Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Matthias Julius wrote:
>> Curt Howland <Howland@priss.com> writes:
>>>For $200, you can get the Robinson Curriculum, a complete K-12 home
>>>study kit, except math books. Math books are $50 each, new, approx
>>>one per year depending on student speed and aptitude of course.
>>>So even at the slowest, full 13 years worth of math books and the rest
>>>of it, is $850. Total. And you get to resell or reuse the math books.
>> How do you do that when you have to go to work?
> How do you do it *now* when you have to go to work?
I send them to school?
>>>The public schools in the United States spend MORE THAN $10,000 (TEN
>>>THOUSAND DOLLARS) per student EACH YEAR, EVERY YEAR, and it's only
>> Why is that so? Just because it is a public school? Why is a public
>> school by definition so different from a private school? Is there no
>> way of making a public school more (cost-)efficient?
> No. That is the point. By definition, government has no incentive to
> be efficient. If it did, half the problems (number pulled from my hat)
> that exist in American government would likely cease to exist. If
> schools were run more like the Postal Service, that would be a step in
> the right direction. But wait, we actually have to *pay* postage. So
> if people want to continue to be able to send their kids to school for
> "free," there is no way to make it efficient.
I don't think any government likes to be beaten for increasing debt or
raising taxes. And improving the public school system could be a very
good reason for reelection.
What the public school system lacks is an equivalent of revenue, some
benchmark other than the grades of its graduates. Those are cheap.