Socialism

BluePlanet

Just reading what citizensinformation.ie has to say in their overview of the Irish education system:

Primary schools are generally privately-owned by religious communities (or boards of governors) but are State-funded.

Second level education is provided by different types of post-primary schools. That is, secondary, vocational, community and comprehensive schools. Secondary schools are privately owned and managed. In most cases the trustees are religious communities or boards of governors.

That is actually closer to your ideals than mine.
Be careful what you wish for.

amacachi

A curriculum taught by state-paid teachers and set by others in the state's employment. Yeah, real free market stuff there.

BluePlanet

Donegalfella tells us that the education system is failing us, so where are these private-school startups?
Shouldn't we be seeing a renaisance of for-profit schools springing up everywhere to make a living off all these failed kids and parents?

What do you think would really happen in this country if the state all of a sudden stopped administering education?
Most likely we would see a resurgent Christain Brothers and religious education. Why? Because they have all the infastructure, legacy, experience, community influence and at this stage, PR.

No, our best bet for a modern, quality and secular education is to reform our current system. Get the state to put manners on these religious orders and if necessary, compulsory purchase the schools and grounds.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The article covers 1990 to 2007, was there some sort of celtic tiger stomping about then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

During the boom years, for those that could afford it.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whenever I see a chart produced by a government organisation (as above), I try to be cautious when accepting their graphs or conclusions, thanks to having read a rather informative little book by Darrell Huff called HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS.

For example, they state that there were adjustments made for "inflation" since 1985, but fail to provide precisely what inflation adjustment calculation was used? For example (see CPI inflation calculator http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/), if in 1985 I purchased an item for $30.10 (compare to 30.1 billion), then in 2010 that same item would cost $60.63 (compare 60.6 billion) for a rate of inflation change of 101.4%.

Adjusting for the lack of timeliness of the chart, which reads from 1985 to 2007, if I purchased an item for $30.10 in 1985, that same item would cost $58.00 for a rate of inflation change of 92.7%.

Chart claims 138% minus CPI calculator 92.7% = 45.3% difference between the claimed increase and an increase using the CPI calculator? (Not sure about this comparison, given that the method of calculating "inflation" in the chart is not specifically stated).

Further, although the government organisation claimed to account for inflation, they appeared to have completely ignored major demographic changes in the population of the United States since 1985? For example, the US population in 1985 was 237,923,795 (source: http://www.infoplease.com/year/1985.html), and had grown to an estimated 308,940,220 for an increase of 71,016,425 or roughly a 30% increase in population?

Adjusting for the lack of timeliness in the chart (1985 to 2007), the US population in 1985 was 237,923,795, and had grown to an estimated 301,621,157 (source: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-context=qt&-qr_name=PEP_2007_EST_DP1&-ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-CONTEXT=qt&-tree_id=807&-geo_id=01000US&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en) for an increase of 63,693,362 or roughly a 27% increase in population ignored in a chart only based upon adjusting for inflation? Further, you cannot simply deduct 27% population increase from the calculated spending percentage increase; it is more complicated than that.

I wonder how much of the claimed increase in spending for education between 1985 and 2007 could be accounted for by the 27% growth in population ignored when only adjusting for inflation? Furthermore, we are only comparing gross population increase, and not considering what structural demographic changes may be occurring that may greatly exceed the gross 27% overall increase; i.e., the increase in the proportion of K-12 youth in the roughly 64 million population increase between 1985 and 2007?

A huge caution should be mentioned at this point: That these government (and other data sourced by me) percentages are only at the descriptive level, and do not have the rigor to draw inferences statistically, failing to have explanatory or predictive power, leaving them open to interpretations that could be spurious.

I will be the first to admit the limitations of the CPI calculator, or trying to compare this calculation with that of the (unknown) model of inflation used by the government organisation, or when attempting to grossly compare CPI calculated adjustments with population percentage increases; but it would also seem appropriate to take this 138% increase in educational costs with caution, especially when those percentages were calculated (August 19, 2008) under the Bush-Cheney administration during the heat of the fall 2008 presidential campaign?

censuspro

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This report seems to say the opposite.

"International recruiters believe that Ireland produces the most highly-employable graduates in the world, according to a European Commission study of third-level education".

The report did not take into account private education institutions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

donegalfella, if all schools are private what happens to those who can't afford to pay fees?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Once again, I am uncertain how "these researchers controlled for inflation" too (their "wizardry"?), but using the CPI-based inflation calculator (http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/), if in 1970 I purchased an item for $4,060, then in 2005 that same item would cost $20,436.03, which would have resulted from a rate the inflation that occurred between 1970 and 2005 of 403.4%. It would appear that the difference between the charted $9,266 occurring in 2005 was considerably lower than the $20,436.03 CPI-based calculation?

Yet a different calculation of the declining value of the dollar between 1970 and 2005 (your chart dates cited) can be obtained by its adverse relationship to the price of gold per ounce; i.e., HR: As the price of gold increases, the value of the dollar decreases.

The London price of gold (http://www.usagold.com/reference/prices/history.html) beginning in January 1970 was $34.94 oz, and ending December 2005 was $513.00 oz., resulting in a 1,468% increase in the value of gold against the dollar; i.e., it cost well over 14 times the dollars to purchase the same ounce of gold at the end of 2005, showing a huge decrease in the purchasing value of the dollar during the time frame you cited. Using the charted 1970 cost per student of $4,060 x 14.68 = $59,600 in 2005 dollars cost per student?

Admittedly, the model used by the researchers to develop their chart was uncertain, as well as their calculations in terms of valuing the dollar. Further, when attempting to estimate the time value of money, it was by far a more complex formulation than the gross, oversimplified two methods I've used here; but the vast differences between the charted calculations and those simplified methods employed here by me must give pause, suggesting "caution" to the reader, rather than to accept at face value a chart produced by an organisation (the very conservative Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/) immediately before a very heated 2008 election?

simplistic2

Jesus have anyone here experienced a state run school or even a private state regulated school? Ha it was horrible experience in my opinion. Eight hours of theory per day for 6 years and for what ? a little badge that says you can read and write at eighteen years of age!

Bravo to the government for helping children reach their full potential.

What do you really learn in school?

You learn to be a collectivist. You learn to obey authority. You learn to conform .

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The dates on the chart you referred to were really the 1970-1971 and 2004-2005 time intervals, so I am beginning with 1970 and ending with 2005, when comparing public expenditures on education as a percent of GDP:

Year GDP-US Education-total
1970 1038.3 5.44
1971 1126.8 5.63
1972 1237.9 5.76
1973 1382.3 5.49
1974 1499.5 5.43
1975 1637.7 5.85
1976 1824.6 5.88
1977 2030.1 5.65
1978 2293.8 5.54
1979 2562.2 5.41
1980 2788.1 5.45
1981 3126.8 5.26
1982 3253.2 5.16
1983 3534.6 5.01
1984 3930.9 4.82
1985 4217.5 4.90
1986 4460.1 5.04
1987 4736.4 5.06
1988 5100.4 5.03
1989 5482.1 5.14
1990 5800.5 5.26
1991 5992.1 5.49
1992 6342.3 5.39
1993 6667.4 5.42
1994 7085.2 5.17
1995 7414.7 5.35
1996 7838.5 5.25
1997 8332.4 5.21
1998 8793.5 5.28
1999 9353.5 5.28
2000 9951.5 5.35
2001 10286.2 5.57
2002 10642.3 5.74
2003 11142.1 5.78
2004 11867.8 5.68
2005 12638.4 5.78

Mean score = 5.54
Range = 4.82 (low 1984) to 5.88 (high 1976)

This data set would not make for a very impressive bar graph, when compared to the different data set used by the very conservative Heritage Foundation cited earlier? This is a raw data set, so I doubt that any "wizardry" has been used to adjust for inflation or the rapid decline in the value of the dollar. Further, the CIA Factbook showed the USA as 57th in the world (2005) in terms of educational expenditure as a percent of GDP, which is not very impressive? Perhaps you get what you pay for... maybe not?

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1970_2005&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=20-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

southsiderosie

For the record, the two graphs cited above are based on US government data, but are not produced by the government - they are from the Heritage Institute, a conservative American think tank.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The MAJOR POINT I was making was for us to exercise "caution" before accepting a report from a single source that may be biased. Max Weber in Economy and Society suggested that no one is value free; consequently, before accepting a graph at face value, it is important to note both the context (a report by an organisation known to be conservative published August 2008 immediately before the last presidential election), and the content (which failed to clearly specify how the time value of money was calculated). There may be some merit in the Heritage graphs, but that should be subject to review and evaluation by the informed consumer of information, and not swallowed in whole as if an article of faith?

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you have any empirical evidence to support this?
This article from wikipedia states that:

Long term price trends make higher education an especially inflationary sector of the U.S. economy, with tuition increases in recent years sometimes outpacing even explosive health care sectors. [14] These trends are the sources of continuing controversy in the United States over costs of higher education[15] and their potential for limiting the country's achievements in democracy, fairness and social justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition
Nice graphs there too, adjusted using the US Consumer Price Index.

Unfortunately I don't know of a similar article looking at prices of Private for-profit Secondary schools.
And the above article is looking at private non-profit colleges.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I found this one within 10 minutes after reading your post; and this one was peer reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. I am sure I can find several others.

"Adjusted to account for inflation, state appropriations for higher education have declined 40% since 1978"

Source: Weerts, David J. and Ronca, Justin M. (2006). Examining Differences in State Support for Higher Education: A Comparative Study of State Appropriations for Research I Universities. The Journal of Higher Education - Volume 77, Number 6, November/December, pp. 935-967.

bonkey

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Adjusted to account for inflation, state appropriations for higher education have declined 40% since 1978"

Being picky...is there not a difference between what this says (state appropriation has declined) and what it is being used to imply (cost has declined).

State appropriation <> cost.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

bonkey wrote: »

Being picky...is there not a difference between what this says (state appropriation has declined) and what it is being used to imply (cost has declined).

This thread was about increasing socialism in the USA, with several posters suggesting (or implying) that this somehow related to the government control and expanded funding of those programmes, like the recent passage of the health care reform bill? Further, we are not associating student paid fee or tuition increases (cost to students) for education as an example of socialism, per se, but rather increasing government expenditures for programmes?

The key clause in the quoted statement from the research article cited did not address if the gross number of dollars were increasing over time, but rather the (concept) time value of money, and how compounding inflation rapidly drops its value and its relative purchasing power over time by 40%. See the qualifying underlined clause in the repeated statement:

"Adjusted to account for inflation, state appropriations for higher education have declined 40% since 1978"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What does "the tone of your posts" have to do with a discussion on how there may be a difference in understanding of the compound impact of inflation on educational expenditures over time? My discussions have been largely methodological and not ideological, so your subjective "assuming" is in error and without foundation, and now attempts to discredit me personally rather than to address the substantive issues contained within this thread?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Placing words in my mouth does not make it so, nor does it provide substantive evidence to support an argument that pertains to the socialism OP. I have frequently stressed that readers of this thread exercise "caution" when reviewing data or graphics submitted by posters to support their arguments. Just because someone exhibits healthy skepticism when reviewing what someone else uses to support their position does not justify attempts to personally discredit, or otherwise label them into an over simplistic and dichotomous ideological category (see Jacques Derrida in Points).

In the future on this thread I will only address discussions, content, and contexts that (at least remotely) pertain to the socialism OP, ignoring the rest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.