Neo

Interesting. I'm a parent and I do want my values reflected where my kids are raised. They're my kids. Public school lessons indoctrinate as well, although we might each choose a different word. The difference is whose values prevail and who chooses the values. I'm not ready to surrender mine in favor of yours. I expect you're not willing to substitute mine for yours. Regarding diversity. Two of my four children went to a public charter school with a private school vibe. It was awesomely diverse. My values, perhaps, shared with you. You can get diversity at both. You get parental choice at one. Interesting insight from you. PS .... I am a 100% public school educated person, married to someone who's also 100% public schooled and who is also a public school teacher. We've raised four kids, each 100% public school educated. I'm grateful to public schools. Attending was our choice.

I'll think. My first thought is that private schools survived 08 and 09. I advised one. Ineffective government is, INDEED, our fault. Famous examples of what I mean .... Amtrack, U.S. Postal Service ... Before someone makes a history reference .... Yes, the postal service had an important role before there were alternatives. In fact, I'd consider it a quintessential government role - providing a basic service where there'd be NO for profit interest in doing so. You couldn't make a profit carrying mail to Utah in 1887. I'm not familiar with the Texas Kansas reference. I'll look. For your consideration ... There are those among us, our equals, who think your ideas are the stupid ########, not theirs. One of the things I resist most strongly is the "we need one way to do it and it should be my right way, not your stupid way" mentality. Your standards or mine? I'm not stupid.

I like this. I ask questions to explore boundaries, but am grateful we have public schools. Neighborhood, county and state authorities, though.if Texans and New Yorkers have different curriculums, that's fine with me. Mine's not better than yours.

And that, Sir, is why I come here. Grateful always ..

Observations ... My confidence in the effectiveness of "government" is less than others. My confidence in the effectiveness of markets and the private sector is greater than others. Differences regarding an approach to an issue are more common than differences in the ultimate goal. Many conversations obscure that. My comfort with "profit" exceeds the comfort of others. My discomfort with "institutionalized common" exceeds that of others. In fact, I may be alone! Not everyone values "choice" the same way. I am less comfortable using the word "should" when referring to the behavior of others than most. I am less comfortable legislating away choices others may make than most. I am decidedly less likely to confiscate the resources of others than most. I see public vs private institutions as essentially the same with regard to being organizations run by human beings and neighbors. Each has a profit motive, although profit is defined differently. One is accountable and its outcomes are tested by the people it serves every day. If it fails, it dies. One is less accountable and its outcomes are tested against standards it writes itself. It never fails. If it stutters, it simply asks for more resources. Others see it very differently.

I'll answer your query when I have more time. I'll start with observations, sans editorial. Everyone informs me.

Sigh ....

I think supply demand nails it. Good and valid on the pickup truck, too!

Imprecise language on my part. I was referring to the one sentence and deliberately taking it out of context as a separate thought starter. I certainly did not mean to imply "paraphrase the entire post". You are correct and I apologize for my sloppy language.

He asked "where does the money come from?" !!!!! BRB, doing a snoopy dance.

I think you wrote it. "As long as we allow states to control their own destiny ...." By the way, with regard to "de-centralizing isn't working ...". You have your carts and horses wrong. We're not, as a nation, de-centralizing. The erosion of outcomes comes during a period of centralizing. We've been centralizing more and more for decades. Standardized tests, common cores, are measures of central authority. You see the line, but I think you're confusing its direction.

I can think of few topics touted so much as standardized tests that deliver so little in terms of value. Student to parent to teacher to principal to district to state .... Everyone complains and criticizes. It's not until you get out of the school, and into the legislatures, that you begin to hear "how we're improving our education system" with standardized testing. Think about that. Think about it specifically with regard to testing, and then more broadly to education in the context of public versus private and different communities having their own chosen curriculum. Who do you want your teachers accountable to, you or to some legislative body? Standardized test makers as curriculum makers ... A common test for a common core ... Question for the masses ... If you don't like standardized tests determined by legislatures, how do you feel about common core curriculums? I know it's many voices, but am I hearing a consensus around "we need common core, but not common tests?" Maybe I'm missing something. I need common neither.

For the record, I want every child to be educated and I support public schools as an important part of an education system. I'm a public school kid. I don't think unions have any material effect on salaries in aggregate. If they did, let's unionize everything and get rich. Teachers are paid what they're worth, as we collectively determine value. Sad, maybe. Telling, definitely. One of the sentences I read, above, will have me thinking all day. Paraphrasing Liger: "If everything was privatized the democracy we live in would be threatened". I'll start thinking from the other end of the continuum -- "If everything was nationalized the liberty we're born to would be threatened". I guess your starting point depends on how you see yourself in the world! Good stuff! Patty surrenders self determination and destiny. I do not.

I'm a conservative. I register Republican. I'm a human being who wants good government and believes you get that when decent people debate ideas in front of an electorate. I want a POWERFUL and compelling Democrat to rise and run. For me, she just ain't that cat. Because I'm a junkie, the story fascinates me. If we had a bar and a beer, I'd blather on about the most remarkable aspect of this all. That is, as a twenty something young lawyer, she worked on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate. How did someone so smart, so close to heart of the matter, not learn a damned thing about justice, political foes, wrong doing, absurd denial, etc.? She was there for the Saturday Night Massacre. Subpoenas, tapes, gaps, email servers, secret service, "Classified" stamps. I'd ask her, in all sincerity, "why would you get away with it when Nixon didn't?" Is this a parallel in my mind, only, and not in hers? She may survive this. In that case, as an old boss of mine once said, "sometimes it's better to be lucky than good". Will she recognize that and how much personal ambition she put at risk with bad behavior and cover-up stories? More still. Nixon taught America that it's not the crime, it's the cover up. I just mentioned Hillary's current problem in the same context. How could she not have learned? More remarkable squared - She was close to Bill's "crime", too. Again, she learned nothing. Bill's greatest troubles arose from the denial, I believe, more so than the act. "I did not have sex, with that woman, Monica Lewinski." Bill pointed a finger at us, and waved it in our faces. He scowled. Had Bill said, day one, "yeap, I did it .... right here in the Oval Office", he'd not have been impeached. Start weaving stories in Washington's world of ambitious sworn enemies, and you're finished. She missed it twice. Huge unsaid - "she's not yet, and may never be, fatally wounded. This could all go away. Maybe she's more lucky than good".

The "there's no way teachers will be getting paid more" portion of a private enterprise versus a public enterprise. There are dozens of private enterprises that pay well. Why wouldn't a private teaching enterprise pay well? I'm being cryptic and that's on me. What I'm getting to is my view on teachers and salaries. For your consideration ...., They get exactly the amount they should in light of how we value them. Unions don't help/hurt, except at the margin (they do suck fees). Private / public doesn't matter at all. The elephant in the room is that we (society) don't value the product. I can't think of another product we say "is very valuable, but not so much that I'm willing to pay the value". I'm close to teaching. I live with a practitioner. Disclaimer - that doesn't make me an expert in my mind - but it is something I've considered for years. I believe the blame for wages, if it is a blame, falls squarely at our own feet. Addendum: I've gone to barbecues and holiday parties with teachers for years. Wanna stop a teacher party? When the conversation turns to how they're underpaid, tell them that they're not underpaid. Ask them why they think that and why different economic rules apply to their profession than apply to any other profession you can think of. After first wanting to hit me, they occasionally come to see that my point is "the problem is us (parents), not you (teachers)" when it comes to their wages.

There are. That's not what I asked.

Sincere question ... To learn your views. "Privatized" lawyers, doctors, CPAs, electricians, and football players give us good product, where their businesses demand profits, and they get paid well. How is teaching different?

Evader - the combination of risk/reward and baggage/expectations is highest. Great exercise.

Here's what I care about, for your consideration. 1). She used a private, unsecured, non-encrypted server, in her home, outside of the guidelines of the government organization she headed. There's no dispute. 2). She ignored a directive from our President not to use a personal server. There's no dispute. 3). She told me she did it because carrying two devices is inconvenient and expects me to believe that. That's her claim. Even if true, tough. Get a belt clip. 4). The Department of State and the Secretary of State have thousands of communications that are sensitive, regardless of their classification. There's no dispute. 5). Her use of a private, unsecured, non-encrypted server places important information, classified or not, at risk. That puts us at risk. There's no dispute. If she's not Barney Fife, she knows that. She's not Barney Fife. She weighed her agenda (control, secrecy, legacy, ambition, fear of belt clips, whatever) ahead of ours. 6). She works for me, knew better, and did it anyway. She'd be fired if she were a McDonald's manager. 7). The DOJ in a progressive/liberal government and the FBI are investigating. Maybe they're far right FOX whackos. 8). The data being discussed in the news is extraordinarily sensitive, classification status notwithstanding. Four of forty, or ten percent of the sample, contained subsequently classified information. Ten percent of 60,000. The fact that a stamp was or wasn't on at the time matters criminally, it doesn't matter when deciding if she's Barney Fife or lying. 9). If she never submitted her material for classification BEFORE sending it, of course she could claim never sending anything "classified" at the time of sending. That's word parsing. She's elite. 10). She's either dumb or lying. I don't think she's dumb. 11). She's either dumb or deliberately risked State Department material for her own purposes. She's not dumb. 12). The documents of The Secretary belong to us, not to her. That's not a new, complicated, or disputed concept. So, she never sent nor received something with classified in the subject line. So what. The enormity of the bad judgment and self dealing speaks for itself. You may care about other things. I care about the list, above. Paging Mr. Biden .... Mr. Biden, please call George Soros. I keep adding! Hillary said the server was secure because the Secret Service guards her home. Apparently, it would be difficult for hackers to get the server out of the house and put it in a pick up truck. Phewwww. ... Bush is dumb. Removed reference to CNN. Dated article relative to classified status at time of sending. I believe conflicting statements are out, hence my removal, in fairness, to Ms. Fife.

Welcome.

Paging Joe Biden. Paging Joe Biden. Mr. Biden, please call DNC Chairman Wasserman Schultz.

I laughed! Define "posting move" for me!

Solely to prevent me missing a post -- Clarity -- I am NOT in, but remain wait listed. Correct?

I agree with you. Let's talk, though, before you take my money for the ideas we're still uncertain about. Agree agree. I'm going to need a bath after this, but ... I'd consent to a carbon tax concept for research. Regarding the economies that would have to change and the states they represent: Yeah, have at it, boys and girls. Adapt, just like me ....

I don't know. Ask me for my money when we agree.