Public Education: BBS v. TGD

[BigBallinStalin]

Let me use yet another example:

I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?

intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking

Success? No, fail cuz:

unintended and actual end = New Jersey

Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.

How would you have accomplished the goal of getting to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? You have not provided any other option of how to get from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, never mind providing a more efficient way to get there. You say walking is inefficient and you say that walking to New Jersey is unsuccessful... but that's my position on the best way to reach my goal. What is your position?

What? You intend on going to Pitts, PA, but instead you walk to New Jersey. The journey ended there.

If you believe that's your best way to reach your goal, then you're being irrational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency

[BigBallinStalin]

How can an economist determine if the means most efficiently lead to the ends without a comparison? When you use the phrase "most efficiently" by specifically including the word "most" that seems to indicate that there are other choices. I cannot say something the means are most efficient for the ends unless I have another means to compare it to.

Let's craft an example:

A boy is selling apple cider in front of his house. In order to make the apple cider he must squeeze the apples by hand, spending approximately 2 hours per apply and generating only 1 ounce of cider. Is his current method of apple cider making the most efficient method to lead to making the cider? If you answer the question "no," then you must provide a different method for the boy to make his cider. If you answer the question "yes," then you must show that other methods are not as efficient.

Because efficiency depends on the goal, the end, which is why I'm asking you about the goal of the federal government's provision of public education. If the government intends to provide public education, but instead we get very expensive warehouses which basically hold a bunch of kids from 7AM to 3PM, then this was inefficient. If the government intended to bankroll many team-playing, public employees while marketing campaign promises about education in order to gain votes, then this was efficient.

re: underlined, in many cases, it's difficult (or perhaps impossible) to show the counter-factual--especially if the government prevents alternative avenues of discovery. Just sayin'.

Again, I cannot indicate whether the method is efficient or not without deciding that there is an alternative. Further, your post is completely ludicrous because it is not about efficiency, it's about two different goals. Your stated goal in sentence 1 is public education. Your stated goal in sentence 2 is expensive warehouses.

Let me use yet another example:

I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?

You need to tell me if there is a better way to provide education than the current system or federal, state, and local funding and regulation of education.

The expensive warehouses are analogous to the ineffective schooling which many kids receive from public schools.

I keep mentioning this efficiency/effectiveness aspect because we make implicit assumptions about the goals of individuals within the various levels of government and the bureaucracies which oversee the many parts of public education. We assume that all of them (or most, or enough of them) strive to maximize the quality of education for the best of the nation, but I doubt this is the case.

I assume that those individuals are just as self-interested as you and me. Their best perceived self-interest will shape their goals and the means for attaining those goals. Therefore, since their goals will defer, then the efficiency of their production processes will be measured along different standards.

(By production processes, I mean, the black box through which inputs (students) enter and from which the outputs (kids with grammar/high school/whatever degrees) exit).


Why does this contention of mine matter?

Because the government is not this black box through which public education is efficiently maximized. We know this when stated clearly, but we tend to forget such nuances when we claim that public education is best for the nation and that the market would suck at it.*

*For example, it's the same issue I must address when people (like crazyirishman) discuss various problems about markets. They ask about all these intricate questions, yet they usually never level the same standard of criticism against government-provided and/or controlled/regulated education.

I don't mean to disregard all this (okay, maybe I do), but this is largely irrelevant to the discussion. You are critiquing public education, which is fine, but you are not providing an alternative (nevermind a viable alternative). In fact, I would venture to say I don't disagree with anything you've typed thus far in terms of criticisms of public education. But, based on background information from other threads, I gathered that you had an alternative to public education that would prove better (more efficient and more successful) than public education. I have not yet seen that in this thread. You have my alternative (public education) but you have yet to provide your own which would allow me to compare and contrast.

You mentioned on my wall that you would like to discuss the first question, so let's start with that - Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated? We can make changes to this questions (for example, it may not be in my best interest for every child to be educated in tax concepts because that makes my job less relevant and/or in less demand, so maybe we remove that kind of thing from consideration). Really, the question is - do you want neighbors who are highly uneducated or do you want neighbors who have modicum (the level of education is subject to differentials obviously) of education?

You'll see. It's completely relevant. I'm going to refer to this in a few posts.

All you have to do is apply this approach to your own stance, and you'll find yourself groping for (a) assumptions about human behavior, and (b) some theory which explains that your desired outcome (good public education) will be realized.

[thegreekdog]

Let me use yet another example:

I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?

intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking

Success? No, fail cuz:

unintended and actual end = New Jersey

Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.

Okay, now (or more accurately sometime two posts before) you made the discussion about success achieving a stated goal and not efficiency in achieving a stated goal. That is why I provided I different scenario/example.

If the stated purpose of public education is to provide education to children, if the goal is successful just one time then the stated goal has been achieved. Maybe the stated goal was not achieved efficiently, but then we have no barometer or alternative with which to compare. Since I was publicly educated and I am fairly successful, I can say that the goal of the federal government in providing public education was successful.

Now let's move on, again, to whether the federal government is efficient. I don't know the answer. But for the sake of this argument, let's say that public education is the only option; therefore it must be the most efficient. If you can come up with 20 other options, then we can discuss whether public education is less or more efficient than those other options.

Okay, no federal government involved. Go.

YAY!

I (finally) need to prepare my arguments.

[DoomYoshi]

Let me use yet another example:

I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?

intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking

Success? No, fail cuz:

unintended and actual end = New Jersey

Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.

How would you have accomplished the goal of getting to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? You have not provided any other option of how to get from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, never mind providing a more efficient way to get there. You say walking is inefficient and you say that walking to New Jersey is unsuccessful... but that's my position on the best way to reach my goal. What is your position?

What? You intend on going to Pitts, PA, but instead you walk to New Jersey. The journey ended there.

If you believe that's your best way to reach your goal, then you're being irrational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency

Wrong. Location is a boolean variable. I can be in Pittsburg or New Jersey, not both.

Education is a continuous variable, like money.

If your goal is to make dollars, and you make two dollars, are you being inefficient?

The thing is, nobody knows the maximum amount of dollars you can make and nobody knows the highest attainable education.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let me use yet another example:

I need to get from my home in Philadelphia to my aunt's house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I walk to New Jersey. Am I being efficient? I don't know. Are there better ways to reach my goal?

intended end = aunt's house at Pitts, PA.
means = walking

Success? No, fail cuz:

unintended and actual end = New Jersey

Efficient? No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.

How would you have accomplished the goal of getting to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? You have not provided any other option of how to get from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, never mind providing a more efficient way to get there. You say walking is inefficient and you say that walking to New Jersey is unsuccessful... but that's my position on the best way to reach my goal. What is your position?

What? You intend on going to Pitts, PA, but instead you walk to New Jersey. The journey ended there.

If you believe that's your best way to reach your goal, then you're being irrational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency

Wrong. Location is a boolean variable. I can be in Pittsburg or New Jersey, not both.

Education is a continuous variable, like money.

If your goal is to make dollars, and you make two dollars, are you being inefficient?

The thing is, nobody knows the maximum amount of dollars you can make and nobody knows the highest attainable education.

So, if your intended goal is "walk to the nearest store," and you unintentionally walk to Shanghai, China, then you have no way of knowing if your rational decision-making was inefficient?

Suppose I establish a high school, but since "education is a continuous variable" and "nobody knows the highest attainable education," then it is impossible for me determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the high school?

[DoomYoshi]

No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.

[DoomYoshi]

In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.

Disagree.

In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.

Agree.

Hence, my insisting TGD to define the goal.

[thegreekdog]

No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.

Disagree.

In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.

Agree.

Hence, my insisting TGD to define the goal.

Insisting schmisisting. I asked the question of what the goal is many posts ago. We need to agree on the goal first before we can debate on the best ways to get to the goal.

The question, for your reference: Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?

If the answer to that question is yes, then we can move on to determining the best way to educate all children. If the answer to that question is no, then we need to redefine what our goal is so we can best determine the way to reach the goal.

[DoomYoshi]

How can you disagree with one but not the other? They are the same point in different language.

A third form:

If you are asking for x, you can check to see if you have x and determine efficiency.
If you are asking for the x-axis, you can check nothing, as that is totally surreal.
Education is the axis. "Can spell own name in Greek" is just a point on that axis. Whether that is above or below "ties knot into cherry stem with mouth while blowing bubblegum" is a totally different question.

So you asked tgd for a definition, and he is going to give you one. But it is equally valid to say instead of "I want 25 units of education", "I want whatever units of education is considered number one in the world" or "I want the system that gives the most education".

You are asking for statement one. If we were talking dollars, I would agree with you. Since we are talking education, setting arbitrary minimum standards invariably fails because (a) the minimum standards become only a proxy for what you actually want - education (b) focusing on this proxy disregards the rest of the axis (at this point it's more a 7-space curve) (c) the standards get lowered after the realization that they are impossible.

The entire system is backwards. Basically, it is modeled how charity systems should work, and charity systems are modeled how the education system would work. Education is focused on bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator while charity is focused on making everyone as wealthy as possible. The world couldn't support humanity if everyone was as wealthy as Americans though, so charitable organizations should instead focus on making Americans poorer. The mind seems to have pretty much limitless capacity for education though, so education should focus on making everyone as rich as possible.

The flaw in the system has nothing to do with government. It has everything to do with the bullshit insistence on minimum standards, demanded by economists. Anyways, that's the end of my foray into your conversation. You can continue to argue about the aspects that don't matter, while criminals like Rugg, Counts, Hanna and Dewey get to write the textbooks. I wish you would put your mind to use in more important aspects of the problem: the indoctrination of children.

[thegreekdog]

I'm pretty sure BBS and Saxi have a side bet on how long he can string me along until he tells me what's wrong with public education and the alternative to public education that will achieve the goal of education.

[Lootifer]

I'm pretty sure BBS and Saxi have a side bet on how long he can string me along until he tells me what's wrong with public education and the alternative to public education that will achieve the goal of education.

I was going to jump straight to the chase and suggest he outline ole Miltys voucher system already.

[Timminz]

Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?

In a free market, what is in someone's best interest is represented by what they value the most. Since all people value different things differently, we can assume that it is not in everyone's best interest to have other people's children educated. Now, we can likely also assume that those who value the education of other people's children, also value educating themselves. So, people who value education (for themselves, and those around them) will end up living in areas with other people who value education, while those who value education lower will live in their own areas around other people who don't value education.

Free market solution ftw!

[thegreekdog]

Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?

In a free market, what is in someone's best interest is represented by what they value the most. Since all people value different things differently, we can assume that it is not in everyone's best interest to have other people's children educated. Now, we can likely also assume that those who value the education of other people's children, also value educating themselves. So, people who value education (for themselves, and those around them) will end up living in areas with other people who value education, while those who value education lower will live in their own areas around other people who don't value education.

Free market solution ftw!

Nice. I'm stumped on that one... for now... for now.

[PLAYER57832]

Tgd has me sold so far.

My main issue with public education is something I hope you could answer Tgd.

Being that the role of education is to make educated citizens, how can we educate children without indoctrinating them? Especially with teachers being public employees, they are usually brainwashing children to believe in leftist propaganda.

Another form of indoctrination I worry about is religious. Should public education be forcibly universal?

Do all people need education? For example, is it ok if I don't send my child sex slave to school?

These look like three main issues.

(1) Indoctrination

Generally (and I use the term loosely), indoctrination can only really happen in classes like history or politics or social studies. Perhaps English or literature classes. Science and mathematics are not really things where one can get indoctrinated. If we just take the "indoctrinatable (patent pending) classes" (history, social studies) and acknowledge that there is indoctrination happening at public schools, the question I would ask in return is this - why do you care? Parents generally have as much or more control over indoctrinating their children than teachers. I'm not suggesting we ignore the issue, I just think the issue is made way bigger than it is by creationist, revisionist historians, and the like.

[/quote]
First, I do dispute your assumption that math and science cannot be used for indoctrination. They should be exempt, but the "debate" over evolution shows that is not the case. When you dispute actual facts and call them theories, then it is indoctrination, whether it is a TV advertisement or a science text put out by Dr Morris' group. However, this is your/BBS thread, so I will leave that discussion for elsewhere.

That said, do you seriously believe that teachers don't significantly influence children? What about parents who have taught their kids to dislike people of other races. I have most definitely seen a change in people my age in that regard, many of us have very different opinions from our parents or grandparents.
Is it really that parents have more control or is it that, traditionally, parents have not significantly opposed what is taught in the school, have mostly hired teachers who agreed with them?

[BigBallinStalin]

No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.

Disagree.

In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.

Agree.

Hence, my insisting TGD to define the goal.

Insisting schmisisting. I asked the question of what the goal is many posts ago. We need to agree on the goal first before we can debate on the best ways to get to the goal.

The question, for your reference: Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?

If the answer to that question is yes, then we can move on to determining the best way to educate all children. If the answer to that question is no, then we need to redefine what our goal is so we can best determine the way to reach the goal.

Answer: NO!!!!!!! (cuz mostly what Timminz said).


Okay, let's pretend we're the Bureaucratic Big Shots of the National Education Program for the Embettermenteration of the American People. HOO! HOO! HOO! HOO! <waves fist in circular motion>


What is our goal?
What are our means?

[BigBallinStalin]

No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.

#1. So, if your intended goal is "walk to the nearest store," and you unintentionally walk to Shanghai, China, then you have no way of knowing if your rational decision-making was inefficient?

#2. Suppose I establish a high school, but since "education is a continuous variable" and "nobody knows the highest attainable education," then it is impossible for me determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the high school?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For you, #1 does matter because the intended end and the unintended end matter--in terms of efficiency. If you intend to create cars, but oops instead make bicycles, then ... was this efficient. No, all inputs were wasted because the desired output (end) was not attained.

Was it effective? No, cuz intended end was not at all accomplished. Zero Effectiveness.

So, intended and unintended goals matter. You don't even need to consider alternative production process (routes for walking) in order to comment about the efficiency and effectiveness--as I've clearly shown.




Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Sure I can! I just did. Makes sense to me. You're talking about something else.


#2. Suppose I establish a high school, but since "education is a continuous variable" and "nobody knows the highest attainable education," then it is impossible for me determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the high school?

Yes, it is, BBS--according to DY's previous position, but if so, DY finds himself with a contradiction. Why? Contrary to his position, "education is not a continuous variable"--in this circumstance, as clearly outlined, and "knowledge of the the highest attainable education" is irrelevant. What matters is attaining the intended "education level/quality."

[Lootifer]

Goal: to uniformly deliver the curriculum to all American children between the age of 5 and 18.

Means: Delivery and curriculum be optimised based on academic research.

[BigBallinStalin]

Goal: to uniformly deliver the curriculum to all American children between the age of 5 and 18.

Means: Delivery and curriculum be optimised based on academic research.

Not bad. So, we're gonna conduct some research, and then mail a bunch the curriculum to those kids?

(har har har)

[Lootifer]

Funnily enough in a optimised education system I'd say you'd actually do that for a portion of the school population (kids identified as self learners).

Obviously I skimped out on the means question. It would require a lot of work to establish a robust centrally run education system that matches a free market solution in terms of efficiency. But I believe its possible, and due to the nature of children and their education (we have a responsibility as a society to ensure every child has a fair and equal start to their life) the extra effort is worth it.

[DoomYoshi]

But BBS, you haven't declared an intended level/qulaity of education. So there is no way to know if we have reached that level until you define the intended level. Secondly, because the level is undefined, we could assume it to be impossible. If my goal is to cease material existence and will myself into mathematical reality, and I end up walking to shanghai, have I been inefficient? There is no contradiction. You are saying the same thing I am saying but denying it.

[thegreekdog]

No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.

Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.

Disagree.

In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.

Agree.

Hence, my insisting TGD to define the goal.

Insisting schmisisting. I asked the question of what the goal is many posts ago. We need to agree on the goal first before we can debate on the best ways to get to the goal.

The question, for your reference: Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?

If the answer to that question is yes, then we can move on to determining the best way to educate all children. If the answer to that question is no, then we need to redefine what our goal is so we can best determine the way to reach the goal.

What is our goal?
What are our means?

You tell me mon frere. Let's start with your goal.

My goal is to provide education to all the children living in the United States at some minimum level (as yet to be determined). But let's put that aside for now... what is your goal?

[BigBallinStalin]

But BBS, you haven't declared an intended level/qulaity of education. So there is no way to know if we have reached that level until you define the intended level. Secondly, because the level is undefined, we could assume it to be impossible. If my goal is to cease material existence and will myself into mathematical reality, and I end up walking to shanghai, have I been inefficient? There is no contradiction. You are saying the same thing I am saying but denying it.

"but but but but but but but but, as Founder of this High School my goal is to create cars."
(I agree that I didn't declare exactly what the goal was. It could've been "X-amount of students must get a HS degree by undergoing our rigorous process. Quality will be measured by grade letters per course, which will then be magically compiled into a GPA---MAGIC!! Other measurements will be used to test our performance like SAT scores, placement in particular colleges, etc." Therefore, education isn't a continuous variable--as you stated earlier, but so far in this thread, we have yet to narrow down what the goal of public education is, so we'll be here for the next few weeks spinning our wheels.

Hmm... I think I spotted an arbitrage opportunity. I'ma roll up mah sleeves and see if we can figure this out...



--------------->> Okay, Gangstas. Let's get some terms straight, so we can stop this back-and-forth. <<--------------------------------




Yesterday we were an army with no efficiency, tomorrow, we have to decide which efficiency we want to use!



Numero Uno

Definition of 'Efficiency'
A level of performance that describes a process that uses the lowest amount of inputs to create the greatest amount of outputs. Efficiency relates to the use of all inputs in producing any given output, including personal time and energy.

Investopedia explains 'Efficiency'
Efficiency is an important attribute because all inputs are scarce. Time, money and raw materials are limited, so it makes sense to try to conserve them while maintaining an acceptable level of output or a general production level.

Being efficient simply means reducing the amount of wasted inputs.

So, we got inputs ----> [production process]-----> outputs.

Efficiency = (outputs/inputs)

Numero Dos:

Economic efficiency:

"In economics, the term economic efficiency refers to the use of resources so as to maximize the production of goods and services"
"Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost."

(KINDA LIKE the efficiency used in business, but not exactly what I'm talking about). (inb4 LOOTIFER: "Pareto-efficiency FTW!!!")

Numero Tres:

To economists, efficiency is a relationship between ends and means. When we call a situation inefficient, we are claiming that we could achieve the desired ends with less means, or that the means employed could produce more of the ends desired. “Less” and “more” in this context necessarily refer to less and more value. Thus, economic efficiency is measured not by the relationship between the physical quantities of ends and means, but by the relationship between the value of the ends and the value of the means.

The inescapably evaluative nature of the concept raises a fundamental question for every attempt to talk about the efficiency of any process or institution: Whose valuations do we use, and how shall they be weighted? Economic efficiency makes use of monetary evaluations.

From this perspective a parcel of land is used with maximum economic efficiency when it comes under the control of the party who is willing (which implies able) to pay the largest amount of money to obtain that control. The proof that a particular resource is being used efficiently is that no one is willing to pay more in order to divert it to some other use.

Since public education is not based on voluntary exchange, thus free pricing, free competition, etc., then Numero Tres and its use of monetary values will present problems. Numero Dos o Uno may be best.

Wait a minute, G! What about effectiveness?



BBS Definition:
Never really distinguished efficiency (#3) from effectiveness. This is probably why our fingers are cramping at this point, so let's peruse the following definitions and see which effectiveness we want to use!


Numero A:

Effectiveness is the capability of producing a desired result. When something is deemed effective, it means it has an intended or expected outcome,

Can you do it?
Yup, I can and I did it.
SUPER EFFECTIVE HIGH FIVE!!!

Numero B:

In medicine, effectiveness relates to how well a treatment works in practice

Was that medicine effective?
Yes, doctor, it obliterated the disease, but it killed 95% of the patients.
Good work...
SUPER EFFECTIVE HIGH FIVE!!!

Numero C:

In management, effectiveness relates to getting the right things done. Peter Drucker reminds us that “effectiveness can and must be learned.”

Yeah, thanks Drucker. "Getting shit done. QED."
(Note, this sounds somewhat like Numero Tres).

------> Okay, this next one is gonna make this more complicated. YAY!

Numero D:

Efficacy, efficiency, and effectivity are terms that can, in some cases, be interchangeable with the term effectiveness. The word effective is sometimes used in a quantitative way, "being very effective or not very effective". However, neither effectiveness, nor effectively, inform about the direction (positive or negative) and the comparison to a standard of the given effect. Efficacy, on the other hand, is the extent to which a desired affect is achieved; the ability to produce a desired amount of the desired effect, or the success in achieving a given goal. Contrary to the term efficiency, the focus of efficacy is the achievement as such, not the resources spent in achieving the desired effect. Therefore, what is effective is not necessarily efficacious, and what is efficacious is not necessarily efficient[5]

[5] Longman, Pearson. "Effective - Definition from Longman English Dictionary Online." Longman English Dictionary Online. 2011

Longman, Pearson ain't no economist.

At this point, we're gonna have to state the means, goals, and the standards of measure.


ORRRR, we can have a great time shouting and throwing out our opinions---buff that rhetoric reeaall good into our posts.

You decide.

[BigBallinStalin]

You tell me mon frere. Let's start with your goal.

My goal is to provide education to all the children living in the United States at some minimum level (as yet to be determined). But let's put that aside for now... what is your goal?

My goal is to pursue the upper echelons of higher education! To scale the "Ivory Tower", reach the summit, turn around casually, and scream at the masses:

PPPTTTTTTT!!!!! SUCK IT!!!!!


(I haven't decided how many middle fingers I wish to extend. A dilemma, I know).


Then I get paid to give lectures and teach kids, teenagers, and these older kids called "young adults." So, I'd end up educating some small fraction of people through the relatively free market.

That's free markets, babe, "not your central plan." OHHH!!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

Funnily enough in a optimised education system I'd say you'd actually do that for a portion of the school population (kids identified as self learners).

I know, right?

Obviously I skimped out on the means question. It would require a lot of work to establish a robust centrally run education system that matches a free market solution in terms of efficiency. But I believe its possible, and due to the nature of children and their education (we have a responsibility as a society to ensure every child has a fair and equal start to their life) the extra effort is worth it.

It would be if you could centrally plan it within a charter city--where people have that freedom of association, voluntary and explicit 'social' contracts, and all that jazz.
(But then again, if there were many charter cities, or many central planners within a charter city, then we'd be in a market of 'public' education).

With government as is, technocracy or streamlined central planning is impossible. The incentive structure for producers and consumers is a mess, (e.g. the consumers can't 'vote with their feet'--regarding public schools, and producers like government employees generally are very difficult to lay off).