or one coupon for $9.99

Who do you think pays for Charter Schools?

What do you think will happen if we toss out all the problem, poor, ****ed up kids onto the streets with zero eduction? Can't imagine any kind of blowblack scenario there.

Hmmm...I suppose it's possible that disinterested, disadvantaged kids without strong parental role models might get into trouble of some sort and not reach their full potential. Thankfully with state run schools that never happens.

At least most of them learn to read and have some chance in life. Are you seriously arguing that there isn't much advantage to society in a guaranteed education for troubled poor kids, even a crappy one?

Should we just start a new class of Untouchables here in the US? Keep in mind this new class might have some problems with their role at first, and they also happen to have access to a lot of automatic weapons. So expect a tad bit of violence and unrest for the first few generations while they settle into their new role. We may need a few Escape from NY-style enclosures for the stubborn ones.

We end up with the Status Quo, except spend less money?

No, but I am starting to think that if other education models get great results for the other 80% of 90% of kids (or whatever the percentage is) then maybe public schools (in their current form) should only deal with the "troubled" kids. I know this kind of two-tier system drives liberals bananas because they don't want to have different systems for different people but it's pretty clear that the current system of public school administration is a failure. I appreciate your desire to help kids in need, but pooling them with all the other kids in a one-size-fits-all system isn't working.

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. We are this close to perfecting the public education system - if teachers could just retire a couple of years earlier with full benefits, student performance will go through the roof!

When one literally makes up the statistics one uses, it's amazing how much easier it is to support one's assertions...

Are you suggesting that the majority of kids are poor, special needs kids? I've never seen someone take that angle before. Also, the uncertainty in exactly how many kids would be better off in a mixed education system doesn't discredit the point - many people want to use the needs of (what I think are) a very small number of students as an excuse to maintain a broader public education system that has many flaws. I don't think that's an optimal solution from a public policy perspective.

This is what's starting to happen more and more with charter schools anyway. I know people who send their kids to good public (charter) school in Kansas City that would have only had Catholic school or the hellhole public school as their only options a decade ago. I don't have a problem with that. It helps renew cities and gives competition (and hopefully forces changes) to the utterly inept gigantic city school district.

I do have a problem with the libertopia fantasy idea of a pure free market system - where everyone pays out of their own pocket and the dirt poor kids, or the fairly poor troubled kids, get completely ****ed. I really don't think we want to see what would develop out of that situation.

I don't think you understand what charter schools are, or what's going on with them in school districts all over the country.

Yeah because crime is just absolutely through the roof these days compared to the past and couldn't possibly get any worse (certainly not like the Bronx is Burning days or crack heydays of the late 80s). Oh wait...

In before long-winded obtuse ramble that completely misses the point.

I don't have a long-winded obtuse ramble available, but how much of the change in crime rates can seriously be attributed to improved public schools? Any?

Come on, that obviously wasn't a serious policy post.

No--the objection was to your claim that "other education models" are superior for "80-90%" of students.

Ron Pauls only flaw his monetary policy, which is inconsistent at best and really destructive at worst - will ensure that he does not get nominated.

His hard money policy will get picked apart. And rightly so.

Great Man otherwise.

Most of the stuff I disagree with him on will never get through Congress. The stuff I agree with him on is basically subject to unilateral executive action. He'd probably have the best presidency in modern history in terms of outcomes (well, if you think war is tremendously evil).

Sorry, I guess I didn't word that properly. The point is that if different education models produce better results for typical to excellent students (maybe that's 50%, 60%, 90%, I don't know and it's not relevant to the point) then clinging to current education models in defense of the poor, troubled, special needs kids isn't necessarily good policy. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that it's bad policy. It is a lowest common denominator approach, which I think is not a good idea. And I don't think it's that controversial to suggest that is the case.

But these views will not win him the nomination.

You have major economic injustice in this country and he suggests: Let's make money gold and even more exclusive

Well yeah, politics gonna politics. Won't win the nomination, would lose the presidency even if he did (probably in a landslide). But I think that his actual impact were he put into office would be overwhelmingly positive, and I don't give a **** about the Fed.

Right, I just have no reason to believe that presumption is true. Not just "for typical to excellent students" mind you, even for disadvantaged or any segment. KIPP (as clowntable mentioned) is a great example of a program that might be doing well, but it's far from proven in any sort of rigorous fashion.

But sure, if I believed that it were well-established that there were better methods, I'd happily endorse them. But typically the public discussion is weighted heavily by random ideology.

Interesting I always saw you as a rather liberal poster.

What makes you think that?

OK, so Paul is definitely not going to win, no argument.

I'm actually not so sure that his actual impact would be so overwhelmingly positive. One oft-overlooked aspect about the whole newsletter controversy is that it calls into question Paul's ability to select and manage competent people.

That sort of thing is pretty important...

So yes, there are all kinds of big headline things that Paul is for that would be great to see implemented. That might not be enough.

As I said, most of his positions that I object to will need to make their way through Congress, and they will stall and die there.

His positions on foreign policy, however, can be implemented unilaterally by the executive branch, and the net result would be thousands upon thousands of people living who would have otherwise died.

Picked apart by who? By people who don't understand economics? Obviously.

People will be picking apart Ron Paul till the day the country self-destructs.

You disagree with sound money? You don't want banks competing against each other?