| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Philly May Ask Microsoft To Run School | |
|
||
| Time: 10:42 EST/15:42 GMT | News Source: NBC | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Less than a year after turning 45 troubled schools over to private contractors, Philadelphia school officials say they're ready to expand on the idea. Now they want universities, museums and perhaps even a private company like Microsoft, the computer giant, to help run the schools. The district might keep financial control of a school, while inviting a university or science museum to oversee academics. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:57:28 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1896 (208.61.156.30) at 6/16/2003 10:52:07 AM |
|
You can' t run a "Public service" in exactly the same way you run a profit corporation. One is aimed to deliver a service to the community the second to deliver profits to the shareholders.
|
| #2 By 1896 (208.61.156.30) at 6/16/2003 11:49:48 AM |
| #2 So people who can 't afford it should not be able to get an education? IMO education is a right and not a privilege. Why people pay taxes? To get services and not to coercively finance a profit organization called Federal Government. If the Public Institution waste money is because managers and administrators don't deliver the job they are paid for. |
| #3 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 6/16/2003 11:55:44 AM |
|
Fritzly - "IMO education is a right and not a privilege"
Hmmm, we should check the Constitution to see what it has to say on the matter. Education is not a right. It IS a privilege, to be constantly EARNED through the student's work and accomplishment. The problem with our school today is that we force students to attend... because it is their RIGHT to attend. |
| #4 By 1896 (208.61.156.30) at 6/16/2003 12:51:40 PM |
|
Mooresa56, it seems that what a lot of people are missing nowadays is that an educated population is an assett and not a burden for any Nation. "It IS a privilege, to be constantly EARNED through the student's work and accomplishment" therefore you agree that should not be based on the family financial wealth which was my point.
My personal experience with US Schools is very limited, I got only my Master here; I attended Schools in (all private Catholic ones) and the University in Europe. I rememeber that the hardest thing to deal with was the multichoice system used in a lot of tests here. Not that is harder, actually the opposite, but I was not used to it. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 1:29:12 PM |
|
Mooresa, as Molly Ivin's recently said, (paraphrased) "the Constitution states: 'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.' At the very least, I feel entitled to narrowly interprete 'promote the general welfare' to mean education and healthcare ... at the very least. To suggest that the government does not have the job of providing services to improve the health and education of all citizens is to suggest the government has no point at all."
I don't even get your logic-- it's a privilege, it's earned. It's a right, you are forced? Huh? I've never known anyone "forced" to be educated... What is that baloney? Anyone can drop out; virtually every state has home schooling alternatives. Definitely every state has private alternatives. It's one thing to say we are only entitled certain rights. It's an entirely different thing to say the government is not the entity with the responsibility to provide basic benefits to the people to enhance the welfare of the nation. What do you think the responsibilities of the government are (if any)? To drag us into war, and that's it? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 13:43. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 1:58:49 PM |
|
"I want to live in a world in which the government does not take my daugther away from me at the point of a gun."
What country do you live in? Put down the AK-47, have your daughter unload the sawed-off shotty, have your your wife take off her body armor and tinfoil helmet, and take a step off the ranch. Our government isn't putting a gun to your daughter's head. "When the education is completed and the educated adult earns his own money then the school receives a certain percentage of his income for a certain time." Your crazy, right? That would explain it! Instead of public education, we should revert to communism? Uh, huh. We should all bury ourselves in further credit debt before we can join the labor forcer, huh? Great. "Such a private organization would have the utmost motivation to provide such poor children with a good education because its profits depend on it." See this is a huge misperception here: what private school is profitable? Most are non-profit. Most just scrape by. Those who do have endowments are largely maintained through private donation, not the ability to make a profit. And even then, these endowments are not "profit"--they are simply the necessary base for long term investments. You do not see private schools on the rise because it's profitable. I know when I attended Catholic High School I watched the state ( a small one) go from having 6 to having 2. And I should mention that the teachers made LESS than those at a public school--they were better teachers, but they were guided by their principals, not their wallets. It is inherently unprofitable. Education makes a poor "business." Where is this bullsh!t ability of a business to make educational profitable? I see tuitions continuing to rise everywhere. Not because the schools have hit their price targets and are milking the "consumers" for greater profits, but because they are LOSING money. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 14:10. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/16/2003 2:09:10 PM |
|
Ho hum...
More "I got mine, ^&**% everybody else" Republican drivel. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 2:42:16 PM |
|
"Germany, unfortunately."
And has anyone put a gun to your daughter's head recently? "I'm afraid to tell you but public education, public health-care, public everything is what communists cry for." Whatever you want to call it, clearly you're happy deluding yourself. But my point is: what makes it preferable to pay someone for the bulk of my early productive years a large portion of my income because they provided my education? What's the difference from paying taxes? I can't see how your plan wouldn't be more excruciatingly painful, expensive, and restricting to my welfare (as a young adult trying to make an early start but owing 25+% of my income to a school). (I made the reference to communism because your plan sounds like the ridiculous situation Yao Ming is in now: he pays out 55% of his NBA salary and endorsements back to China because he "owes" his skills to them.) "Education is the life-blood of every nation. Educating human beings is a long-term investment which pays off immensely." Exactly what I have said. But saying this does not equal those who provide the education are profitable. As I said, private school tuitions are going up. I am unaware of any that work as profitable enterprises. I've never heard a school sell its profitability. It most certainly is a bad "business." This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 14:47. |
| #9 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 6/16/2003 2:56:00 PM |
|
This is a touchy subject for many people. I do agree that putting a private institution in charge of education creates a better educational system. Public education is a good idea or "ideal" however most school systems are bloated and are not held accountable. I my state the government wants to throw more tax dollars (and raise taxes) at the problem rather than fixing the current system.
This is the case with most government run programs. Many of these programs I feel are good in their "ideal" but poorly executed or rely too much on the honesty of the general public. Education I think is something worth paying taxes for however it is the people who need to hold the government accountable for running the state or county educational system efficiently. Education does provide a return on investment (which is what taxes in a simple sense are) Healthcare on the other hand to an extent I think should be government funded. I think that if you qualify (like you have no money) you should be able to get BASIC EMERGENCY CARE. I think that this idea of buying everyone's medication etc is borderline crazy. In an ideal society that would be a great idea however this is far from ideal. Having the best healthcare is a privledge not a right. Contribute to society (ie work), use your money wisely (ie save) and you will have that privledge. But all too often in the US laziness, poor decision making, and down right whining is rewarded by food stamps welfare and free healthcare. You could not work in this country and do "ok" without contributing to society at all. Some people refer to the battered wife who leaves her husband with 3 children and how she needs welfare/foodstamps etc. I agree, but the majority are not in that "long shot" situation. There are groups that will help her that are privately funded by people CHOOSING to donate money to that cause. The final drain and complete mess up with public services are ILLEGAL immigrants. They have just as much right to healthcare/food/education as a LEAGAL immigrant or citizen of this country and they contribute ZERO DOLLARS in most cases. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/16/2003 2:58:09 PM |
|
I am always baffled by the people who try to argue against public education.
You see, I'm a product of public education. I've never gone to a private school. K-12 was public, as was my University education. Yet I do not consider myself deprived, in fact from what I've seen I'm largely better educated then most of the people claiming the public schools are a failure. This indicated to me that the root cause of the problem has little to do with how schools are funded, but rather in what is prioritized by society. In fact if I look at myself and my classmates, the one thing that is different is our parents. It's my contention that it is the parents, and to a broader degree, the society, that is primarily responsible for the quality of education that a child receives. The people arguing that it is the teachers are largely trying to blame others for their own failings. If education and learning is not valued, then students will not strive to be better... for children seek encouragement and praise. If they are praised for catching a football, but not for reading a book, guess what they will do more of? I know far too many highly intelligent, highly motivated, well learned people who have received nothing but public education their entire lives to believe this drivel that public education does not work. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 3:13:26 PM |
|
"Having the best healthcare is a privledge not a right."
Unfortunately, we have worse basic healthcare than nation's that view health as a right. "Education I think is something worth paying taxes for however it is the people who need to hold the government accountable for running the state or county educational system efficiently." Unfortunately, it's these strict educational programs and accountability programs that are currently destroying our education system. You can't qualify for certain federal programs unless you adobt their "certified" curricula which are usually rather restrictive and poorer than some currricula developed by states. They do not provide flexibility to accomodate other plans. Accountability testing is about to shut many state schools down and turn them over to the federal system with regimented curricula developed in Washington. "But all too often in the US laziness, poor decision making, and down right whining is rewarded by food stamps welfare and free healthcare. You could not work in this country and do "ok" without contributing to society at all." But if you just took care of yourself and didn't contribute AND were UNeducated, you'd probably be more of a blight than if you were EDUCATED. If you were UNeducated, you could be more of a problem. Isn't it better to have some "bad" elements for all intents and purposes NEUTRALIZED rather than dissatisfied, disaffected, disenfranchised, uneducated, and CRIMINAL. This is exactly the service I want the government to provide. It would be worse otherwise. They may not contribute, but I BENEFIT from their government-supported position. Otherwise, these people would be worse off, and a threat to every citizen. This is that whole welfare of the public I was discussing. They beenfit, and I benefit too. "There are groups that will help her that are privately funded by people CHOOSING to donate money to that cause." Again, it sounds like you recognize the NEED for such services, and you are HOPING it will be taken care of by some private organization. Charities can NOT do it all. You can't say--I recognize the need for this service, but I hope someone chooses to out of the kindness of their heart rather than the government doing its job. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 15:17. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 3:13:33 PM |
|
Double Post....
So I'll ask again, those opposed to public services, what is the responsibility of government? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 15:14. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/16/2003 3:46:46 PM |
| Dufresne - Before you go on, I would like to see you address my point, because I still find your basic assumptions to be fundamentally flawed. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 4:51:29 PM |
|
"Like I said if education creates more wealth than it consumes then it's a potential business."
If so, why couldn't it be the provence of the government? You are clearly agreeing that the entity providing the education doesn't profit, but society does. That sounds exactly like the domain of government to me. "Also keep in mind that parent who send their children to private school still have to fund public schools." Because we all reap the second-hand "profitability" you claim exists and can be turned into a business. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 5:36:00 PM |
|
Dufresne, how is food analogous? Food was probably the first thing "sold." But anyway, most of your points related to this non sequitar analogy are invalid:
"The production and distribution of food is a business which creates more wealth than it consumes." By providing for much of the world that doesn't have their own resources, not domestically. We can't export our schools. And most countries wouldn't want them if we could. "In the US less than 3% of the population is working in the agricultural sector." And they exist because of huge federal ag subsidies. Especially the beef industry... The average rancher gets about $30,000 for every head of cattle. Our grain industries wouldn't be what they are without gov't controlled contracts and trade deals which piss off the rest of the world. "And what about poor families? How can they afford to feed their children if food production is privatized?" Actually they can't. I bet America has a larger problem with hunger than Germany does. Many Americans depend on food stamps, gov't cheese, milk, and butter, etc... to feed their families. If food was 100% privatized, we would suffer greater health and hunger problems. Not to mention the resulting crime issues. "Should any government have the power to decide which ideas young citizens are being taught? I think parents should be free to decide whether they want their children to go to school A, school B, to be educated by themselves, by a group of parents who have formed a small homeschooling community or whatever." Are we talking about America or Germany? Unfortunately, talking about your perspective about your country is irrelevent to this topic. Here we can say that the parents are deciding: by participating in PTAs, School Committees, government, etc... I would imagine this is somewhat applicable in Germany as well. But in the states, many states have policies where kids can go to other schools in the county or a magnet school or a private school or stay at home. Trying to discuss this perspective from the perspective of Germany is useless and uninteresting to me... as I'm not German, this story isn't about Germany, and you've probably got worse issues (despite the "gun" to your head). A German education is better than an American one. For us, we have a crisis of poor education. You seem much more concerned about choice than quality and cost. Here we have the choice, but there is still a huge problem. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 17:40. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 6:21:22 PM |
|
That's idiocy, Dufresne--why do such sweeping generalizations catch people's fancy these days? (I said your so-called "private" and "profitable" industry couldn't sustain itself without government intervention--how the hell does that translate to everything should always be controlled by the government?)
What I am saying is that the trend towards privatization and federally mandated curricula/standards is killing our schools. Privatization doesn't work for everything (not at all for most traditionally gov't services), and that education most certainly should be a government service. I would never want to wake in a world where a child would not have a place to receive some education unless they could pay for it or receive some charity from someone. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 6:31:03 PM |
|
How's this Dufresne: I think anyone who argues that free enterprise/capitalism is the cure all is a moron. There is never a "free" capitalism--it's always defined by some set of rules, it's just a question of how many rules and who benefits. Or whether the freedoms actually create a self-perpetuating and healthy dynamic vs. one which is weighted towards the ones who created the rules in the first place.
I think anyone who thinks socialism is the answer is an idiot too. There are no utopias. It is not a matter of one extreme or the other. However, the question is: can private industry solve the education problem in America? For me, the answer is no. This has nothing to do with being against private education. I'm not. This has to do with the principle that the government has the responsibility to educate its populace in order to produce a country which is sustainable and healthy. Can contribute back to the society, the government, etc... If there are only private options and/or too many resources are diverted to private alternatives, the public system will come to an end. I do not think any system of reimbrusement or charity can ever fully compensate for such a loss. Those who are in greatest need will experience the loss the greatest. (And I've always been too damn embarassed by how ignorant and uneducated most Americans are anyway--I can't iamgine if it was worse.) Money doesn't solve the education problem. Can't we all agree on that? So why is it that the Republicans (and other supporters) who already send their kids to private school only put forth this privatization theory as a solution? Why are they only presenting a money solution? And why is anyone fooled by it? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 18:33. |
| #18 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/16/2003 6:48:05 PM |
|
Dufresne - "You may be surprised that I agree with your point. But education is neither absolutely bad nor absolutely good."
Ok, fair enough and quite obvious. I don't know how it is in Germany but here in the states schools are given relative ratings and parents who have the will move to cities with better school districts. "I believe it doesn't bring us very far to look at public education in isolation or at private education in isolation. I think it's a better approach to compare the *relative* value." In Minnesota, any child is eligible to go to any school in the entire state. If you live in Farmington, your child may attend school in Edina. We passed this law years ago, and as I already mentioned parents are free to move to districts which are better. Public education does not operate in isolation, the districts do compete against each other. "Your argument about environments that encourage or discourage children from learning is true, I believe. But it is true independently from how a particular school is funded. The parents are the same, whether the child goes to private or to public school." Exactly! Now you are seeing my point. "Now you may argue that public school teacher are better at encouraging their pupils to learn than private schools. But I don't see any evidence for that." I would never argue that point. But I also see no evidence to support the contrary conclusion. Which is the key to your argument and why it fails to convince me. "Actually, I think that when parents are able to withdraw funding from a private school and send their children to a competing school then they have more influence over the friendliness of teachers. But I don't have any evidence to back that claim up. I am just comparing the friendliness of public servants here in Germany with the friendliness of private employees in any business. I think a private school teacher is more motivated to create a positive learning environment if his job depends on it. " The friendliness of the teacher has very little if anything to do with the quality of the education. The most effective teacher I ever had was a brash former marine sargeant who drilled us on European history. The least effective teacher I ever saw was the friendliest, most laid back slacker in the history of the world. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 7:00:12 PM |
|
Sorry, Dufresne, but it was a retarded question. Nothing about my posts supported the position that I think anything should be 100% privatized or controlled by the gov't, nevermind something so unintuitive as food.
I took it as a typical conservative deflection: "ahh, well, I'd bet you'd want to privatize everything, wouldn't you, you commy?!!" This view that it's one way or the other is simply retarded to me, and I will shut someone down immediately who proposes it. Because it ignores the real issue. The real issue is the government does have a job. Everything cannot be privatized. Throwing money or a profit incentive at everything doesn't work with many services. Etc... And please note, I didn't call you an idiot. I called your question idiotic. If you disagree, whatever. Simply look at this again and tell me what you think: "so if the citizens of your country - as you claim - are better off without a 100% privatized food industry then why not nationalize it altogether?" Because 100% of one thing isn't good-100% of another thing must be good! Sorry, but I call 'em the way I see 'em. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 19:15. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/16/2003 7:41:55 PM |
|
A privatized organization guided by profit incentive is motivated to increase profit, not produce a higher quality product or service. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the for-profit model. Some of the most profitable businesses actually produce the lowest quality product or service.
Inversely, and probably more indicative than anything mentioned thus far, those that produce the best products are frequently the least profitable of businesses even if their products are the most expensive. Just look at private schools now. Some have highly-qualified teachers who are well-payed, but many don't (many have fresh grads without full teaching credentials teaching all first year classes). Most private schools are motivated to attract the wealthiest student body, to attract the wealthiest contributors. And that's it. There's very little accountability in private schools... If you have a big reputation but are a horrible teacher, you can stay forever. If you are a horrible student but daddy contributes the most bucks, you can graduate with honors. Some of the most expensive, wealthy, and prestigious private schools in America are in existence only to "pass" the retarded, delinquent children of the absurdly wealthy. A private school does not have state or federally mandated standards either... consider that. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 21:09. |
| #21 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/16/2003 8:26:29 PM |
|
Dufresne - "I believe that organizations which must be profitable to survive are better able to motivate individuals than organizations whose funding is guaranteed or even increased when they are operating ineffectively."
But the reality is also that organizations that must be profitable to survive are quickly willing to reduce services in order to do that. Let's look at some recent examples: Mellon bank shredding Tax returns http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010831mellon0831p2.asp Contractors shredding visa, citizenship, work permits and other INS documents http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/31/ins.documents.shred/ Unfortunately such abuses are not isolated incidents amongst privatized services. "And those people (in successful companies) have a personal interest that there are proper incentive systems in place, that good employees are hired, that customer complaints are taken seriously, that employees are well-trained, that the right people are promoted, etc. " Yes, this is exactly how Enron treated their customers, employees... oh dear I've worked in both the public and private sector. My family has a long history of public service, teaching, law enforcement, military. There are bad public service employees, certainly, that was one of the reasons I left... Although my feeling is that these bad public employees are encouraged by attitudes such as yours which treats all public service employees as scum. But there are also public employees who bring something to the table that no contractor will ever bring... Dedication, Commitment and a sense of Duty. If privatization of government services was such a great idea, we'd be outsourcing our military to Mexico, our police force to China and our fire department to India. Again I go back and ask. Why don't we just address the fundamental problems, instead of turning this into a political power struggle? This notion of privatizing education isn't going to solve any issues, it will just create new ones. |
| #22 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/17/2003 10:29:30 AM |
|
Dufresne - "I can give you similar examples for non-profit organizations. But what conclusions can we draw from that? "
We can draw the simple conclusion that there is no magic bullet. "I simply don't have the time to do such an analysis." You know it's sad. This has become an unfortunate trend in discussions. It used to be that people would look at all the facts involved and then come to a conclusion. Today people just come to a conclusion and then say they don't have time to show why. "There is an essential difference between schools and universities on the one hand and military and police on the other hand. Hopefully the latter and the court system will never be privatized. " Really? What would that difference be? I'm afraid I'm just not seeing it, as I consider both fundamental to the well being of the nation. "I don't struggle for political power and I think the status of educational organizations is a fundamental problem." Yet you have no interest in actually talking about the real problems. You want a magic bullet, and no such thing exists. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 10:30. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:57:28 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
