. And maybe even close. Not necessarily a bad outcome.

Ummm, the bottom line is... you don't know. So let's stick to the facts.

So what you are really saying is you want poor kids to stay in poor schools.

Public education in the United States is hit and miss. There are literally thousands of horrible schools in major cities in which lower income kids are stuck with bad teachers, bad administration and they are around kids who don't want to be there. If I am a good student in one of these schools, but too poor to afford to transfer or go to a private school my future is not very bright. I guess in liberals/Democratic party member minds that's ok. Why? Simple, the teachers unions rule those bad schools and the Democratic Party is, and has been tied at the hip with the union(s) forever.

Logic would dictate you do the right thing for kids, logic is no longer evident in the new Democratic Party.

no - where does it say that - I think what I have said through the responses is that the voucher does not solve the underlying problems in the school - choice is only really available to those who can subsidise it, poor kids still get left behind in shit schools

and if you seriously think your voucher would keep pace with the increase in fee's that popular schools would command I suspect that you'd be in for a shock

as to the "liberal mindset" or whatever the fuck you think you're implying. in the UK for more than 5 years there has been an experiment running at medical schools where depending on your zip code, the minimum grades for admission are differentiated. kids from shit back grounds in shit schools get preferential acceptance criteria

at the end of the first year of medical school they test no differently from anyone else

the "right thing for the kids" is not to leave the kids with no options in shit schools that get worse and worse whilst there is flight by those that can afford other options

what you are proposing and running mom is looking after yourself (your kids) and there is nothing wrong with that - but do not pretend you are being all altruistic and "doing it for the kids" you are doing it for "your own" - not the wider good

As to the "liberal mindset" or whatever the fuck you think you're implying. in the UK for more than 5 years there has been an experiment running at medical schools where depending on your zip code, the minimum grades for admission are differentiated. kids from shit back grounds in shit schools get preferential acceptance criteria


But, but, but liberals are all bad...and they hate kids...

This is a decent argument for the voucher system. It is mostly bullshit, because for you to act like you care (not applying this to you personally) about what happens in inner city school is nonsense. The reason MOST people are for vouchers was articulated quite clearly by runningmom: it would personally benefit her to get a stipend to pay for something she can already afford.

So as a compromise: I think a means tested voucher system for kids zone to poorly performing schools should be considered. What do you think?

You are suggesting that it is a fact that DeVos was only appointed because Dems stalled the Sessions appointment? Ok, got it.

If this brings joy to you, I certainly don't want to deprive you of it...

I'm going to through my 0.02c in - not that I was asked

education for those that have little to no means to ever have any options other than that which is publicly available is a social responsibility - in that context, if you choose to spend above and beyond that, knock yourself out but the responsibility to help those that can not help themselves does not disappear with the removal of your kid from the same system

in the UK - when I attended university, financial support was means tested - my parents had means, I got fuck all

what they did not get was a rebate for the taxes paid in to the system to pay for other peoples kids to go to Uni.....

I've no problem with the arguments posted, but I'd rather people were honest and said it was for their self interest not the better educational attainment of the nation as whole that drove their argument, than they do not want poor kids in shit schools to stay in shit schools - which is just horseshit..........they just want to save a buck and get transfers to pay private school fee's and fuck the wider good.............

on a subset of policy issues I'm less libertarian and more liberal

 There is to much hysteria over the reality of the situation. Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 92 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources. The Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 8 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program. Betsy Devos will have a very limited effect ( good or bad ) on education. She's just the Unions boogie man to rally against because she is not a union supporter and may manage to reduce the sway of the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers by giving more power to the nation’s parents, and to school innovators who refuse to toe the union line

Exactly.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Oh, I'll be the first to say that I would rather get my own before I blow money on a group that doesn't want to help themselves, so why should I. Convince me that things are working. Watch the 4 season of the Wire and tell me that inner city schools aren't just a waiting room for future teenage single parents and criminals. What is the metric of success? Keeping them from getting pregnant or out of jail until the are 17 instead of 14. Keeping them in school until 18 despite only having a 2nd grade reading level. You should read about the DC school system. More spent per student than any other system when I lived in the area back in the early 2000s. A total waste in every imaginable way. Millions spent on physical plant where corruption and incompetence left unfinished buildings, brand new computers unopened in leaking warehouses, drug dealing teachers, almost as many administrators as teacher, but a massive drop out rate. Eventually after I left, they brought in some lady named Rhee, whose name was floated for education under trump recently, and the resistance she ran into trying fire dangerous or incompetent teachers was incredible. She was fired and replace by the status quo. At the end of the day, DOE or not, public education or not, the same people are going to be getting an education as long as gov't and society decides we need an educated population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I though it was worth noting that they have about 1/7 the population we do. You say it's just as easy to educate 5 million as it is 300 million, I disagree with that. I think as a nation we would be better off leaving education up to the states and have the Federal government out of it. I think if you look at where we were ranked and the cost of education historically, we were better off before the Fed's stepped in and helped us out.

I have no opinion one way or the other on the nominee for DOeD.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

I did not say that. You did not reas what i said.

I said its as easy to create a curriculum. I did not discuss its implementation

Secondly, you are not educating 300m. Towns, cities and states are educating them. Its decentralised

Much less decentralized than it should be. Kind of hard to argue that the system benefits from decentralization when you're championing the federal Dept of Education.

If Finland can manage to educate it's kids so well, why can't New Jersey? Why is it necessary to have a federal agency involved, and what benefit does it and has it had?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't think I offered a view on the Federal Dept of Education - I only offered a view on the policy of vouchers, and even then the comments were limited to; pointing out that no one was in favour of them because they are for the greater good but out of self interest AND that they do not benefit everyone, only those with the mobility to take advantage of them

As to the question you ask - which is why should a federal agency be involved - to the extent that it should MOST countries benefit from working to a standard curriculum and to a specific examination level - IB, FB, GCSE, A-Level or something else. Usually that level of policy is done at a federal / national level to ensure a uniform standard.

why can NJ not educate its kids as well as Finland - perhaps, the reasons are wider than just education and that the US does not value the same things in the same way as other countries and a consequence of that is disparities in schooling and health and the level to which people are happy for the state to be involved (note, I'm not saying that other countries do not have disparities, they may just not be as wide)

Even those on the right - not the extreme right - but conservatives who in theory believe in small government in europe and other parts of the world accept a greater level of state involvement in decision making than their peers might in the US - its relative

I don't think I offered a view on the Federal Dept of Education

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but I'm under the impression that you've argued for a national educational system, whether it's Finland and its 5.5 million citizens, or the USA with its 330 million citizens.

pointing out that no one was in favour of them because they are for the greater good but out of self interest

Opining that nobody is in favor of them because they're for the greater good. And discounting the legitimate of self interest when it comes to the education of one's own child or children, in the bargain. You might not be so quick to sneer at self interest if you had kids in a poor public school system and couldn't afford to pay for private school.

to the extent that it should MOST countries benefit from working to a standard curriculum and to a specific examination level - IB, FB, GCSE, A-Level or something else. Usually that level of policy is done at a federal / national level to ensure a uniform standard.

Says who? Again, what benefit does federal involvement offer?



why can NJ not educate its kids as well as Finland - perhaps, the reasons are wider than just education and that the US does not value the same things in the same way as other countries

I see. So New Jersey just does not value the same things as Finland does, which results in New Jersey not being trusted to educate the children in that state . . . but for some reason, you think that the federal government does value the same things as Finland, and therefore should exert control over how New Jersey educates its children. Because obviously Finland and the US government share the same values, and those values are superior to New Jersey's values, I suppose.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I said someone needs to lay down a curriculum - its easier at a national level - if another country is successfully doing it at a more local level - show me

I'm not sneering - I'm pointing out that don't say vouchers benefit all - they benefit those that have mobility, those that can subsidise them - they do not benefit kids stuck in schools where there are no reasonable alternatives due to a lack of mobility and finance. I'm not sneering at self interest - I don't care if thats your motivation, just don't dress it up as something its not.

its pretty clear that the US does not place the same value on the extent to which they want the government involved in specific aspects of their lives - its more than self evident in healthcare, education - you want more things devolved to a local level. I couldn't genuinely give two fucks if rural X wants to teach creationism - I think its beyond idiotic but if thats what you want to do, knock yourself out......

Your reading comprehension isn't that strong is it. What do you mean "Says who"? The standards in those countries are a matter of fact - not an opinion. Its obvious that the International Bac, the French Bac, A-Levels, GCSE's are core standards laid down at central government levels in; UK (other countries may adapt their own international Bac), France, UK, India etc they're not made up by the local school districts and the examiners for those core standards are audited - in the UK / France etc by national departments for education - or their designee's.

Obviously if the US had a education system that was comparable to Finlands, Germanys, Korea's or any other successful countries (you can choose how to define success) people would not still be having a debate about how to improve it or simply get it to a comparable level.

Perhaps NJ does place as much value on education, but then IF they did and IT was the focus of a concerted effort to change it MAYBE it would have changed?

maybe the root cause of all this is something other than how they value education? Maybe it is all the federal governments fault, maybe you could demonstrate how the federal government is responsible for the failure of schools on the south side of chicago and the direct relationship between government policy and kids failing in school?

You are arguing / or suggesting that I'm a supporter of a national education system - I'm in favor of a standard curriculum - why do you thing the values of the federal government are different from those of NJ? you don't think their aims are the same?

Kind of hard to argue that the system benefits from decentralization when you're championing the federal Dept of Education.

thats not contradictory - government policy can be set centrally and implemented locally - its not difficult to understand. You can have national environmental targets which are monitored by local offices - its not someone from central government going out and collecting data


Similarly - a government can set an national curriculum, they can even set educational standards (god forbid) and they may even choose to monitor performance against that BUT they are not going out and working in schools teaching it............you can see the distinction between setting policy and implementing policy correct?

It would certainly be nice if it would help us. Tuition at our school times 3 is crippling, but I value education and the local public school, while well rated, was not able to do a good job. Because they have zero incentive to keep kids in house- they seem to have adopted a "my way or the highway" approach and an "if you don't like it, leave" attitude. A voucher system could motivate a shift in attitude. But I am under no delusions. I would likely be ineligible for a voucher program. Voucher programs tend to be means tested, and limited to kids in poor performing districts.

http://www.npr.org/...ol-choice-might-work

I think there is a more general problem with primary and secondary education which has been tackled in various ways in various parts of the world with varying degrees of success

the germans have both a strong academic and technical schooling program for kids of high school age

the french offer a broad ranging education to 18

the british specialise from 16 and start medical school at 18 - as an example - there is no requirement for pre-med as you've covered only 3/4 subjects from 16 to 18 rather than a broad curriculum

the finns have developed a system that maintains the smallest gap between those of the greatest and least ability - though what is unclear is whether the ones with the greatest ability are as far ahead as they would be if they were all cohorted together

the problem with vouchers is the undermining of the system - and I agree if you maintain the status quo the school has no incentive to change, but if you make the school unsustainable a proportion of kids will actually be worse off than they currently are.

we have made a choice - at least for the foreseeable future - to leave London and whilst schooling at present would not be a huge issue - though I've friends with 5 and 7 year olds who are paying north of 40k / kid / year for private schooling - we'd not do that at the moment

high school if we stayed where we were for 2 kids in one of the good private schools would cost approximately 80-100k out of net income per year for 7 years excluding any inflation - thats not really sustainable for us either :) and as much as I value my kids, I value my vacations more and I am not sacrificing my quality of life for what in all likelyhood is a marginal gain in output from a private v's public education - so we're leaving to where school is good and free

I figure with 3 Masters between us, we may be able to provide some support at home