approves

Yes, and? Plenty of schools spend many times that to teach 30 kids how to throw a ball and hit each other.

ninjakirby: Yes, and? Plenty of schools spend many times that to teach 30 kids how to throw a ball and hit each other.

That.

And charter schools as a whole have been proven to have lower academic achievement scores.

How much is spent on football teams again?

Really, go price the cost of building, maintaining, running a high school football stadium, plus the cost of uniforms, equipment, and everything else that goes with it. No chance of doing that for under $8K per participant.

Schools should be for LEARNING, So yes this expense is rediculous, so is funding Stadiums for Football, Basketball or anything else.

If the Schools can fund these activities through donations, ticket sales, or other NON TAXPAYER funding sources I have no problem with them but NO MONEY should be spend on schools that is not directly relegated to education. PERIOD.

So that brings us to a circle, because I know in my high school the sales from Football/Basketball tickets and concessions paid for all of the sports programs and most of the other non-sports items like cheer/dace, band uniforms, etc...


So as long as the programs run in the red I have no problems with them, but it should not be funded with tax money.

Like everything else artificially shielded from consumer choice, gov't-run schools have absolutely no mechanism to determine allocation of resources besides a) semi-random political interference and b) completely random flailing around. Nothing new here.

just 17 of its 420 students are enrolled in figure skating

What is wrong with the youth of today? I would "jump" at a chance to be in a class with hot women. (Had to settle for Ballet when I was in college. I was the only straight guy in a class of 30 women.)

The_Ancient:
Schools should be for LEARNING, So yes this expense is rediculous, so is funding Stadiums for Football, Basketball or anything else. If the Schools can fund these activities through donations, ticket sales, or other NON TAXPAYER funding sources I have no problem with them but NO MONEY should be spend on schools that is not directly relegated to education.

Schools are for a lot of things, and physical activity (and musical training, drama, debating, AV, and a bundle of other useful activities) is a very legitimate part of them. Unless you want the nation to continue churning out the most obese generation ever, and you want to pay the price in health care costs, productivity loss, mortality rates, etc.

I know in my high school the sales from Football/Basketball tickets and concessions paid for all of the sports programs

Your high school does not seem to be much of a success though, if your English skills (or lack thereof) are anything to go by ...

rediculous

ridiculous

in the red

in the black (i.e. NOT in debt)

should be spend

should be spent

brings us to a circle

brings us full circle

Football/Basketball

football/basketball (neither are proper nouns)

cheer/dace

cheer/dance

relegated

allocated (?? not really sure what you are trying to say here)

...

So really, I cannot take seriously anything you say on this topic.

Churchill2004: Like everything else artificially shielded from consumer choice, gov't-run schools have absolutely no mechanism to determine allocation of resources besides a) semi-random political interference and b) completely random flailing around. Nothing new here.

Yes, we should go back to sending children down the mines when they turned eight, and only allowing the eldest child to attend school so they could better steward the family fortune. Because that is what consumer choice and the free market delivered for us.

Your constant adherence to this mindless libertarianism is fundamentally bankrupt, intellectually and morally, if not economically.

The Onanist: ninjakirby: Yes, and? Plenty of schools spend many times that to teach 30 kids how to throw a ball and hit each other.

That.

And charter schools as a whole have been proven to have lower academic achievement scores.


... and from a source that isn't closely tied to teachers unions or school administrations...

And-1:
Yes, we should go back to sending children down the mines when they turned eight, and only allowing the eldest child to attend school so they could better steward the family fortune.

Yes, that's totally what would happen. Not. In fact, the free market would adjust and there would be affordable schooling for all, because markets for lower-cost schools would open up. Sure they might not have all the bells and whistles the pricier schools had, but everyone would get an education. And it would encourage people to get better jobs and make more money, so they could send their kid to a better school next year.

And-1: Yes, we should go back to sending children down the mines when they turned eight, and only allowing the eldest child to attend school so they could better steward the family fortune. Because that is what consumer choice and the free market delivered for us

Don't look now, but your blatant historical ignorance is showing. The US has always been one of the highest-educated, most literate nations in the world, including before we adopted the current Prussian-modeled school system around the turn of the century. And the US never exactly had a free enterprise system in secondary schooling anyway.

And-1: Your constant adherence to this mindless libertarianism is fundamentally bankrupt, intellectually and morally, if not economically

Funny, usually it's the mindless dogmatist who's that arrogant and condescending.

bronyaur1: The Onanist: ninjakirby: Yes, and? Plenty of schools spend many times that to teach 30 kids how to throw a ball and hit each other.

That.

And charter schools as a whole have been proven to have lower academic achievement scores.


... and from a source that isn't closely tied to teachers unions or school administrations...

A pretty decent review article, doesn't seem to be beholden to any particular lobby or union. It's the Columbia University Teachers College, so maybe that's biased. You're going to be hard-pressed to find studies on this by groups other than conservative think-tanks or teachers unions. This seems reasonably unbiased, though, from a cursory reading. The jury's out, is the moral of the story.

I read another one (Link (new window)) that says the positive effects of charter schools (in Chicago) were only present in students who started in charter schools at younger ages.

You're welcome to research the topic, if it matters to you that much, bronyaur1. By the way, is that a reference to the Led Zeppelin song? Probably my favorite by them.

Good, it will be one of their few pleasant memories when they're pumping gas for a living.

bronyaur1: The Onanist: ninjakirby: Yes, and? Plenty of schools spend many times that to teach 30 kids how to throw a ball and hit each other.

That.

And charter schools as a whole have been proven to have lower academic achievement scores.


... and from a source that isn't closely tied to teachers unions or school administrations...

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/25/charter_schools_study/

You're welcome. There is an argument to be made that the data is misleading. However, there it is. Enjoy.

This has nothing to do with football or basketball teams. These are extra-curricular activities. The performing arts programs students were auditioning for are the curriculum of this school. If you'd read the article, you'd see it was a case of "you can't dance worth a crap, so how about becoming a figure skater?"

Instead of funding a pet program that was serving an average of 3.4 students a year, why not use that money to expand one of the other performing arts programs that the school was chartered to teach?

Put a goal at either end of the ice and more kids will sign up. I personally don't care what they want to teach the kids. But it doesn't seem that the kids want to learn this.

Better start teaching more weapons classes and economics at younger ages.

No Such Agency: And-1:
Yes, we should go back to sending children down the mines when they turned eight, and only allowing the eldest child to attend school so they could better steward the family fortune.

Yes, that's totally what would happen. Not. In fact, the free market would adjust and there would be affordable schooling for all, because markets for lower-cost schools would open up. Sure they might not have all the bells and whistles the pricier schools had, but everyone would get an education. And it would encourage people to get better jobs and make more money, so they could send their kid to a better school next year.

How the hell can you pretend to know THAT'S what would happen. It seems to me that free-market schooling would exist to make money, and would be JUST FINE leaving the poorer kids with nothing. Nobody will drop the price of schooling low enough to be affordable for those on welfare. Not a chance.

Maybe they should call it no skater left behind?

No Such Agency: the free market would adjust and there would be affordable schooling for all, because markets for lower-cost schools would open up.

This is just a blatant fantasy, and contradicts every real life experience of free markets for education, as well as well accepted economic theories of enlightened self-interest, mobility of capital, and opportunity cost. It is like saying a market for low-cost health care opens up in a free market. It does not, it will not. Expenses are too high, low-cost is almost never even an option, profit motive is too high, mobility is too low, and the opportunity cost for both providers and consumers is too high. So what will really happen - and what actually does happen - is that people just go without. History has proven this for thousands of years before we had legally mandated schooling, and nations with 'free market education' in Africa, Asia and others continue to prove it.

Churchill2004: The US has always been one of the highest-educated, most literate nations in the world ...
the US never exactly had a free enterprise system in secondary schooling anyway.

So, what are you trying to say? Government interference in education is bad, even though it has delivered the best outcomes in the world?

You are making even less sense than normal. Which is impressive.

You know, one problem comparing it to football is the fact that, even in high school, football programs can actually generate cash.

lacydog: How the hell can you pretend to know THAT'S what would happen. It seems to me that free-market schooling would exist to make money, and would be JUST FINE leaving the poorer kids with nothing. Nobody will drop the price of schooling low enough to be affordable for those on welfare. Not a chance

Funny how you blast him for making a prediction, and then make an equally unprovable prediction.

As for nothing, that's what poorer kids have now. The quality of so-called schools in some places, particularly poorer areas, is so bad that it's laughable to say that the kids are getting an "education".

The idea that poorer people couldn't afford school without a government-run low-quality monopoly isn't supported by any of the evidence we have. Part of the whole point of freedom is that it produces results no one person (or gov't planner) can predict ahead of time, but education (like medicine) has always been a field dominated by efforts to help as many as possible. Both need and merit-based aid would no doubt be as ubiquitous as they are in higher education- a market that is both much freer and of much higher quality than the artificially restricted K-12 one. Not to mention that schools would have much higher incentives to figure out how to spend their funds effectively to satisfy their customers- an incentive completely absent from the current government monopoly.

And-1: So, what are you trying to say? Government interference in education is bad, even though it has delivered the best outcomes in the world?

You are making even less sense than normal. Which is impressive

I'd be more than happy to have a conversation about this subject, but only if you'd turn your "arrogant dick" level down a few notches.

The school is facing reality. Not everybody needs to know Calculus. If someone has a talent in ice skating, musical performance, drama, etc., the student should be nurturing that talent, not waiting time learning French or biology.

Churchill2004: The US has always been one of the highest-educated, most literate nations in the world

And I am wondering where you got this from, because international studies show mixed-to-poor results for US literacy when compared to similar income-level nations^{^}.

Churchill2004: I'd be more than happy to have a conversation about this subject, but only if you'd turn your "arrogant dick" level down a few notches.

Only if you turn your 'condescending, simplistic, and argumentative' level down a few notches.

And-1: Churchill2004: The US has always been one of the highest-educated, most literate nations in the world

And I am wondering where you got this from, because international studies show mixed-to-poor results for US literacy when compared to similar income-level nations^.

And education overall, is not that great compared to OECD nations^{^}, by many if not all measures.

And-1: And I am wondering where you got this from, because international studies show mixed-to-poor results for US literacy when compared to similar income-level nations^.

I meant historically. No doubt, our standings relative to similar nations have fallen off in the past few decades. At the same time, centralized bureaucratic control at both the state and federal levels have been increasing with every election cycle.

Many of those countries actually spend less on education than the US. The biggest difference is that the US actually has a school system that is more statist than the international norm- in Europe it's not at all uncommon for (granted, still state-provided) funding to be attached to the child rather than to a school with a monopoly over an arbitrary geographic district. When educators actually have to face the reality that dissatisfied parents might take their children and their money elsewhere, quality goes up and cost goes down. In the US, schools have practically no incentive to do anything more than open their doors every morning. All the bureaucrats know that the vast, vast majority of their students and their parents have no effective choice.

The $135,536 in taxpayer dollars funds their entire education not just skating lessons.

Actually, don't bother. To be honest, my first reaction stands...



/out for now.

And-1: Actually, don't bother. To be honest, my first reaction stands...

Farky'd as "troll", then, if you're only interested in trading barbs and not serious discussion.

Churchill2004: And-1: And I am wondering where you got this from, because international studies show mixed-to-poor results for US literacy when compared to similar income-level nations^.

I meant historically. No doubt, our standings relative to similar nations have fallen off in the past few decades. At the same time, centralized bureaucratic control at both the state and federal levels have been increasing with every election cycle.

Many of those countries actually spend less on education than the US. The biggest difference is that the US actually has a school system that is more statist than the international norm- in Europe it's not at all uncommon for (granted, still state-provided) funding to be attached to the child rather than to a school with a monopoly over an arbitrary geographic district. When educators actually have to face the reality that dissatisfied parents might take their children and their money elsewhere, quality goes up and cost goes down. In the US, schools have practically no incentive to do anything more than open their doors every morning. All the bureaucrats know that the vast, vast majority of their students and their parents have no effective choice.

You... really have no idea how educational systems in most of our states are funded, do you?

Leishu: You... really have no idea how educational systems in most of our states are funded, do you?

Property tax, mostly. I might be able to provide a more relevant response if your question wasn't so vague as to make it impossible to tell what supposed error of mine you're referring to.

Churchill2004: lacydog: How the hell can you pretend to know THAT'S what would happen. It seems to me that free-market schooling would exist to make money, and would be JUST FINE leaving the poorer kids with nothing. Nobody will drop the price of schooling low enough to be affordable for those on welfare. Not a chance

Funny how you blast him for making a prediction, and then make an equally unprovable prediction.

As for nothing, that's what poorer kids have now. The quality of so-called schools in some places, particularly poorer areas, is so bad that it's laughable to say that the kids are getting an "education".

But at least they have something now.

The idea that poorer people couldn't afford school without a government-run low-quality monopoly isn't supported by any of the evidence we have.

[citation needed]

There is zero evidence that a free-market education system would support students without means to pay. The closest analogy is health care, and you couldn't possibly argue that low income Americans have access to anything like the resources in socialized health care.

Part of the whole point of freedom is that it produces results no one person (or gov't planner) can predict ahead of time, but education (like medicine) has always been a field dominated by efforts to help as many as possible.

Oh wait, you would. And that's crazy.

Both need and merit-based aid would no doubt be as ubiquitous as they are in higher education- a market that is both much freer and of much higher quality than the artificially restricted K-12 one.

You mean, a higher-education system whose inarguable backbone in the state university system? You mean the one that the poorest students still can't afford?

Not to mention that schools would have much higher incentives to figure out how to spend their funds effectively to satisfy their customers- an incentive completely absent from the current government monopoly.

[citation needed]

/The free market is not the solution for everything.

As much as I would like to say "who gives a rat's ass?" and "$135K isn't jack to any level of government"...it's pretty goddamn stupid to create an entire program for this because one guy's daughter became a decent skater despite a learning disability.

It's more ridiculous when it's the only school in America that has this sport/program...and they STILL can't find people that actually want to do it.

When I came to comment on this post, I thought I would be a voice of dissention, but it looks like almost everyone else agrees that the school was justified in teaching those kids figure skating.

Anyway, the way I see it is - As long as these kids are learning to learn, it's worth every penny. When these kids discover the measurable results of their consistent efforts in the form of progress and success, whether it's in an ice rink, a basketball court, or in a classroom, then the educational system has succeeded.

When I was in the K-12 system, I learned how to regurgitate information. I was considered a success by the educational system because I could recite multiplication tables, solve for X, and recall science facts and trivia. Like most high school kids, I was a reluctant and disgruntled student. I didn't comprehend the real-world application of Trigonometry then, and I still don't today. These kids are learning the real-world skills that are truly applicable - problem solving (in this case, literally and figuratively how to stay on their feet!), trial and error, the benefits of perseverance, and their individual learning process. These are called soft skills. When it comes time for them to learn hard skills like advanced sciences, their brains will recall the lessons they learned from their time ice skating. For this, I applaud the Lehigh Valley Charter High School for the Performing Arts.

When you are the only public school that has a particular program, it's probably a waste of money

superoogie: But at least they have something now.

Not anything that's worth having for the most part.

superoogie: There is zero evidence that a free-market education system would support students without means to pay.

On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that a government monopoly doesn't.

superoogie: The closest analogy is health care, and you couldn't possibly argue that low income Americans have access to anything like the resources in socialized health care

We already have a government-run healthcare system. More than half of money spent on healthcare in the US is spent by the government, and the rest of the system is so pervaded with government mandates that market forces essentially collapsed decades ago.

superoogie: Oh wait, you would. And that's crazy

Except I did nothing of the sort- I was just pointing out that education, like medicine, is an area where people's natural sympathies have pretty much always led to a higher concentration of charitable giving than in, say, the eternally neglected market for low-income sports cars.

superoogie: You mean, a higher-education system whose inarguable backbone in the state university system? You mean the one that the poorest students still can't afford?

We have a heavily mixed system in higher education, I don't deny that at all. I was simply pointing out that it's freer and of higher quality than the k-12 monopoly, in large part due to the fact that choice is allowed.

superoogie: [citation needed]

As soon as you do the same for your assertion that poor people wouldn't get an education without a shiatty government monopoly. Besides, the idea that incentives affect people's behavior, which is all I was saying, is really too ubiquitous to nail down a single citation for its origin.

Expect a lot more of this from the empty suit

Churchill2004: superoogie: But at least they have something now.

Not anything that's worth having for the most part.

Something > nothing

There's no sane individual who would argue that the school system doesn't need major overhaul. Removing any educational opportunities for the most vulnerable of our society, no matter how flawed, is not the answer.

superoogie: There is zero evidence that a free-market education system would support students without means to pay.

On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that a government monopoly doesn't.

Every single child in America has a free school they can go to right now. Under the Randian utopia, they will not.

superoogie: The closest analogy is health care, and you couldn't possibly argue that low income Americans have access to anything like the resources in socialized health care

We already have a government-run healthcare system. More than half of money spent on healthcare in the US is spent by the government, and the rest of the system is so pervaded with government mandates that market forces essentially collapsed decades ago.

Yet it is still the most "free market" system in the world. And it utterly fails our poorest.

superoogie: Oh wait, you would. And that's crazy

Except I did nothing of the sort- I was just pointing out that education, like medicine, is an area where people's natural sympathies have pretty much always led to a higher concentration of charitable giving than in, say, the eternally neglected market for low-income sports cars.

And yet your example is just another failure of the free market system to take care of its most vulnernable members.

superoogie: You mean, a higher-education system whose inarguable backbone in the state university system? You mean the one that the poorest students still can't afford?

We have a heavily mixed system in higher education, I don't deny that at all. I was simply pointing out that it's freer and of higher quality than the k-12 monopoly, in large part due to the fact that choice is allowed.

[citation needed]

Please prove how "choice," and not a "government-supported community and state higher education" is the "large part" of what makes higher education better in America. Hell, show that the free market of higher education that's not state caters to the poor at all.

superoogie: [citation needed]

As soon as you do the same for your assertion that poor people wouldn't get an education without a shiatty government monopoly. Besides, the idea that incentives affect people's behavior, which is all I was saying, is really too ubiquitous to nail down a single citation for its origin.

What free market force would contort itself to service people who can't afford its services? Where is that true anywhere?

Lord knows that this is why I read the sports tab.

SharkTrager: You know, one problem comparing it to football is the fact that, even in high school, football programs can actually generate cash.

Excellent! Glad to know that. Then these programs should be fully capable of financing themselves, instead of sucking up my tax money on a lot of pointless crapola.

And-1: Churchill2004: Like everything else artificially shielded from consumer choice, gov't-run schools have absolutely no mechanism to determine allocation of resources besides a) semi-random political interference and b) completely random flailing around. Nothing new here.

Yes, we should go back to sending children down the mines when they turned eight, and only allowing the eldest child to attend school so they could better steward the family fortune. Because that is what consumer choice and the free market delivered for us.

Your constant adherence to this mindless libertarianism is fundamentally bankrupt, intellectually and morally, if not economically.

I couldn't disagree more. Instead of making a comparison from 300 years ago, why not make a present day comparison? Education is one of the few places America acts like a socialist country, and it is one of the few places we are failing. Go Libertarianism!

PS - since when is wanting a better school morally bankrupt? Wanting to keep our crappy schools the way that they are is morally bankrupt.

Public school uses $135,536 in taxpayer dollars to teach 17 kids to figure skate

Yeah, but they're historic kids.

'We are the only public high school in the United States that provides figure skating,' said Superintendent Tom Lubben, who founded the school.

That always looks good on the resume later. That you know how to figure skate.

Because People in power are Stupid [TotalFark] Quote 2009-01-25 03:34:32 PM
just 17 of its 420 students are enrolled in figure skating

What is wrong with the youth of today? I would "jump" at a chance to be in a class with hot women. (Had to settle for Ballet when I was in college. I was the only straight guy in a class of 30 women.)



1) It's outside
2) It's winter time (Friggin cold)
3) It's outside away from their Nintendo's, Wii's, Play Stations.
4) It makes you look gay.

No wonder they only got 17.

superoogie: Something > nothing

It is if the "something" is a negative, which in many ways low-quality gov't schools are.

superoogie: There's no sane individual who would argue that the school system doesn't need major overhaul. Removing any educational opportunities for the most vulnerable of our society, no matter how flawed, is not the answer

Setting aside your strawman, what is the solution then? What new reform, new policy, new empty promise from a vote-whoring politician will constitute the "major overhaul" that will reverse the trends of the past several decades?

superoogie: Every single child in America has a free school they can go to right now

Just because you stick a sign saying "school" out front doesn't mean there's actual education going on inside.

superoogie: Under the Randian utopia, they will not

I am neither a Randian nor a utopian. But that's not the first of your strawmen.

superoogie: Yet it is still the most "free market" system in the world. And it utterly fails our poorest

There's nothing "free market" about it. The healthcare industry is controlled with an iron fist by a scheme of corporatist regulation specifically designed to disempower individual consumers to the benefit of an oligarchy of entrenched market players. The "free market" is as much to blame for the state of healthcare in this country as it was for the shortage of toilet paper in the Soviet Union.

superoogie: [citation needed]

Please prove how "choice," and not a "government-supported community and state higher education" is the "large part" of what makes higher education better in America

When you start backing up some of your own assertions, you can be that snippy throwing around that meme in lieu of actual counterargument.


superoogie: Hell, show that the free market of higher education that's not state caters to the poor at all

Are you farking serious? I'd be hard-pressed to find a private university in the country that didn't offer need-based financial aid.


superoogie: What free market force would contort itself to service people who can't afford its services? Where is that true anywhere?

What contortion would be involved in supply meeting what would be, according to you, a huge demand? What evidence is there that there would be a large number of people who couldn't afford 5-18 y/o education, and that that number would be large enough to outstrip all forms of private aid?

How's this for a compromise- give tax rebates or vouchers or what have you to people who really can't afford an education post-monopoly. Why force everyone into a one-size-fits-all monopoly just to deal with the small minority that couldn't afford it one there own?

Churchill2004: superoogie: Something > nothing

It isn't if the "something" is a negative, which in many ways low-quality gov't schools are.

FTFM