Scott stuns frtzw906 with his very left-of-center appraoch to both
policing and education.... WOW!"
=====================
I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected
for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on
per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.
====================

Your point about "individual schools (not districts) very much mirrors
the German model (there are no districts -- there are just schools
within the state).

I'll have to agree with you fully on your proposal. The district model
has always confounded me because it exacerbates the discepancies.

OK, Scott, explain the logical inconsistency between your position on
policing (and apparently schooling -- I'm still picking myself off the
floor!! GRIN), and healthcare. It seems we could/should apply the
very same logic to medical services as we do to educational (police)
services above.

Just curious....

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott stuns frtzw906 with his very left-of-center appraoch to both
policing and education.... WOW!"
=====================
I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected
for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on
per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.
====================

Your point about "individual schools (not districts) very much mirrors
the German model (there are no districts -- there are just schools
within the state).

I'll have to agree with you fully on your proposal. The district model
has always confounded me because it exacerbates the discepancies.

OK, Scott, explain the logical inconsistency between your position on
policing (and apparently schooling -- I'm still picking myself off the
floor!! GRIN), and healthcare. It seems we could/should apply the
very same logic to medical services as we do to educational (police)
services above.

Just curious....

frtzw906

Me too!

And I would love to see more accountability and responsibility at the level
of the school. The school environment is extremely stifling due to the
multiple levels of bureacracy, particularly in large urban areas. Teachers
and principals lack appropriate freedom to respond to student and family
needs, and mediocrity is encouraged. One understandable resistance to
increased control at the school level comes from the fear that it is simply
an excuse to reduce education.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott stuns frtzw906 with his very left-of-center appraoch to both
policing and education.... WOW!"
=====================
I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected
for
schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and
distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on
per-capita
attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or
equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment,
supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and
inner-city areas.
====================

Your point about "individual schools (not districts) very much mirrors
the German model (there are no districts -- there are just schools
within the state).

I'll have to agree with you fully on your proposal. The district model
has always confounded me because it exacerbates the discepancies.

OK, Scott, explain the logical inconsistency between your position on
policing (and apparently schooling -- I'm still picking myself off the
floor!! GRIN), and healthcare. It seems we could/should apply the
very same logic to medical services as we do to educational (police)
services above.

Just curious....

Well, as to policing, everybody has to pay for it anyway, I merely propose a
different way of organizing the police, not any fundamental change in how
they (or firefighters) are funded.

As to schools, the caveat is the "if public schools are to be supported by
taxes" part of my statement. I still believe public schools are inefficient
and wasteful and that the need for schools can be much better served by the
free market combined with government stipends to economically disadvantaged
students.

But, so long as the public school system is going to exist, it ought to be
run much more efficiently and fairly than it is now. It's a lemon/lemonade
argument.

As to medical services, I have said previously that I have no objection to
providing public medical care for indigent CHILDREN, but when it comes to
adults, I believe that they should be responsible for their own lives and
health. I also firmly believe in a two-tier system where indigent children
can obtain the best possible care at public expense while, unlike Canada,
those who can afford it can obtain better, faster care by paying for it.

The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of Canada
worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the clinics
would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive cases
to the state is idiocy.

I would expect that any reasonable person would *welcome* off-loading as
much of the medical care expenses as the public is willing to pay for
privately. The Minister's claims are idiotic because the way the system
works now, neither the "easy" or "hard" cases can be excluded, and everyone
is entitled to care, so the costs to society are much hither, and the system
discourages, and functionally outlaws the "second tier" private market.
Thus, the taxpayers have to pay for *everyone*, easy and hard cases both. It
would save significant taxpayer money if the state ONLY had to take on the
"hard" cases and care for the truly indigent and poor who cannot afford or
don't want to spend their own money for better care, while allowing the
system to be unburdened of the "easy" cases that the wealthy can easily
afford to pay for. Note that this doesn't change the way the national system
is funded. Everyone can still be required to contribute through taxes, but
they would have to contribute less while being free to buy better care than
the national system provides if they have the extra disposable income.

What's the downside of doing so? None, that I can see.

The only excuse for not allowing such a two-tier system is *socialist
dogma!* The Minister's statements reveal quite clearly that the real issue
is not economics, but political egalitarianism by force of law. The
government WILL NOT ALLOW rich people to buy better care because it offends
their socialist sensibilities of "fair play." They firmly believe that
EVERYONE must suffer under the same inefficient, wasteful, slow medical care
system merely because SOME people would have to do so in a two-tier system.
It's the "queue" mindset that says that everyone is equal and all must
suffer equally, so the rich cannot be allowed to "jump the queue" because it
is seen as "unfair" to those who aren't rich. It has nothing to do with
medical care.

Pure, unadulterated socialism. Bad, very, very bad.

I have no intrinsic objection to a public health care system paid for by
taxes that would provide essential or critical/trauma care to all persons at
public expense PROVIDED that the taxes imposed to pay for such services are
the result of a VOTE of the people who have to pay the tax, not a tax
imposed by legislators. In Colorado, that's not a problem because of TABOR
(Taxpayers Bill of Rights) that requires a taxing authority to put the
matter to a public vote for *all* new or increased taxes. Unfortunately,
TABOR is not a national policy, but should be.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott:
===========
The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of
Canada
worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the
clinics
would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive
cases
to the state is idiocy.
============

Idiocy to you, but true. If one believes in a universal program of any
sort (I know you may not), then that program needs to be protected
against exactly that: cherry picking.

Here in BC we have a "universal" auto insurance plan: if you want to
drive, you MUST have insurance. Allow me to paint with a broad brush to
make my point -- there are minor and trivial exceptions to what I'm
about to say. And the insurance you buy MUST be provided by a
Provincial Crown Coporation. You may not buy your BASIC coverage from
anyone else. Why? Because, if the corporation is to gain the benefits
that come from having this monopoly and is to be able to provide the
blanket, global coverage the corporation was set up to provide, then it
cannot afford to have private insurers cherry-pick the low-risk
clients, leaving the crown corp to pick up the difficult, expensive
clients. [BTW, the premiums compare quite favorably to other
jurisdictions across Canada that use the private model]

Further, an anecdotal example of cherry-picking (that really ****es me
off): in the elementary school my daughters attended, there were two
sisters, one of whom was severely handicapped. The parents,
dissatisfied with the education their daughters were getting at this
school, took the daughter who was not handicapped, and sent her to a
very expensive private school. By doing so, they further diminished the
academic calibre of the school by taking a very bright girl out, and
leaving a handicapped one. This sort of cherry-picking diminishes our
ability to provide quality to everyone.

I understand that you may not ascribe to that philosophy, but I do. If
one ascribes to that philosophy, then cherry-picking can not be
permitted.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott:
===========
The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of
Canada
worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the
clinics
would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive
cases
to the state is idiocy.
============

Idiocy to you, but true. If one believes in a universal program of any
sort (I know you may not), then that program needs to be protected
against exactly that: cherry picking.

Here in BC we have a "universal" auto insurance plan: if you want to
drive, you MUST have insurance. Allow me to paint with a broad brush to
make my point -- there are minor and trivial exceptions to what I'm
about to say. And the insurance you buy MUST be provided by a
Provincial Crown Coporation. You may not buy your BASIC coverage from
anyone else. Why? Because, if the corporation is to gain the benefits
that come from having this monopoly and is to be able to provide the
blanket, global coverage the corporation was set up to provide, then it
cannot afford to have private insurers cherry-pick the low-risk
clients, leaving the crown corp to pick up the difficult, expensive
clients. [BTW, the premiums compare quite favorably to other
jurisdictions across Canada that use the private model]

Further, an anecdotal example of cherry-picking (that really ****es me
off): in the elementary school my daughters attended, there were two
sisters, one of whom was severely handicapped. The parents,
dissatisfied with the education their daughters were getting at this
school, took the daughter who was not handicapped, and sent her to a
very expensive private school. By doing so, they further diminished the
academic calibre of the school by taking a very bright girl out, and
leaving a handicapped one. This sort of cherry-picking diminishes our
ability to provide quality to everyone.

I understand that you may not ascribe to that philosophy, but I do. If
one ascribes to that philosophy, then cherry-picking can not be
permitted.

frtzw906

If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)

Now to your point, that is exactly what will happen. It's so obvious...poor
people and/or those more difficult to work with will be left behind. What is
the incentive of a profit-driven school to serve them? None.

Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

frtzw906

The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without
ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for
everyone else.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

frtzw906

The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without
ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for
everyone else.

Well, the free market, combined with stipends for the genuinely poor solves
that problem.

However, in the present system, if "slum schools" happen, the blame falls on
the government, not on the parents who put their children in private
schools...while usually simultaneously paying for a by-right public school
education for the same students.

The fact is that the more students who are moved to private schools, the
more money and resources available to those remaining in public schools.
What on earth could be wrong with that?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

It's not the "handicapped" that bothers me...people can be handicapped and I
don't subscribe to the pressure to use "politically correct" speech, what
offended me is the compartmentalizing of the handicapped child as a debit to
the system and your presumption that this debit ought to be leveled out by
abusing her sister out of egalitarian zeal.

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off.

There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical about what they did. Their
handicapped child is entitled to a public school education, according to
your own vociferous arguments, and the parents are perfectly entitled to
exercise that right. Her sister, however, is fortunate enough to get a
better, private education at her parents expense, who, by the way are *still
paying for her public school educational right!* Thus, while the bright
sister's private education reduces the burden on the public school system,
thus freeing up resources for other students, her parents are now, in
effect, paying DOUBLE for the handicapped sister's education. What on earth
is your complaint? It's not only no skin off your nose, it's actually
beneficial to the school system as a whole.

Your complaint sounds remarkably like sour grapes to me.

And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it!

How did they "malign" the system? By wishing to give their gifted daughter
an education commensurate with her abilities? By exercising their
handicapped daughter's fundamental right to a public school education while
paying double what you pay for your child? Please enlighten us as to how
they "maligned" the system.

It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block.

Why? Because YOU can't afford one for your own kids? You would bind gifted
children, or even ordinary children lucky enough to have wealthy parents to
academic slavery merely in order to assuage your own guilt and anger over
not being able to provide a premium education for your own children?

How unbelievably arrogant. How astonishingly selfish and petty.

[I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

I think you ought to examine your motives first.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/1/05 11:23 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

It's not the "handicapped" that bothers me...people can be handicapped and I
don't subscribe to the pressure to use "politically correct" speech

It's not about being politically correct. My awakening on this issue comes
simply from listening to people with disabilities and understanding how the
rest of the world views them and how this impacts on the way they view
themselves. I don't know one person with a disability who wants to be
labelled as handicapped. Of course, they would prefer not to have any label
at all. But there are times when it is pragmatically necessary, in which
case, whatever the label, understanding that it is "a person with a
disability" not a "disabled person" makes a huge difference.

what
offended me is the compartmentalizing of the handicapped child as a debit to
the system and your presumption that this debit ought to be leveled out by
abusing her sister out of egalitarian zeal.

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off.

There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical about what they did. Their
handicapped child is entitled to a public school education, according to
your own vociferous arguments, and the parents are perfectly entitled to
exercise that right. Her sister, however, is fortunate enough to get a
better, private education at her parents expense, who, by the way are *still
paying for her public school educational right!* Thus, while the bright
sister's private education reduces the burden on the public school system,
thus freeing up resources for other students, her parents are now, in
effect, paying DOUBLE for the handicapped sister's education. What on earth
is your complaint? It's not only no skin off your nose, it's actually
beneficial to the school system as a whole.

Your complaint sounds remarkably like sour grapes to me.

Or you are being incredibly naïve and/or disingenuous.

The outcome of this will be the erosion of funds for the public school
system because support for paying the taxes to sustain public schools will
plummet.

The further outcome will be schools that are comprised entirely of the poor
and people with disabilities.

And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it!

How did they "malign" the system? By wishing to give their gifted daughter
an education commensurate with her abilities? By exercising their
handicapped daughter's fundamental right to a public school education while
paying double what you pay for your child? Please enlighten us as to how
they "maligned" the system.

It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block.

Why? Because YOU can't afford one for your own kids? You would bind gifted
children, or even ordinary children lucky enough to have wealthy parents to
academic slavery merely in order to assuage your own guilt and anger over
not being able to provide a premium education for your own children?

You are leaping to the faulty conclusion that a publicly funded school is
incapable of serving giften children appropriately.

How unbelievably arrogant. How astonishingly selfish and petty.

[I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

I think you ought to examine your motives first.

Indeed.