[tjstankus]

The opposite, libertarian answer (and the way we seem to be going right now) would be to let those who can't capitalize on the bounty simply suffer. Cut social services along with their jobs, and hope they fade into the distance.

Reminds me of this quote from Jello Biafra:

Some day, even the experts will figure out, that crime is not caused by rap music...or even my music, but by a power structure of self-absorbed property owners so brain dead and stupid they won't even see that if you're too goddamn greedy to pay taxes for schools and services, they're not going to be any good any more! And that uneducated time bombs are a very poor investment as a future work force. And if you go on teaching people that life is cheap, and leave them to rot in ghettos and jails, they may one day feel justified in coming back to rob and kill you. Duh!

(Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jello_Biafra)

[bdhe]

Excellent quote. I cannot unfortunately pull up citations but there was this great New Yorker piece on the prison system which talked about how ever since privatization of prisons began, vocational rehabilitation programs were severely cut and with the vast increase in non-violent offenders being subject to terrible living conditions it is no surprise that recidivism is so high.

There is definitely something primal and emotional about a strong deterrent to crimes (violent or otherwise) but in the vast majority of cases, it is society and circumstance that turns people criminal, something that can be corrected in the long term with a healthier outlook on what it means to punish someone for a crime and reform the prison system.

[johngalt]

We spend more per student than we ever have in history. Why wasn't the country in chaos when there weren't public schools at all?

Teaching the kids that they are owed something merely because they have less than someone else? Seems to justify theft to me.

[jbooth]

Healthcare. It's a healthcare problem in education, healthcare costs are going up by 15% a year and that money isn't there. That's why you hear about teacher layoffs while your property taxes go up and think it's bullshit.

And hang out in a ghetto sometime if you want to see what's teaching kids that crime is ok.

[jerf]

Healthcare may explain why we can't spend yet more than the more-we've-ever-spent-before we're currently spending, but it can't explain why we spend so much more and seem to be getting less and less.

Really, very few of the problems we're facing can be explained by not spending enough; rather more can be explained by spending too much with no regard for what we get for our money, then letting people say "well, we just need more money to solve that problem".

If only we used an economic system whereby we actually accepted and utilized feedback about how our money was being spent, instead of spending our time demonizing the very idea that one should be permitted to examine the question of what one is getting for one's taxes, and simply being told to shut up and fork more over. Alas.

[jbooth]

It precisely explains why we're spending more and more and getting less and less.

Compound 15% out over 15 years.

Educational reform is a broad subject and there's lots of room for experimentation. I'm fine with properly implemented charter schools, especially for the "thousand laboratories" effect. I don't think that chanting "markets" like a religious incantation is particularly effective. But most importantly, don't underestimate the effect of that healthcare cost.

[gills]

As you commented to someone else in an earlier branch, carry that out a few steps; why might healthcare costs rise so much faster than any reasonable measure of the output which funds both education and healthcare?. I don't know the answer. I think the point is that "health care" cannot be pointed out as the root cause, much as "markets" cannot be pointed out as the only solution.

[jbooth]

Healthcare can indeed be pointed to as the primary cause of cost inflation in education, because, well, it is.

Don't take my word for it. Go to your local town/city hall and pull the budgets for the last decade, then scan the line items. Unless your locality has something very different going on than everywhere else, you'll see huge increases in healthcare costs and cost-cutting relative to inflation everywhere else.

[CWuestefeld]

It precisely explains why we're spending more and more and getting less and less.

No.

Healthcare costs are up for everyone, everywhere, in every industry. The same increases that education has to pay for, every other employer does as well.

If other industries are not spending 15% compounded, and delivering less, then why is it happening in education?

[jaredmck]

Except teachers unions negotiate their benefits and labor contracts, and they tend to be tilted towards the interests of those with more tenure, which is not really how private enterprise operates. Also, outsourcing allowed many companies to not face 15% increases overall in health care costs as they scaled back US jobs to counter.

Also, in many states teachers receive retiree health benefits, which were not funded by setting aside money during these teachers' working years- very few private industries still have these (extremely expensive, especially if you retire pre-65/Medicare) benefits, but education does and this stuff is going to be a budgetary minefield for the foreseeable future.

[chernevik]

Healthcare costs have risen for decades for _all_ industries. Most of them have realized productivity gains and quality improvements. Education hasn't.

And the higher cost / pupil ratio in poorly performing urban districts is a pretty important counterfactual to the spending / quality correlation.

EDIT Downvoted, with someone making the same argument a moment after I did. At least the downvoter is _consistently_ childish.

[brown9-2]

Why wasn't the country in chaos when there weren't public schools at all?

Because education isn't a cure-all and isn't the only variable in the lives of the youth.

Teaching the kids that they are owed something merely because they have less than someone else?

I'm sorry, but where do you get this sentiment from the previous posts?

[Helianthus]

it exists in the shadowy echo of the intent. while it is completely correct for tjstankus to note that it is foolish in the extreme to _not_ invest in the future, the system must also correct for the greed of men: as you say rather more politely, education isn't a cure-all and isn't the only variable.

This conflict, between the desire for generosity and the _requirement_ that the system must also compel (or at least result in) responsible human beings is where the sentiment arises.

The question is over culture. Culture of giving and providing, culture of responsibility. Those that take without giving are found both in the rich and the poor.

[ChuckMcM]

Totally agree. My kids have gone to the public high school and a large fraction (more than 20%) of the students there could be getting an education but they choose not to.

I don't know why this is, but I know of no counter argument that supports why an individual, who gets to school, has the books and supplies provided for them, and teachers willing to help them with any issues they are having, choose not to learn. These are not kids who just don't do homework, they do no work at all. They are disruptive in class, they harass other students outside of class, why? It is not because they 'lack jobs' (which they aren't helping by not applying themselves to learning), it is not because their home situation is untenable (they could be homeless for all I know but they are at school and have all of the equipment they need to participate there).

No amount of 'money' is going to change this population of non-students. Their burdened cost is higher as other students get less done because of their antics.

[hackinthebochs]

The problem is pretty simple to identify in my opinion. These people live in a culture of anti-education. This is going to take a lot of money to counter. The cheapest way to counter it is probably to simply pay students for good grades, starting as young as possible. Create an external motivation to learn and apply yourself where there otherwise would be none.

[tomjen3]

I don't think you can counter it with money at all. Even if you pay them for good grades they are just going to find a way to cheat so they can get the money without doing the work.

Maybe a better solution would be to turn the public schools in the worst failing districts into something like the twenty-first century version of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlisle_Indian_Industrial_Scho...] (without the physical abuse and with more than just training for lower level work).

[hackinthebochs]

I don't think you can dismiss money as incentive so easily. There is evidence that paying kids does in fact work (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1978758-1,0...). The point in starting the kids off as young as possible is that it will develop in them good habits. Not to mention the effect that an external incentive for kids in an entire region can have on the culture itself.

Poor black and hispanic kids are the same as everyone else in that they have no internal motivation to work hard at something unpleasant. The difference with white and asians is that they have the external incentive of a culture that supports working (reasonably) hard at school and becoming successful. Money is simply a hack to create this external incentive.

[ChuckMcM]

I guess I'm less willing to generalize than you are that the roots are an 'anti-education' culture. It hasn't been my experience that these 'slackers' (for lack of a better term) are disproportinally represented by any specifically identifiable group. They express a common 'you can't make me do this' kind of attitude but beyond that much of the correlation seems to fall off.

There is clearly a 'too cool for school' factor, but this could just be a rationalization. And there seems to be some correlation with family engagement as well. I really don't know what drives this attitude. My view of it externally is that there is no physical, mental, or equipment related barrier to their participation in the education process, they just don't. And what alarms me is that they seem to represent such a large fraction of the total population at the school.

I suppose we could come up with an experiment where we offered a cash incentive to some and none to a control group to see how it affected their participation. Something to put forward at the next PTA meeting.

[jes5199]

At least some of the time that students don't care about learning is because teachers have failed to engage them. For example, most people have no idea why math might be interesting or fun, and the education system has for the most part only shown them ways it can be boring, difficult, and miserable. The same goes for literature! And history! And pretty much every elementary and high school class, actually. Some students are good at plowing through boring and difficult tasks, and some of those students are good at finding the secret fascinating concepts buried within those tasks ... but it's a lot to ask of people. Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how to inspire people en mass, but I'm pretty sure that the American public school system is not doing it, either.

[hackinthebochs]

Check my response to your sister comment: someone did actually do a controlled experiment. Engagement went up a great deal.

The anti-education culture definitely isn't isolated to minorities; it's spreading through the broader culture. Perhaps it was always there, its just recently it's becoming so not having a good education is a life sentence of menial dead end jobs so its getting more attention. Although I would disagree that it isn't disproportionately represented in minorities. Minorities experience it much more intensely because there aren't any competing ideals to help steer them in a positive direction.

[ChuckMcM]

Thanks for the link, I was also looking at some work that was recently published about measuring peoples ability to forego reward. There appears to be a genetic component.

This is a bit harsh I hope " its just recently it's becoming so not having a good education is a life sentence of menial dead end jobs" I certainly try to support programs that facilitate people furthering their education and 'catching up' as it were. I've heard great things about programs like Homeboy Industries [1] which try to give people a chance to take a different road.

[1] http://homeboy-industries.org/index.php/about-us

[rdouble]

The fact that you are located in the Bay Area is why only 20% of the students are problematic in school. In the rural area I grew up in, it was more like 80% of the students.

[dbingham]

This stems at least partly from a culture which disparages knowledge and education. And the people promoting that culture are often the very same people promoting a free market approach to education.

[superuser2]

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of making school available to those who want it, and denying both school and welfare eligibility to those who don't?

(A GED could still "reverse" bad decisions from teenage years.)

People don't want to give up on these students, but it doesn't seem we have much to lose.

[Ryanmf]

I spent my adolescent life in private, Catholic schools in Southern California in the 90's and 00's. The percentage of kids choosing not to get an education there was at least as high (obviously we're both speculating a bit here).

That wasn't really the problem. The problem is that they got away with it. Not only were a significant number of my peers doing everything in their power to avoid as much schooling as possible, they also intentionally did so in ways that would exact the lowest penalties on their GPAs, allowing them to repeat the cycle at one of America's "fine" universities.

As an aside, in India and Brazil and other countries that are likely going to eat our lunch in the coming decades, kids act out in exactly the same ways. They did when you were in school, too, Chuck. And in India, and in Brazil, and probably when you were in Primary/Elementary school here in America, the teachers are/were allowed to beat the shit out of the students for doing so. And they still did it. The problem isn't 15-year-olds not having a complete mastery of self-discipline. The problem is a total lack of accountability which spans our entire American/Western culture.

I'm actually baffled that any intelligent person gives any credence to undergraduate degrees from American universities at this point. Anyone who can manage to take out 50-200k in loans and is sufficiently advanced in the Art of Bullshit gets a college degree in the good ol' USA. Anyone. "Didn't study in high school?" asks Santa Clara. "SAT scores not so hot?" inquires UCLA. Just go to a JC/CC for a while, and make sure to come on back and pay us whenever you're ready. We'll wait.

I see you're a USC grad, yourself. I would tell you about all the people I know who went to USC, that while some are very hard working folks and doing interesting, good work with their lives, many others are spoiled rotten rich kids (the types whose adjusted SAT scores were whatever they got plus whatever Daddy donated) entitled to a 3 day school week and at least as many hours spent playing beer pong as reading, with an unalienable right to a cushy gig "working" for one of Daddy's friends whenever they manage to get through their 4/5/6 year communications or sociology degree. Or athletes—at least most of them have some appreciation for hard work and discipline—many of whom would be better suited literally anywhere on earth but an "institution of higher education." And of course there are the cute blonde girls who had their tits done at 17 and are looking to hook up with and milk a proposal out of one of the aforementioned. I would tell you, but I don't need to. All those people went to USC when you were there, too.

This is getting long. To sum up:

The following words will mark the headstone of the Great Champion America we all think we're a part of, but in reality hasn't existed in quite some time: "A better life for my children."

In the aftermath of World Wars I and II, since our emergence as (temporarily) the world's only military and economic superpower, and the eventual disappearance of the word "manufacturing" from that very same list, America has produced nothing quite so consequential as several generations of the most entitled, work-averse sons-of-bitches ever to walk the planet earth.

…so now we're fucked.

[gaius]

Here in the UK the yout' say they want "opportunity". Well Opportunity #1 is "education" and they ain't interested in that.

[gensym]

WTF, kids are owed something. Kids are owed safety, education, food, shelter, and hope for the future. Kids, by definition of the term, cannot be held responsible for their current situation. If this isn't obvious - if it isn't an axiom from which all discussions of how we should structure our society derive, then we're all in pretty bad shape.

[mindstab]

It's not entirely about raw spending. How about spending wisely? Right now there's a system in place that allows drunks who don't do their job to keep their seat warm while keeping out young innovators who are new to the scene. Does this seem right? Or a good system to entrust our kids and the future generation to?

[jquery]

> The opposite, libertarian answer (and the way we seem to be going right now) would be to let those who can't capitalize on the bounty simply suffer. Cut social services along with their jobs, and hope they fade into the distance.

This is a gross mischaracterization of the libertarian answer. But it's easier to make powerful-sounding arguments when you first set up strawmen to burn.

[dreamdu5t]

I think what Jello implies is wrong. People have the inherent ability to do bad things and treat eachother differently, regardless of whatever property system you have in place.

Unemployment and undereducation will not be eliminated by the removal of private property.

You don't have to be a property owner to be a self-absorbed dick that doesn't care about other people. If people want to make sure everybody has a living stipend (which is the logical conclusion of the goal of zero unemployment), they can pass a law creating that while still maintaining a system of property owners and private property.

[hackinthebochs]

You're reading that way too literally. The point is that the property owners, those with wealth, are too greedy to allow their wealth to be taxed for social services such as better schools and an improved prison system. It is this greed that comes back to bite them when those kids rob and kill them.

[CWuestefeld]

those with wealth, are too greedy to allow their wealth to be taxed for social services such as better schools

My property tax bills beg to disagree with you. For the 16 years I've owned my house, I've watched the portion of my taxes that go to our schools go up far faster than the rate of inflation.

If there's a problem with education, it is absolutely NOT that there is insufficient money being invested into it. This should be so transparently obvious to all by now, that I assume anyone claiming otherwise has motives he's trying to hide.

[nitrogen]

I believe I have discussed education issues on here with you in the past. Suffice it to say, I believe you are sorely mistaken.

1. Proportions of taxes can shrink or grow at any rate independent of inflation. This doesn't say that the absolute value given to education per student (and that's the measure that matters) has or has not exceeded inflation.

2. Statistics saying that e.g. yy% of students do not benefit from reduced class sizes or increased educational spending, where yy is some large double-digit number, ignore the critical exceptions to those statistics. Public education must address the worst-case outcomes, not just the average case, or those (100-yy)% of dropouts will sink into ghettos and become a significant drain on society, when most of them have the potential to be net contributors.

3. As I'm sure I've said before, talk to a few overworked, stressed-out teachers after an arduous day of dealing with students threatening them with violence, administrators not supporting them with classroom materials (try teaching math without any textbooks), etc. It's like babysitting 250 erratic 4-year-olds a day without the right toys to pacify them, except those 4-year-olds can kill you.

[mdda]

While I'm sympathetic to the plight of teachers (my mother was a physics teacher, FWIW), I still can't shake the fact that education spending per student is higher in the US than in most of the rest of the world : http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-student-oecd

Something doesn't add up.

[5hoom]

I think that looking at overall spending per-student as a metric for the quality of education is about the same as using lines-of-code as a metric for the quality of a developer.

Sure it's important, but it gives only a very small piece of the overall picture.

[rphlx]

Perhaps the real metric should be spending per administrator.

[hackinthebochs]

Of course, the quote is not referring to any particular person.

The rest of your points are tangential to the quote, but I'll address them anyways.

Claiming lack of funds is not an issue is misguided. The problem with property-taxes-fund-education is that in poor areas, the funds derived from property taxes are much much lower than in a more well off area. These are the areas that require even greater investment to counter the negative culture living in low income areas create. Class sizes, after school activities, sports, tutoring, etc are all factors that effect the outcome of a student; all of which are directly related to available funds.

I could just as easily say those that claim funding isn't the problem with education also have motives they're trying to hide.

[jbooth]

Actually, FWIW, urban low-income districts typically get more money per pupil than suburban ones. Why and where it goes is a much longer discussion than I have time to get into, but it's basically personnel and specialists.

[hackinthebochs]

I'm interested in reading more about it, if you know of links or sources off hand.

[dreamdu5t]

That may be true, and I personally agree that property taxes shouldn't fund education in that manner.

However, that doesn't mean that the removal of private property will result in more education or more money for education. Jello's quote implies that the root cause of unemployment and undereducation is partly the system of private property. He is a self-professed anarchist, so I don't know why people are trying to convince me that I'm reading into his quote. He's incorrect about this, but people love "eat the rich" ideals too much to admit it.

[hackinthebochs]

I don't know anything about the author, so you're probably right about how he means the quote to be taken.

[Domenic_S]

> The problem with property-taxes-fund-education is that in poor areas, the funds derived from property taxes are much much lower than in a more well off area.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember busing [1]. I don't think you are, because if you were you'd know that your point isn't right.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing_in_the_Uni...

[jbooth]

Your property tax bills are paying for healthcare cost increases.

I'd be willing to bet that there have been layoffs and/or a hiring freeze in your district as well, right? That money isn't going to education, it's going into healthcare costs.

[absconditus]

We spend far more on schools and prisons than we ever have.

[silverbax88]

The quote, which is incredibly apt, does not blame crime on property law, but rather, short-sightedness and greed.

[dreamdu5t]

"power structure of self-absorbed property owners" implies that people who don't own property aren't self-absorbed, or that the power structure of property owners is responsible for greed, unemployment, and undereducation. Otherwise, why mention a power structure of property owners?

[silverbax88]

Mentioning the existence of a power structure of property owners does not automatically include all property owners.

[dreamdu5t]

Okay... then what does the power structure of private property have to do with it?

Unemployment is not necessitated by private property. Removing the power structure of property owners will not eliminate unemployment or cause people to become educated. This is what Jello implies, and it's naively incorrect.

Come on, Jello openly professes these politics/ideas, I am not reading anything into the quote that isn't there. He mentions power structure of property owners for a reason.

[Jeng]

Replace "Property owners" with people of influence.

[saraid216]

There's a difference between "rawr, property ownership makes people dicks" and "property owners are the ones encouraging and permitting dick behavior to happen".

Straw men are silly.

[dreamdu5t]

"property owners are the ones encouraging and permitting dick behavior to happen" implies that people who don't own property aren't permitting dick behavior to happen. They are. They can.