US has the worst educational system known to science

[epLe]

religion is the opposite of science, so those atheist are exactly that.

And tbh atheist dont worship or believe in satan, that is a christian toon.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Funny thing is the people in here rightfully bashing the education system refuse to acknowledge the actual reasons it is failing and get behind real solutions. We spend mountains of public funds at both the state and federal level on primary and secondary education. Since the Department of Education was established in 1979, federal spending on education has skyrocketed. Scholastic achievement among American students however has remained relatively flat. The only thing we've grown with that investment is the size of the bureaucracy managing our public schools and the amount of money it costs to run them.

Putting the money spent in the hands of parents, via school choice and voucher programs, allowing them to take their students, and the money associated with them to better, more competative schools is an intriguing idea I think. I'm not entirely sold on it but I do think it is worthy of discussion as it would cause the schools to see students as assets and parents as customers instead of just "mouths to feed" as it were. Breathe one word of this around a liberal and you're damned for daring to "defund our beloved schools!" The same schools they were calling failures five minutes prior. Oh you're also called a racist nazi because apparently it's racist to think black inner city parents would make good decisions in the best interests of their childeren were they free to do so.

[Sunseeker]

Putting the money spent in the hands of parents, via school choice and voucher programs, allowing them to take their students, and the money associated with them to better, more competative schools is an intriguing idea I think. I'm not entirely sold on it but I do think it is worthy of discussion as it would cause the schools to see students as assets and parents as customers instead of just "mouths to feed" as it were. Breathe one word of this around a liberal and you're damned for daring to "defund our beloved schools!" The same schools they were calling failures five minutes prior. Oh you're also called a racist nazi because apparently it's racist to think black inner city parents would make good decisions in the best interests of their childeren were they free to do so.

Most parents are idiots when it comes to decision making for the children. If parents could be trusted to make good decisions for their children, we wouldn't have anti-vaxxers.

Vouchers are like anti-vaxxers, they take away from the whole to make a few feel special.

[Spectral]

The US education system does just fine when it comes to science. There are some flaws, but when we look at PISA scores broken out by race, we find that white Americans score an average of 531 on science. Looking at international data, that score is elite, just ahead of Canada and just behind Japan. So whatever the American education system is doing, white students seem to wind up doing better than their European counterparts by a pretty decent margin. Even ignoring demographics (which is pretty dopey, but whatever), the United States is sandwiched in between Norway and Austria.

Similar results are found for math and reading. The American education system's biggest flaw is that it costs a fortune, but the actual education is basically fine.

[Galluccio]

When you consider how many Americans believe in intelligent design and creation fairy tales, yes, i think he is very right! One of the problems is the states that are trying to put alternative facts into there curriculum.

When you still see people wanting continued censorship of ideas in education, you know the system fails.

[Spectral]

When you still see people wanting continued censorship of ideas in education, you know the system fails.

Which ideas do you think are presently censored in education that should actually be included?

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Most parents are idiots when it comes to decision making for the children. If parents could be trusted to make good decisions for their children, we wouldn't have anti-vaxxers.

Vouchers are like anti-vaxxers, they take away from the whole to make a few feel special.

I agree, anti-vaxxers are dumb, but they don't endanger anyone elses' children but their own, because if you vaccinate your own kids, they'll be fine. All that aside, the public school system is failing our children, especially the poorest among them, while enriching public sector unions and the politicians beholden to them. Giving parents a voucher does not give them cash they can spend on drugs or some other retardation. All it does is give them options. I'm pretty sure even a meth-addict would put their kids in a better school if it was a cost neutral proposition.

[Spectral]

I agree, anti-vaxxers are dumb, but they don't endanger anyone elses' children but their own, because if you vaccinate your own kids, they'll be fine.

This isn't exactly right, due to herd immunity, failure rates, and immunocompromised individuals.

[Nerdgasm]

anti-vaxxers are dumb, but they don't endanger anyone elses' children but their own, because if you vaccinate your own kids

To be fair they do endanger other people. That's why the anti-vaxx movement is a matter of public health.

Just think like this: Not everyone can be vaccinated and not everyone will always have an effective immune system during all of their lives nor everyone have the same immuno supressive response (A common comorbidity). Having less people vaccinated means that people who can't get vaccinated (Due to medical reasons) and people who can't fight against illnesses (Even if vaccinated) are more prone to get infected. Herd immunity is extremely important to the health of a population.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...-unvaccinated/

[ArguesWithStrangers]

This isn't exactly right, due to herd immunity, failure rates, and immunocompromised individuals.

You are correct, but those are not statistically significant numbers, and most of the diseases themselves are very treatable with a very high chance of survival with modern medicine. That being said, I'd support regulations that prevent parents who don't vaccinate their children from sending them to public schools. If you don't want to vaccinate your children, that's just fine. You can home school them. If a private school want's to allow it. That's between the school and their customer base.

[Spectral]

You are correct, but those are not statistically significant numbers, and most of the diseases themselves are very treatable with a very high chance of survival with modern medicine. That being said, I'd support regulations that prevent parents who don't vaccinate their children from sending them to public schools. If you don't want to vaccinate your children, that's just fine. You can home school them. If a private school want's to allow it. That's between the school and their customer base.

This matches my position as well. I think requiring vaccination for a public school is completely reasonable, but if someone isn't attending a public school, it's not a legitimate (enough) public interest to compel vaccination.

[Sunseeker]

I agree, anti-vaxxers are dumb, but they don't endanger anyone elses' children but their own, because if you vaccinate your own kids, they'll be fine. All that aside, the public school system is failing our children, especially the poorest among them, while enriching public sector unions and the politicians beholden to them. Giving parents a voucher does not give them cash they can spend on drugs or some other retardation. All it does is give them options. I'm pretty sure even a meth-addict would put their kids in a better school if it was a cost neutral proposition.

But you're missing my argument.

The money that is taken from school budgets to given parents as "vouchers" (which by the way, do not provide a free-ride to private schools) reduces the ability of the school district to educate everyone. It is significantly cheaper to educate all in a public institution than it is to educate a few in a private institution to the individual. (That's why your average middle-class income earner pays about $300/year towards public education). Significantly MORE money than that is taken from public schools in order to provide vouchers.

It's nothing but an excuse to subsidize private business. If parents can't afford to send their kids to private schools because private schools are that much more expensive than normal schools, then guess what? Their kids don't get to go to those schools!

Those schools aren't better because they're "better schools" because of magic. They're better because of smaller class sizes, better educated teachers and a higher parental emphasis on learning.

This is typical Republican nonsense. The government is bad and everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps....except when the government should just give money to private businesses.

[Spectral]

It is significantly cheaper to educate all in a public institution than it is to educate a few in a private institution to the individual.

Can you provide a citation for this claim? From what I've seen, public education spending per student outstrips the cost of typical private schools (high-end private schools are often absurdly expensive though, granted). This is especially true for some pretty shitty school districts; check out this Politifact for some data. In a bit of dark humor, my hometown city of Buffalo spends nearly $19K per student for absolutely dismal results. It's hard to believe that a typical parent couldn't find a school that'd do a better job than Buffalo City Schools for $19K/year.

I'm generally not one of the people that thinks the American public education system is particularly bad, but it is an absolutely absurd money pit. I can't seem to figure out where the money is going, since teachers are probably underpaid, but there's a lot of money getting squandered somewhere.

[Sunseeker]

Can you provide a citation for this claim? From what I've seen, public education spending per student outstrips the cost of typical private schools (high-end private schools are often absurdly expensive though, granted). This is especially true for some pretty shitty school districts; check out this Politifact for some data. In a bit of dark humor, my hometown city of Buffalo spends nearly $19K per student for absolutely dismal results. It's hard to believe that a typical parent couldn't find a school that'd do a better job than Buffalo City Schools for $19K/year.

I'm generally not one of the people that thinks the American public education system is particularly bad, but it is an absolutely absurd money pit. I can't seem to figure out where the money is going, since teachers are probably underpaid, but there's a lot of money getting squandered somewhere.

I said it's cheaper to the individual, IE: the cost to the taxpayer. The American education system is poorly managed, so it's not cheap when it comes to spending per student, but the contribution required of each taxpayer is low. (Which is true of all single-payer systems). While a person sending their kid to a private school can spend thousands of dollars per semester.

Even though the system spends 19k on each student, each taxpayer (as opposed to each parent) only pays a few hundred dollars into the system.

[Spectral]

I said it's cheaper to the individual, IE: the cost to the taxpayer. The American education system is poorly managed, so it's not cheap when it comes to spending per student, but the contribution required of each taxpayer is low. (Which is true of all single-payer systems). While a person sending their kid to a private school can spend thousands of dollars per semester.

Even though the system spends 19k on each student, each taxpayer (as opposed to each parent) only pays a few hundred dollars into the system.

This math doesn't check out. Breaking the cost out into vouchers would still create massive subsidies from the childless to people with children. There's no reason this would be any different in practice than the present system.

It's pretty funny to think of "hey, it costs a fortune, but not for the end-users" as a defense of the status quo.

[Voij]

Putting the money spent in the hands of parents, via school choice and voucher programs, allowing them to take their students, and the money associated with them to better, more competative schools is an intriguing idea I think. I'm not entirely sold on it but I do think it is worthy of discussion as it would cause the schools to see students as assets and parents as customers instead of just "mouths to feed" as it were. Breathe one word of this around a liberal and you're damned for daring to "defund our beloved schools!" The same schools they were calling failures five minutes prior. Oh you're also called a racist nazi because apparently it's racist to think black inner city parents would make good decisions in the best interests of their childeren were they free to do so.

Not entirely sure on the concept of these "vouchers", please tell me if I understand this correctly: Do you wish for the education expenditure required for each student to be tied to the student and for the parents to then be able to choose which school gets the money?
So, basically, to allow schools to compete for students based on these vouchers? Forgive me if that's not what you meant and the following will sound harsh, but that would be an absolutely terrible idea.
You'd be trying to introduce free market policies into education. Have you seen what this does to health care? How the exact same medicine in the US costs between 2-15 times as much as it does in the UK? A hospital stay being several thousand dollars per day? And you want that for basic education aswell?

The huge danger of this is that it would lead to schools prioritising advertisement over education.
Schools that currently lack funding would be screwed even more, because they'd immediately face a lowered budget, which they could only combat by investing more into advertisement. In consequence, even if they were to reach their previous budget, less of it would be left to spend on actual education.
This change would also do nothing to affect places with little-to-no choice in what school to pick. (Rural areas usually don't offer multiple high schools to pick from.)

[oxymoronic]

But you're missing my argument.

The money that is taken from school budgets to given parents as "vouchers" (which by the way, do not provide a free-ride to private schools) reduces the ability of the school district to educate everyone. It is significantly cheaper to educate all in a public institution than it is to educate a few in a private institution to the individual. (That's why your average middle-class income earner pays about $300/year towards public education). Significantly MORE money than that is taken from public schools in order to provide vouchers.

It's nothing but an excuse to subsidize private business. If parents can't afford to send their kids to private schools because private schools are that much more expensive than normal schools, then guess what? Their kids don't get to go to those schools!

Those schools aren't better because they're "better schools" because of magic. They're better because of smaller class sizes, better educated teachers and a higher parental emphasis on learning.

This is typical Republican nonsense. The government is bad and everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps....except when the government should just give money to private businesses.

oh boohoo we cant stall an advanced child's learning cause a below average child will be left behind. we need to stop wasting so much time and energy on the children that show negative responses to learning.

[Deleted]

in the opinions of people who openly hate and find fault with Trump no matter what he does.

not really 'science'...just the views of biased scientists. nice clickbait thread title though.

[Sunseeker]

This math doesn't check out. Breaking the cost out into vouchers would still create massive subsidies from the childless to people with children. There's no reason this would be any different in practice than the present system.

It's pretty funny to think of "hey, it costs a fortune, but not for the end-users" as a defense of the status quo.

That's pretty much the defense of all single-payer systems, and it always will be.

The "cost per student" includes things you can't just "subtract from" when you give out equally large vouchers. Like teacher salaries. They don't get paid "per head". Or janitors. Or nurses. That's what the "cost per student" includes. What that does mean is that money is taken from areas you can reduce from, like new classrooms. New bathrooms. More teachers. If Bobby costs 19k/year, that's about 1/2 the income of a new teacher. So a school could fire 1 new teacher (or not hire needed new teachers) for each 2 students removed from their school.

If we were to break this down, if an entire class worth of students (30) to be removed from a school and given vouchers equal to their cost-per-head, the school would need to fire 15 teachers. 15 teachers who were each potentially teaching 30 students. Or they could reduce medical staff, or cut back on supplies and push a higher burden onto parents. Or not get newer books, or cut back on extra education programs.

It's all nothing but a ploy to de-fund public education. That's all it's ever been. Private businesses should not be government subsidized. If you can't afford to buy a Hummer, you don't get a government voucher. If you can't afford to send your kid to private school, they don't get to go to one.

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly have no idea what you're arguing.

I'm going to try to frame this so you can explain what you're saying:

1. There is an amount that gets spent per student on education in any system.
2. This can either be funded by the individual students paying tuition, by everyone paying taxes, or some hybrid of the two.

When you say, "It is significantly cheaper to educate all in a public institution than it is to educate a few in a private institution to the individual", do you mean that the total amount of spending per student is cheaper, or that the cost to the individual students are cheaper?

The cost to taxpayers. I explained this a couple posts ago. I'm not sure why it's unclear. The taxpayer pays relatively little compared to the 19k that is spent per child.

[Spectral]

That's pretty much the defense of all single-payer systems, and it always will be.

The "cost per student" includes things you can't just "subtract from" when you give out equally large vouchers. Like teacher salaries. They don't get paid "per head". Or janitors. Or nurses. That's what the "cost per student" includes. What that does mean is that money is taken from areas you can reduce from, like new classrooms. New bathrooms. More teachers. If Bobby costs 19k/year, that's about 1/2 the income of a new teacher. So a school could fire 1 new teacher (or not hire needed new teachers) for each 2 students removed from their school.

If we were to break this down, if an entire class worth of students (30) to be removed from a school and given vouchers equal to their cost-per-head, the school would need to fire 15 teachers. 15 teachers who were each potentially teaching 30 students. Or they could reduce medical staff, or cut back on supplies and push a higher burden onto parents. Or not get newer books, or cut back on extra education programs.

It's all nothing but a ploy to de-fund public education. That's all it's ever been. Private businesses should not be government subsidized. If you can't afford to buy a Hummer, you don't get a government voucher. If you can't afford to send your kid to private school, they don't get to go to one.

This all seems to hinge on the idea that public schools are strapped for cash. They're not. They're massively overfunded and fucking it up. The solution isn't pouring more money in, it's providing incentives to fuck up less.