The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart

[Scholar]

Pretend like the Cato institute isn't completely biased good one

 

[Jhoon]

Why wasn't the chart provided by the Heritage Foundation? Is it because most of their losers are in the trump administration? Isn't the Cato Institute like a third tier, conservative loser station?

 

[shadowking]

Is no one actually looking at the role of property taxes in all this
Poor counties don't stand a chance. Plus charter schools have the opportunity to reject students and public schools don't.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Whats wrong with ya'll????

Forget all this futile debating over past education vs present.

Just very simply ask yourselves, are the majority of people stupid nowadays or not?

Its that simple!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Just very simply ask yourselves, are the majority of people stupid nowadays or not?

Its that simple!

Well, I'm just about finishing my degree in Engineering and, seriously, half the people that were in my classes had to take remedial courses in math and reading.

It was NOT optional. Without those courses, they would (and most did) fail.

I'm the oldest cat in here and they were ALL recent high-school graduates.

We started with about 40 people. We're down to 15.

​

 

[Shogun]

Until we have a culture that values education (and parents who take responsibility for motivating their children to engage in their education), then nothing will change.

Americans don't give a shyt about being educated...lets stop pretending and lying to ourselves.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

Wayment

This is about the percent rise or fall of scores, right?

How is a test score supposed to go up 100% or 200% ?

The average would have to be 50 for it to go up 100% to 100 but from there it stops.

I am imagining the average score is something like 80 so at most it could go up 25% to 100. But if it basically stays the same - which is what the graph looks like to me - then that's kinda what you'd expect. Who expects the *average* to reach 100?

Help me out here.

 

[BocaRear]

I don't people think realize that united States spends more public money on education than many of the nations in the top 10.

Singaporean students spend at least 5 hours after school attending private tutors or tutoring services--similar to Kumon or RSM here in the states.

you fail to take into account variables like size of the US compared to places like Singapore and the fact the US only spends 2% of federal money into education

 

[BocaRear]

"Cato Institute"

*stops reading*

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die."

- Rothbard

Libertarians are idiots

 

[David_TheMan]

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die."

- Rothbard

Libertarians are idiots

If you believe a mother has the right to abort her child, you aren't to far off in agreement with the underlying principle that he is performing.

 

[BocaRear]

If you believe a mother has the right to abort her child, you aren't to far off in agreement with the underlying principle that he is performing.

shameless false equivalence,

Aborting a fetus = Letting a human being die from neglect

 

[hashmander]

shameless false equivalence,

Aborting a fetus = Letting a human being die from neglect

don't go down the rabbit hole with him.

 

[David_TheMan]

shameless false equivalence,

Aborting a fetus = Letting a human being die from neglect

Aborting a fetus or child is the exact same, its killing the child or life.
Seems you don't really know what false equivalence is and are trying to appear smarter than you really are to get out of the logical contradiction you have to embrace to attack the logic of what he is saying, yet defend abortion.

I say this as someone who supports a woman's ability to abort a child in her body from conception to the moment before birth.

 

[BocaRear]

Aborting a fetus or child is the exact same, its killing the child or life.
Seems you don't really know what false equivalence is and are trying to appear smarter than you really are to get out of the logical contradiction you have to embrace to attack the logic of what he is saying, yet defend abortion.

I say this as someone who supports a woman's ability to abort a child in her body from conception to the moment before birth.

Because a fetus is equivalent to a human child

 

[David_TheMan]

Because a fetus is equivalent to a human child

It is a human child, just unborn.
That said I find it funny, because I bet you will say it isn't a human because it can't survive on its own and needs its mother. I would say how is that any different from a born infant and how does that actually logically change the application of what Rothbard said?