I am a teacher (maybe I shouldn't be) and I have the power to decide my curriculum 100%, - and so do my colleagues, and guess what? Guess what this complete freedom means to us? We innovate and create? No, far from it. We relish the freedom, but we've got better things to do than planning better classes. Instead, we use our time to enhance our qualifications, so we can bank on the future, by writing papers that will never apply in practice or reading - even publishing books about it. Go figure!
I don't see how creating a market is the solution to the problem of disagreements between teachers and parents. The fact that parents choice is limited in this case reflects how parents have turned their children over to the system and have given up their say and now they realize the mistake. This can be corrected without introducing a new dimension to the problem, namely, the market. Instead of having to move elsewhere to a new school I personally would rather play a role in fixing the problem.
@mightyafrowhitey That's fine. But if a parent disagrees with what that teacher is doing then the parent should have the same freedom to take their children away from that teacher. In fact, that's what the whole free school movement in the UK is about. Teachers are free to teach what they want, parents are free to send their children to the school they want. In the end, the best teachers with the best methods will end up with the most demand for their classes.
anyone notice ..... white kids = good schools black kids = bad schools
Racism?? um no .... we can all agree that blacks tend to do better at certain sports, what is wrong with stating that obviously white kids do better at school ??
@Beelzabubalicious Um yes. It is racism because you are generalizing. Intelligence and physical ability is not limited race. Case in point: Obama. Highly intelligent and yet can play a bit of basketball. Jamal Mashburn, another black person. He was a pro basketball, got a degree in telecommunication and invested his money wisely and now owns several restaurants, etc. Your racist theory has been proven to be false time and again. It is ALL about how the parents raise their children.
Although i think Friedman is very apt in explaining the failures of the government, i think Austrian Economics better explains free-market capitalism. I can't help but feel Friedman advocated Monetarism because at the time ending the FED was out of the question.
The problem is that we are trying to make the government do something that it is wholly unequipped to do. We have a great deal of choice in education... once we turn 18
That damn Marxists teacher, when he talks about "We" know better than parents for what is best for children's education sounds so fucking creepy, like a damn wolf saying to a sheep, We know what is best for you, let us tell you how to think. Indoctrination at its best, and a great example of how through education Europeans and Americans have been dumbed down!
the u.s will fail because we have way to many dark people that do not have anything in their brains exept drugs & making more niggers/spics babies they don't raise or can afford ruining whities land!!!!! i wish the gov would kill them all already so whitey can go forward!!!
the problem is that teachers do everything they can to ensure that everybody thinks that all teachers are great teachers. bullshit. is it the fact that friedman has an economics degree that makes him a a good economist? do the socialist teachers think he is a good economist? no on both accounts. i'll agree with friedman and they can agree with naomi klein/michael moore/john maynard keynes or WHOEVER it is, and im not gonna let any government regulated economist stop me from being free to choose.
What a fool that head teacher is. "I think parents understand what food to give children but not what their education requirment is". Why, by his logic, does he think they should know what food to give them, they're not all doctors are they? His argument is that of the pompous, self important special interest.
Because of people like him we're, today, trying AGAIN to introduce choice, and who is opposing? Headteachers associations, and the education authorities i.e. thos who are unaccountable.
Sadly, today the elitist cocksuckers have taken over the school system and turned it into a system that breeds yet still more elitist idiot cocksuckers. One only has to look at wall street and the amount of idiot elitist cocksuckers who helped facilitate the collapse of the market. Also look at washington and the idiot elitist cocksuckers there, the incompetence that runs government. Look at the idiot elitist cocksuckers in hollywood who have worked to undermine America.
Schools dumbed down education to make people dependent on government. American schools are built on the prussian model which create mind-numbed drones devoid of creativity but willing to march into rows of bayonettes. In 1930 black literacy in the US was 90 percent. Now it is 50%. They have dumbed down America so they will accept socialism.
"We've been trained to ascertain the problems of children, to detect their weaknesses"... w-wow. Seriously, "detect their weaknesses"? I know what he means but his choice of words makes it sound like teachers are cavemen trying to kill a woolly mammoth.
British schooling is packed with people like him. Americans might not know this, but the UK school inspection body, Ofsted, are despised by teachers because once a year they create a gun-to-the-head atmosphere so tense it's impossible to teach.
The principle of the public school at 5:10 believes he should be the one who sets school policy and not the parents. I can see the principles point.
He is a professional and he believes he should be left to do his job as he sees fit instead of having his decisions dictated to by popular trends in the market of education. I am not in complete agreement with the principle but i see his point.
But, if indeed it can, it will be readily seen by parents and by society just like we see it with doctors. We don't know why we got better, but we did and that's sufficient. If I'm not getting better, I can't simply say, "oh, well, he's an MD grad from Duke; I must not know what feeling 'well' is."And, therefore, he has nothing to fear from the market. The market would provide the best practical "gov't"where the goodarerewardedandthebad punishedwithnocorruptionortyrannic consolidationofpower.
"This sticky little piece of paper... coming in and under duress you will do this or else."
"And we want to do this freely with the cooperation of parents and not under any undue strains."
That sounded more like a description of gov't than the free market. Irony overload.
This is where the headmaster makes his fatal flaw. He implies what the teachers can provide will be positive for the children. And indeed it can be. The profession wouldn't exist if it couldn't.
I remember the public education I got. I learned the same shit each year after year in every subject except English and Math. It was largely a daycare center. I would've been much better served by a personal, very intelligent, educated, and probably expensive tutor to be an apprentice to. I wasted more time than I care to remember, staring off blankly at a wall while I waited to actually learn something new. I can't tell you how many teachers I ranintowhoweren'tqualified toteachtheirsubject.
This guy says the parents don't have the full expertise to know what's a "good" education. Parents know that. Parents know they aren't full qualified to counter what an orthodontist or doctor might say about their children. But, they go by common sense results. Does the kid seem to be in a situation where he's improving and is cared for? If the doctor says he's getting better, but the kid is puking his guts out every night, you think the parent is gonna go for a second opinion?
How does this guy explain why public education is horrible? Because there isn't enough money or regulation still? Why is there such an abysmal price per student ratio in public schools and we actually get less? And we're to continue this trend by pumping more money in? Or does he simply take the naive view that you just got to get the "right" people in? lol, that never happens and, imho, no one exists to command an economy from such a consolidated position.
That's the beauty of the market; profit motive forces businesses to pay attention to what their consumers want. They have to adapt to the changing landscape constantly. A gov't is a monopoly; it only adapts when it gets voted out, a much slower, wasteful process. This British "gentleman" has the audacity to think he has the brains or the righteousness to command what the public wants. No one does.
Education the market would dynamically direct would be very relevant to what the current job market and popular scientific inquiry demand. It'd necessarily be this way because the same market now constructs the dynamics, not a bureaucrat trying to keep up with what the market demands or what he deems as a valid pursuit of knowledge. If families were ending up with children who weren't adequately educated for the market, you think that school wouldn't start to getthat reputationandhavetoadjust?
The fundamental problem the headmaster is running into is he doesn't full grasp what "the market" would do. He assumes it would entail parents demanding irrelevant educations. Whatever the parent or teacher wants is what'd happen and it'd always be a lower quality education. But, the competition between schools would create an environment that is focused on results. That's what the market is good at -- *results*.
What would he have thought about Hitler's Germany? Hitler was a legally elected official and he set up a system that was very EFFECTIVE as long as you were not one of his victims.
store-front schools--excellent idea; lets get rid of public education and put ALL children (even from the Republican neighborhoods) into store-front schools.
Special needs refer to the process by which one learns that 2+2=4 and not 5 or 6 or puppy or any of the other things that an improperly wired mind are capable of construing it as.
Ah, Altruist! God who? So self sacrifice is your position, "it's better to give than receive" for you.
You have just as much right to be a Capitalist as I do or I am. If you fail maybe it's your ability to learn or a problem with motivation. But the poorest of the poor can compete in Capitalism, and do. More people have achieved under Capitalism than any other form or ideology and that is a fact.
I'm and avid supporter of capitalism...i was just merely pointing out that capitalism doesn't trout down for the slow. it supports evolution. and as for the who is god...still trying to figure that one out...all i know is that to overcome the toughest things in my life i've had to BELIEVE in something more than me.
The "slow" ok whatever that means. Even a "slow" person does better under Capitalism than any other ideology. We've seen what happens under Socialism and Communism, want to try for the big prize behind door number 3? Fascism or National Socialism, the "slow" usually don't live long under these ideologies.
Now go watch some Ayn Rand interviews that are here on YT, good day and nice chatting.
Friedman shows run down public schools against well to do private schools, and these private and catholic schools don't serve the needs of special education needs and pay their teachers very little. And every institution has a bureaucracy, not just government institutions.
Jlysses, did you forget the store front schools? Good teachers, effective techiques and relevant information that will best prepare the student for future challenges are all far more important than how much a school spent on their facilities. If the government allowed parents to spend their money as they wished, there would be a hell of a lot more private schools competing with each other, and they would have to compete for the best teachers, so good teachers would be paid much more.
Haven't heard of them. Educate me! I'll Wikipedia it...my experience is that private schools take care of their own, and do a great job of it. I'm the product of 13 years of private school as well, and now an 8th year teacher in an excellent public school system. But "good teachers" is a tricky phrase, and government has done an excellent job here in MA - we're #1 in the US for Public schools. There should be always be more freedom for parents - but I'd have to see the governing laws as they are
The store front schools was one of the examples Friedman gave in this episode. I figured you watched the whole thing. It shows a private school that was run out of a series of store fronts with very meager facilities.
Why is "good teachers" a tricky phrase? Evaluating a teacher can be subjective I know. But there are clearly good teachers and bad teachers. I've had them both.
"But a free-market doesn't ensure competition and therefore it doesn't ensure efficiency either. Ever heard of oligopoly?"
So what if it doesn't ensure competition. The necessity for competition is the need for efficiency. I'm afraid your valueing the wrong things.
A de facto (free-market) monopoly is only a monopoly because of consumer demand. As soon as it starts to screw the consumer then companies from other industries will use price discrimination to chew away at its monopoly.
"You can choose between a private company and a government-owned one."
You can't protect negative rights and positive rights at the same time. The gov't owned institution would have an advantage since they externalize the cost onto their competitors. Even though they may be equal quality, they create a disincentive to go to the private institutions. So no.....it's not really as much of a choice in Sweden or Uruguay as you might think.
"There can be govt owned companies...."? Give me one example of any such govt company. To date there exists none. Note that private companies should not be "licensed" or "regulated" by govt, in the same sector.
I did. This is what I found out - 1. It exists only in Uruguay, while its competitors cover the entire south America (which means, they are competitive, while antel is not). It was founded by a military dictator, who lost power when the military disagreed with him. This founder also came from a rich landowner family. As for the tax monies funding this company - give me a balance sheet for it, let us see, how much public money is backdoored into making this company live.
A govt enterprise does not need subsidy - they just tolerate heavy losses. Because tax payer bears the losses. Subsidies work with privately owned but govt supported businesses. Tell me how much profit did it make last year? Or how much "revenue deficit" did it face last year?
As for one govt owned company - joining another foreign govt owned business - seems like fascism is alive and well in Uruguay and Brazil.
It doesn't lose a cent, but rather has a revenue of ap. 800 million dollars a year.
Now, would you mind explaining the remark about fascism? It's a little bit exaggerated to define a government as fascist for having non-monopolizing, profitable companies.
Ok so it had 800 million dollars a year in revenue - what about the expenditure of the company? Mind sharing that information.
Alright - it is in the benefit of a few people who are pulling the strings of the govt. But when they go across borders and try to establish cooperation between two market controlling govt institutions on both sides - that is scary fascist policies in action.
with your criteria, all govt-owned airlines are fascist, since they operate across borders.
If Antel starts operating in Brazil, it will be under Brazilian regulations just like any other company. No special benefits there and people are free to choose whatever company they want.
By the way, fascism is a term used for exacerbated nationalism, authoritarism and populism. This is neither.
alright - seems like I will have to use an interpreter to get through the data - the website refuses an english translation - which in itself is interesting. Please note that Antel in Brazil and Uruguay control the licensing of telephony lines - i.e. they control their competition through force of govt.
it doesn't matter if there money hungry its good for society anyway. government and its monopolies are detramental to society. inefficient, corrupt and wasteful. have you ever worked in the public sector, there hopeless.
relative to what? you have no idea what you going on about. the market works government ownership and its monoplies dont. a free market is what america ran on 100 yrs ago thats why you clowns became so great. your abandaning that the government now controls 47% of your country and is heading for communism which is closer to 100% gov controlled. the country is failing aparty because there is to much government involvement not to mention your about to bankrupt. a total $119 trillion in debt.
if you like the government running the show move to russia or north korea. i'm sure you'll love it there the way your talking. government control is a poor choice and you will loose not only your wealth but your freedom. go ahead and give away the fruits of your labour to the state. they wont manage your money very well though. it will only go into the pockets of people who cares less about you or your family.
LOL. If it's not efficient in doing a good job educating children then it doesn't make any money! God. Is it a rule that you have to be an economic illiterate to be on the left?
if you like the government running the show move to russia or north korea. i'm sure you'll love it there the way your talking. government control is a poor choice and you will loose not only your wealth but your freedom. go ahead and give away the fruits of your labour to the state. they wont manage your money very well though. it will only go into the pockets of people who cares less about you or your family.
The USSR wasn't the model I was talking about. I was referring to countries such as Sweden or Uruguay. You can choose between a private company and a government-owned one.
Except govt can tell private companies what they can and cannot do, not the other way around. Isn't it? Besides, please move to Sweden or Uruguay if you like it that much.
Yes, there is, actually, otherwise it would have unlimited power. It consists in a structure of independent institutions that control each other. The fact that together they conform the state as a whole entity doesn't make it an undivisable unit as Friedman refers to.
Tell me one thing the govt cannot do. As for independent institutions, I hope you are not talking about the US govt system. It is funny that Americans think their supreme court - (to which justices are appointed by the president) - is going to restrict executive power. Same thing about congress. You criticize the executive, and then watch the "party" challenging your congressional seat, by creating to split your votes.
The govt cannot self-regulate, that is why there is the 2nd amendment.
Well, you've got a good point there. Yours is a good example of a totalitarian state. However, other govts have different structures and achieve self-regulation.
As for your first question: in a state that functions properly, a govt owned company can't do ANYTHING a private company can't do as well.
Ok, so you have used a caveat "in a state that functions properly"
Name one state that functions properly - or you might as well state "when pigs fly ....."
But you don't have to go that far. Tell me where does the investment for the formation of a govt company come from? And then tell me where the investment for a private company come from?
Fundamental differences are too big to even think that it is possible to compare govt companies to private companies as on equal footing.
Friedman wasn't as simplistic as some people are suggesting. His studies were very detailed, but he was also a very good public speaker (the Austrian school guys dwell in comparison.) Free To Choose wasn't made to be an in depth show for economists, so judging him based on this alone (or the other episodes of the series) he will come off as simplistic.
Surley this means if your a kid from a poor family, your not going to get a good education. Society will just atomize into different classes where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Kids from poor backgrounds will have no chance in the job market coz they got a shit education and hence their future children and grandchildren will stay stuck in a rut. Any responses?
well thanks for judging me. Im merley just trying to understand the ethical applications of Friedmans policies. If that makes me a "dependent on welfare case" then so be it. Do you have any relevant comments? can you think for yourself or is what Friedman says final?
Sorry, you are just coming from some sort of attitude that society owes its citizens something more than creating a society that ensures your freedomn. If you are poor and cannot provide for yourself why should you have kids? Nowadays poor people have kids so they can get welfare, free housing, medical, food etc. Gov't then rewards poor decisions (welfare), and punishes good decisions (tax contributors).
Wow you have really won me over with your intellect,thanks for that, your argument has made me reject socialism! Yeah fuck the socialist scum! we dont need to debate because ur right! Yeah lets dictate our message to everyone and call everyone scum!. Who said I was socialist? you are obviously a sad pathetic tosspiece who judges everyone without engaging in discussion. I looked at your profile and I saw that u like 70-80s punk name a non-socialist punk band of that era twat.
response, how about examples. have you really never heard a success story? i mean, my dad was pretty damn poor, but you fucking work and go to school, suck it up, make it through.
It seems that these"libertaraians"base money as the means of deciding access to resources.I come from a poor family,in the UK we have a grammer school system whereby if you pass exams u can go to a better school &the state will fund ur expenses.I was lucky enough to get into a grammer school and am now finishing my last year at university. Education should be decided on ability, not BY money.These"libertarian"policies just give better access to education for those with money,Is that liberal?
A voucher system is generally a good idea. You don't have to be a neoliberal to agree with that idea (in fact, there are quite a few prominent socialists who endorse the idea of a voucher system.)
School choice in Europe has worked very well, and there have been seemingly good results in Chile too, especially when it comes to equality.
its not that libertarians base money as of deciding access to resources, but it is the actual choice with individual's money
as you know in a free-market society the society is controlled by money. its the most just way. yeah some will win and some will lose but at least in this system you have a chance to succeed (unlike socialism where everyone shares misery)
Well your definition of "liberal" differs from Friedman's I'm sure so therefore the answer to your question is invalid from the start. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that the government is above preferential treatment regarding access to education. The real answer to your question is that the people with a high solastic ability will find a means to educate themselves and the people that buy their way into the university may not take advantage of their educational opportunity.
Even if they were given the money to do so. Colleges work out so much better because the child is older and has the means to either move or drive a car to the school that could address their needs. All in all people just don;t take k-12 all that serious. If they do, their children are already attending private schools.
Most economist promote free-markets, and as little as government intervention in the lives of citizens as possible. I don't really agree with the voucher system because I don't feel student or parents would make the effort to CHANGE schools because they feel their needs are not being addressed. They simply don't have the means to drive their child to another town every morning to get the education their child "deserves."
I appreciate his dedication to retaking control from... the bureaucrats(boo, hiss), but I think his neoliberalist views are overly simplistic and a clumsy boondoggle to siphon more money to him and his corporate buddies.
Friedman is dead. Wow your smart. Friedman was a kind-hearted humble man, but you fucking bastard brainless hippies call anyone not wearing a tye-dye shirt a corporate scum bag.
"School vouchers take power from the ...bureaucrats(boo, hiss) and return it to parents!" Ok, but property taxes pay for schools... and in rich neighborhoods schools are usually better. What about in a poor neighborhood with a shit school? If all the parents decide to take their kids elsewhere... where do they go? A neighborhood over? Can that school handle a doubling of students?
I found uncle Milty to be a fascinating guy, but I can't say that I really agree with him on much.
He seems to oversimplify and distort the truth a great deal.
"Want a great higher education? Just go to Dartmouth!" Well, great Milty, but tuition ain't cheap, and a waitress couldn't possibly afford to make it. Maybe for someone who brought in the kind of moolah you did slinging voodoo economics...
"I don't fink pawents have the ability to dicide what's best fow theiw childwen"
ohedd 4 weeks ago
I am a teacher (maybe I shouldn't be) and I have the power to decide my curriculum 100%, - and so do my colleagues, and guess what? Guess what this complete freedom means to us? We innovate and create? No, far from it. We relish the freedom, but we've got better things to do than planning better classes. Instead, we use our time to enhance our qualifications, so we can bank on the future, by writing papers that will never apply in practice or reading - even publishing books about it. Go figure!
mistersmith6000 1 month ago
stangling of successful experiments by bureaucrats is not unusual
bootiack 1 month ago in playlist Milton Friendman on Education
Thanks for the upload! When was this documentary made?
SkullOfYorick 3 months ago
I don't see how creating a market is the solution to the problem of disagreements between teachers and parents. The fact that parents choice is limited in this case reflects how parents have turned their children over to the system and have given up their say and now they realize the mistake. This can be corrected without introducing a new dimension to the problem, namely, the market. Instead of having to move elsewhere to a new school I personally would rather play a role in fixing the problem.
rhth79 4 months ago
"To put right what needs putting right" Wtf is he a god?
Xantheus07 8 months ago
english headmaster: "we make our judgements because we believe its in the best interest of every little girl and boy that we've got"
thats the problem, he believes he knows better what is best for someone elses kid than that kids own parents which is not true.
206Dawgs 9 months ago
@206Dawgs He does have a point though. A QUALIFIED who knows what he is doing, and should be free to teach the children the ways he sees fit.
mightyafrowhitey 6 months ago
@mightyafrowhitey That's fine. But if a parent disagrees with what that teacher is doing then the parent should have the same freedom to take their children away from that teacher. In fact, that's what the whole free school movement in the UK is about. Teachers are free to teach what they want, parents are free to send their children to the school they want. In the end, the best teachers with the best methods will end up with the most demand for their classes.
markm8080 5 months ago
@206Dawgs But I DON'T believe the beuracrats should decide either.
mightyafrowhitey 6 months ago
0:09 ... now thats a car! lol
Fantastic video as well. Friedman is my hero.
adulby 10 months ago
The socialist teacher reminds me of one of the many "looters" from Atlas Shrugged.
ThePrimePotter7 11 months ago 5
I was born in 1979 not far from Ashford. In the 30 years since this film was made there's still these nasty little dictators running the schools.
mangoswiss 1 year ago
anyone notice ..... white kids = good schools black kids = bad schools
Racism?? um no .... we can all agree that blacks tend to do better at certain sports, what is wrong with stating that obviously white kids do better at school ??
Beelzabubalicious 1 year ago
@Beelzabubalicious Um yes. It is racism because you are generalizing. Intelligence and physical ability is not limited race. Case in point: Obama. Highly intelligent and yet can play a bit of basketball. Jamal Mashburn, another black person. He was a pro basketball, got a degree in telecommunication and invested his money wisely and now owns several restaurants, etc. Your racist theory has been proven to be false time and again. It is ALL about how the parents raise their children.
votumseparatum1 1 year ago
What a simpering bastard headmaster. What a dictator.
steamidjf 1 year ago
Although i think Friedman is very apt in explaining the failures of the government, i think Austrian Economics better explains free-market capitalism. I can't help but feel Friedman advocated Monetarism because at the time ending the FED was out of the question.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
The problem is that we are trying to make the government do something that it is wholly unequipped to do. We have a great deal of choice in education... once we turn 18
dmowings 1 year ago
@dmowings haha so true.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
board of education......cycling brainwashed students into teachers everyday
dashiznit1001 1 year ago
That damn Marxists teacher, when he talks about "We" know better than parents for what is best for children's education sounds so fucking creepy, like a damn wolf saying to a sheep, We know what is best for you, let us tell you how to think. Indoctrination at its best, and a great example of how through education Europeans and Americans have been dumbed down!
LordoftheKaty 1 year ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
the u.s will fail because we have way to many dark people that do not have anything in their brains exept drugs & making more niggers/spics babies they don't raise or can afford ruining whities land!!!!! i wish the gov would kill them all already so whitey can go forward!!!
rrrjjjmmm100 1 year ago
the problem is that teachers do everything they can to ensure that everybody thinks that all teachers are great teachers. bullshit. is it the fact that friedman has an economics degree that makes him a a good economist? do the socialist teachers think he is a good economist? no on both accounts. i'll agree with friedman and they can agree with naomi klein/michael moore/john maynard keynes or WHOEVER it is, and im not gonna let any government regulated economist stop me from being free to choose.
samm1809 1 year ago
What a fool that head teacher is. "I think parents understand what food to give children but not what their education requirment is". Why, by his logic, does he think they should know what food to give them, they're not all doctors are they? His argument is that of the pompous, self important special interest.
Because of people like him we're, today, trying AGAIN to introduce choice, and who is opposing? Headteachers associations, and the education authorities i.e. thos who are unaccountable.
d1bx4pp 1 year ago 3
Sadly, today the elitist cocksuckers have taken over the school system and turned it into a system that breeds yet still more elitist idiot cocksuckers. One only has to look at wall street and the amount of idiot elitist cocksuckers who helped facilitate the collapse of the market. Also look at washington and the idiot elitist cocksuckers there, the incompetence that runs government. Look at the idiot elitist cocksuckers in hollywood who have worked to undermine America.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
Who do you think cares more about the children's education and the ability of the children to live prosperous lives... the Government or the Parents?
wheelzwheela 1 year ago
Schools dumbed down education to make people dependent on government. American schools are built on the prussian model which create mind-numbed drones devoid of creativity but willing to march into rows of bayonettes. In 1930 black literacy in the US was 90 percent. Now it is 50%. They have dumbed down America so they will accept socialism.
jasabbott 1 year ago
"We've been trained to ascertain the problems of children, to detect their weaknesses"... w-wow. Seriously, "detect their weaknesses"? I know what he means but his choice of words makes it sound like teachers are cavemen trying to kill a woolly mammoth.
British schooling is packed with people like him. Americans might not know this, but the UK school inspection body, Ofsted, are despised by teachers because once a year they create a gun-to-the-head atmosphere so tense it's impossible to teach.
Hostile 1 year ago
This elitist wannabe at 6:51 makes me sick.
0bodobod0 1 year ago
The principle of the public school at 5:10 believes he should be the one who sets school policy and not the parents. I can see the principles point.
He is a professional and he believes he should be left to do his job as he sees fit instead of having his decisions dictated to by popular trends in the market of education. I am not in complete agreement with the principle but i see his point.
sgt7 1 year ago
But, if indeed it can, it will be readily seen by parents and by society just like we see it with doctors. We don't know why we got better, but we did and that's sufficient. If I'm not getting better, I can't simply say, "oh, well, he's an MD grad from Duke; I must not know what feeling 'well' is."And, therefore, he has nothing to fear from the market. The market would provide the best practical "gov't"where the goodarerewardedandthebad punishedwithnocorruptionortyrannic consolidationofpower.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
"This sticky little piece of paper... coming in and under duress you will do this or else."
"And we want to do this freely with the cooperation of parents and not under any undue strains."
That sounded more like a description of gov't than the free market. Irony overload.
This is where the headmaster makes his fatal flaw. He implies what the teachers can provide will be positive for the children. And indeed it can be. The profession wouldn't exist if it couldn't.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
I remember the public education I got. I learned the same shit each year after year in every subject except English and Math. It was largely a daycare center. I would've been much better served by a personal, very intelligent, educated, and probably expensive tutor to be an apprentice to. I wasted more time than I care to remember, staring off blankly at a wall while I waited to actually learn something new. I can't tell you how many teachers I ranintowhoweren'tqualified toteachtheirsubject.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
And it's great that you have the option for a second opinion -- it's how you keep the first one honest!
Finally, how does giving the parent more direct influence gets in the way between the teacher and the parent? lol, what a non-sequitur.
I think he's scared the market would label him a subpar teacher... Nothing great fears competition, he actively searches for it.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
This guy says the parents don't have the full expertise to know what's a "good" education. Parents know that. Parents know they aren't full qualified to counter what an orthodontist or doctor might say about their children. But, they go by common sense results. Does the kid seem to be in a situation where he's improving and is cared for? If the doctor says he's getting better, but the kid is puking his guts out every night, you think the parent is gonna go for a second opinion?
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
How does this guy explain why public education is horrible? Because there isn't enough money or regulation still? Why is there such an abysmal price per student ratio in public schools and we actually get less? And we're to continue this trend by pumping more money in? Or does he simply take the naive view that you just got to get the "right" people in? lol, that never happens and, imho, no one exists to command an economy from such a consolidated position.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
Tragically, this is very common in the UK. People actually believe in the omniscience of government planners.
smoochym 2 years ago
That's the beauty of the market; profit motive forces businesses to pay attention to what their consumers want. They have to adapt to the changing landscape constantly. A gov't is a monopoly; it only adapts when it gets voted out, a much slower, wasteful process. This British "gentleman" has the audacity to think he has the brains or the righteousness to command what the public wants. No one does.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
Education the market would dynamically direct would be very relevant to what the current job market and popular scientific inquiry demand. It'd necessarily be this way because the same market now constructs the dynamics, not a bureaucrat trying to keep up with what the market demands or what he deems as a valid pursuit of knowledge. If families were ending up with children who weren't adequately educated for the market, you think that school wouldn't start to getthat reputationandhavetoadjust?
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
The fundamental problem the headmaster is running into is he doesn't full grasp what "the market" would do. He assumes it would entail parents demanding irrelevant educations. Whatever the parent or teacher wants is what'd happen and it'd always be a lower quality education. But, the competition between schools would create an environment that is focused on results. That's what the market is good at -- *results*.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
That Socialist english teacher is a dick.
cpblackangel88 2 years ago
OMG that headmaster is the perfect example of a aristocratic socialist!
03prod 2 years ago 2
Willy and Johnny... ha!
getupjumpy 2 years ago
Humphrey Appleby has really let himself go.
ThePissedOffAtheist 2 years ago
That socialist teacher at 5 mins is sickening.
richardcadbury 2 years ago 54
@richardcadbury communism is taught in every level of education sad to say.
beefdog 10 months ago
What would he have thought about Hitler's Germany? Hitler was a legally elected official and he set up a system that was very EFFECTIVE as long as you were not one of his victims.
neon806 2 years ago
I am referring to the teacher from England who thought the government officials should make all of the decisions.
neon806 2 years ago 18
nazi germany was a centrally controlled dictatorship, milton would not like this
sony8877 2 years ago
store-front schools--excellent idea; lets get rid of public education and put ALL children (even from the Republican neighborhoods) into store-front schools.
JuanVoyce 2 years ago
Notice how the people in support for the voucher system are the parents and kinds.
The people against? The ones who are afraid of loosing their money.
I love how the parent doesn't know best. How the teacher cares more about the kids then their parents do.
JollyW89 2 years ago
i dont agree with friedman about all his economic beliefs. However when it comes to public schools, i agree 100%!
miguelcotto23 2 years ago
That Nazi thinks he owns other people's children.
ab1tchslap 2 years ago
AHHH...Milton Friedman is a Jew...i really hope you don't mean him do you?
uberschaller 2 years ago
No, I mean that teacher who actually sounds like a Nazi. I know Milton Friedman is a Jew.
ab1tchslap 2 years ago
My kids will go to a Private Catholic school... the less the government is involved in your life, the better off you will be.
3rdWorldInvasion 3 years ago
lol at catholic
jwmag 2 years ago
There is no such thing as 'special needs' children, 2+2=4 no matter who you are.
blummedia 3 years ago
I can't tell you how wrong you are.
Jlysses 3 years ago
Special needs refer to the process by which one learns that 2+2=4 and not 5 or 6 or puppy or any of the other things that an improperly wired mind are capable of construing it as.
LennyTheRed 2 years ago
i have to disagree with you bro. yes..in the eyes of god we are all equal...but in the eyes of capitalism we are anything but.
uberschaller 2 years ago
Ah, Altruist! God who? So self sacrifice is your position, "it's better to give than receive" for you.
You have just as much right to be a Capitalist as I do or I am. If you fail maybe it's your ability to learn or a problem with motivation. But the poorest of the poor can compete in Capitalism, and do. More people have achieved under Capitalism than any other form or ideology and that is a fact.
blummedia 2 years ago
I'm and avid supporter of capitalism...i was just merely pointing out that capitalism doesn't trout down for the slow. it supports evolution. and as for the who is god...still trying to figure that one out...all i know is that to overcome the toughest things in my life i've had to BELIEVE in something more than me.
uberschaller 2 years ago
The "slow" ok whatever that means. Even a "slow" person does better under Capitalism than any other ideology. We've seen what happens under Socialism and Communism, want to try for the big prize behind door number 3? Fascism or National Socialism, the "slow" usually don't live long under these ideologies.
Now go watch some Ayn Rand interviews that are here on YT, good day and nice chatting.
blummedia 2 years ago
Friedman shows run down public schools against well to do private schools, and these private and catholic schools don't serve the needs of special education needs and pay their teachers very little. And every institution has a bureaucracy, not just government institutions.
Jlysses 3 years ago
Jlysses, did you forget the store front schools? Good teachers, effective techiques and relevant information that will best prepare the student for future challenges are all far more important than how much a school spent on their facilities. If the government allowed parents to spend their money as they wished, there would be a hell of a lot more private schools competing with each other, and they would have to compete for the best teachers, so good teachers would be paid much more.
truthadvocate 3 years ago
Haven't heard of them. Educate me! I'll Wikipedia it...my experience is that private schools take care of their own, and do a great job of it. I'm the product of 13 years of private school as well, and now an 8th year teacher in an excellent public school system. But "good teachers" is a tricky phrase, and government has done an excellent job here in MA - we're #1 in the US for Public schools. There should be always be more freedom for parents - but I'd have to see the governing laws as they are
Jlysses 3 years ago
The store front schools was one of the examples Friedman gave in this episode. I figured you watched the whole thing. It shows a private school that was run out of a series of store fronts with very meager facilities.
Why is "good teachers" a tricky phrase? Evaluating a teacher can be subjective I know. But there are clearly good teachers and bad teachers. I've had them both.
truthadvocate 3 years ago
"But a free-market doesn't ensure competition and therefore it doesn't ensure efficiency either. Ever heard of oligopoly?"
So what if it doesn't ensure competition. The necessity for competition is the need for efficiency. I'm afraid your valueing the wrong things.
A de facto (free-market) monopoly is only a monopoly because of consumer demand. As soon as it starts to screw the consumer then companies from other industries will use price discrimination to chew away at its monopoly.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
No, they won't.
GLS009 3 years ago
"You can choose between a private company and a government-owned one."
You can't protect negative rights and positive rights at the same time. The gov't owned institution would have an advantage since they externalize the cost onto their competitors. Even though they may be equal quality, they create a disincentive to go to the private institutions. So no.....it's not really as much of a choice in Sweden or Uruguay as you might think.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Yes, it is as long as you keep both sectors competing in equal conditions.
GLS009 3 years ago
"Yes, it is as long as you keep both sectors competing in equal conditions."
Impossible. A gov't institution externalizes the cost onto its competitors. What "equal conditions" could there be.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
There can be govt owned companies that don't externalize the cost onto their competitors. You are inducting a general rule out of particular cases.
GLS009 3 years ago
"There can be govt owned companies...."? Give me one example of any such govt company. To date there exists none. Note that private companies should not be "licensed" or "regulated" by govt, in the same sector.
utubehayter 3 years ago
google "antel"
GLS009 3 years ago
I did. This is what I found out - 1. It exists only in Uruguay, while its competitors cover the entire south America (which means, they are competitive, while antel is not). It was founded by a military dictator, who lost power when the military disagreed with him. This founder also came from a rich landowner family. As for the tax monies funding this company - give me a balance sheet for it, let us see, how much public money is backdoored into making this company live.
utubehayter 3 years ago
It's not subsidized, if that's what you're asking.
Antel wasn't exactly created in the 70's. It was a subdivision of UTE since 1934, then in 1974 it was turned into a separate entity.
It recently made an agreement with Telecom Brazil to start operating in that country as a conglomerate, how about that.
nicobolso 3 years ago
A govt enterprise does not need subsidy - they just tolerate heavy losses. Because tax payer bears the losses. Subsidies work with privately owned but govt supported businesses. Tell me how much profit did it make last year? Or how much "revenue deficit" did it face last year?
As for one govt owned company - joining another foreign govt owned business - seems like fascism is alive and well in Uruguay and Brazil.
utubehayter 3 years ago
It think I wasn't clear:
It doesn't lose a cent, but rather has a revenue of ap. 800 million dollars a year.
Now, would you mind explaining the remark about fascism? It's a little bit exaggerated to define a government as fascist for having non-monopolizing, profitable companies.
nicobolso 3 years ago
Ok so it had 800 million dollars a year in revenue - what about the expenditure of the company? Mind sharing that information.
Alright - it is in the benefit of a few people who are pulling the strings of the govt. But when they go across borders and try to establish cooperation between two market controlling govt institutions on both sides - that is scary fascist policies in action.
utubehayter 3 years ago
I'm sorry, I meant profit, not revenue.
with your criteria, all govt-owned airlines are fascist, since they operate across borders.
If Antel starts operating in Brazil, it will be under Brazilian regulations just like any other company. No special benefits there and people are free to choose whatever company they want.
By the way, fascism is a term used for exacerbated nationalism, authoritarism and populism. This is neither.
nicobolso 3 years ago
What source are you getting your information from?
utubehayter 3 years ago
You can download a balance sheet from the company's website.
As for the other information, you can find it if you google "antel tim brasil"
nicobolso 3 years ago
alright - seems like I will have to use an interpreter to get through the data - the website refuses an english translation - which in itself is interesting. Please note that Antel in Brazil and Uruguay control the licensing of telephony lines - i.e. they control their competition through force of govt.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Not anymore
nicobolso 3 years ago
cant beat the private sector its way way more efficient than any form of government.
spanishaustralian 3 years ago 3
The private sector is interested in making money, regardless of whether it takes being efficient or not to achieve it.
nicobolso 3 years ago
it doesn't matter if there money hungry its good for society anyway. government and its monopolies are detramental to society. inefficient, corrupt and wasteful. have you ever worked in the public sector, there hopeless.
spanishaustralian 3 years ago
Both the public and the private sectors are relative.
nicobolso 3 years ago
relative to what? you have no idea what you going on about. the market works government ownership and its monoplies dont. a free market is what america ran on 100 yrs ago thats why you clowns became so great. your abandaning that the government now controls 47% of your country and is heading for communism which is closer to 100% gov controlled. the country is failing aparty because there is to much government involvement not to mention your about to bankrupt. a total $119 trillion in debt.
spanishaustralian 3 years ago
Government-owned companies can compete with private companies. Then we'll see who's more efficient.
nicobolso 3 years ago
nicobolso, the private sector has to be efficient to get the money it wants and competition ensures that, this is why it is better.
axisboldas 3 years ago
But a free-market doesn't ensure competition and therefore it doesn't ensure efficiency either. Ever heard of oligopoly?
Then again, there's no reason why government-owned companies can't compete with private companies. Then we'll find out who's really more efficient.
nicobolso 3 years ago
I think history has already taught this lesson, but I agree, as Milton said "put up or shut up."
axisboldas 3 years ago
if you like the government running the show move to russia or north korea. i'm sure you'll love it there the way your talking. government control is a poor choice and you will loose not only your wealth but your freedom. go ahead and give away the fruits of your labour to the state. they wont manage your money very well though. it will only go into the pockets of people who cares less about you or your family.
spanishaustralian 3 years ago
sorry i didn't mean to send that to you. ignore it please because i agree with you.
spanishaustralian 3 years ago
LOL. If it's not efficient in doing a good job educating children then it doesn't make any money! God. Is it a rule that you have to be an economic illiterate to be on the left?
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
if you like the government running the show move to russia or north korea. i'm sure you'll love it there the way your talking. government control is a poor choice and you will loose not only your wealth but your freedom. go ahead and give away the fruits of your labour to the state. they wont manage your money very well though. it will only go into the pockets of people who cares less about you or your family.
spanishaustralian 3 years ago
The USSR wasn't the model I was talking about. I was referring to countries such as Sweden or Uruguay. You can choose between a private company and a government-owned one.
nicobolso 3 years ago
Except govt can tell private companies what they can and cannot do, not the other way around. Isn't it? Besides, please move to Sweden or Uruguay if you like it that much.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Govt owned and private companies can compete in equal conditions.
GLS009 3 years ago
But, only if govt is comprised of saints.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Not really, Friedman never understood the concept of an autorregulating government. It's all on the structure.
GLS009 3 years ago
There is no auto regulating govt.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Yes, there is, actually, otherwise it would have unlimited power. It consists in a structure of independent institutions that control each other. The fact that together they conform the state as a whole entity doesn't make it an undivisable unit as Friedman refers to.
GLS009 3 years ago
Tell me one thing the govt cannot do. As for independent institutions, I hope you are not talking about the US govt system. It is funny that Americans think their supreme court - (to which justices are appointed by the president) - is going to restrict executive power. Same thing about congress. You criticize the executive, and then watch the "party" challenging your congressional seat, by creating to split your votes.
The govt cannot self-regulate, that is why there is the 2nd amendment.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Well, you've got a good point there. Yours is a good example of a totalitarian state. However, other govts have different structures and achieve self-regulation.
As for your first question: in a state that functions properly, a govt owned company can't do ANYTHING a private company can't do as well.
GLS009 3 years ago
Ok, so you have used a caveat "in a state that functions properly"
Name one state that functions properly - or you might as well state "when pigs fly ....."
But you don't have to go that far. Tell me where does the investment for the formation of a govt company come from? And then tell me where the investment for a private company come from?
Fundamental differences are too big to even think that it is possible to compare govt companies to private companies as on equal footing.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Exactly, that part of the system. Create idiots and take advantage of them when they grown older.
vinkata 3 years ago
Friedman wasn't as simplistic as some people are suggesting. His studies were very detailed, but he was also a very good public speaker (the Austrian school guys dwell in comparison.) Free To Choose wasn't made to be an in depth show for economists, so judging him based on this alone (or the other episodes of the series) he will come off as simplistic.
CannibalBrain 3 years ago
Surley this means if your a kid from a poor family, your not going to get a good education. Society will just atomize into different classes where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Kids from poor backgrounds will have no chance in the job market coz they got a shit education and hence their future children and grandchildren will stay stuck in a rut. Any responses?
Wakerskater 4 years ago
you sound like a dependent welfare case.
moviedude111 4 years ago
well thanks for judging me. Im merley just trying to understand the ethical applications of Friedmans policies. If that makes me a "dependent on welfare case" then so be it. Do you have any relevant comments? can you think for yourself or is what Friedman says final?
Wakerskater 4 years ago
Sorry, you are just coming from some sort of attitude that society owes its citizens something more than creating a society that ensures your freedomn. If you are poor and cannot provide for yourself why should you have kids? Nowadays poor people have kids so they can get welfare, free housing, medical, food etc. Gov't then rewards poor decisions (welfare), and punishes good decisions (tax contributors).
moviedude111 4 years ago
maybe you should re-examine your ethics, socialist scum
JosephtheLibertarian 3 years ago
Wow you have really won me over with your intellect,thanks for that, your argument has made me reject socialism! Yeah fuck the socialist scum! we dont need to debate because ur right! Yeah lets dictate our message to everyone and call everyone scum!. Who said I was socialist? you are obviously a sad pathetic tosspiece who judges everyone without engaging in discussion. I looked at your profile and I saw that u like 70-80s punk name a non-socialist punk band of that era twat.
Wakerskater 3 years ago
response, how about examples. have you really never heard a success story? i mean, my dad was pretty damn poor, but you fucking work and go to school, suck it up, make it through.
FloodPower 3 years ago
It seems that these"libertaraians"base money as the means of deciding access to resources.I come from a poor family,in the UK we have a grammer school system whereby if you pass exams u can go to a better school &the state will fund ur expenses.I was lucky enough to get into a grammer school and am now finishing my last year at university. Education should be decided on ability, not BY money.These"libertarian"policies just give better access to education for those with money,Is that liberal?
Wakerskater 3 years ago
it counts on things like scholarships and hard work, instead of stealing.
FloodPower 3 years ago
A voucher system is generally a good idea. You don't have to be a neoliberal to agree with that idea (in fact, there are quite a few prominent socialists who endorse the idea of a voucher system.)
School choice in Europe has worked very well, and there have been seemingly good results in Chile too, especially when it comes to equality.
CannibalBrain 3 years ago
its not that libertarians base money as of deciding access to resources, but it is the actual choice with individual's money
as you know in a free-market society the society is controlled by money. its the most just way. yeah some will win and some will lose but at least in this system you have a chance to succeed (unlike socialism where everyone shares misery)
gtownrooster 3 years ago
Well your definition of "liberal" differs from Friedman's I'm sure so therefore the answer to your question is invalid from the start. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that the government is above preferential treatment regarding access to education. The real answer to your question is that the people with a high solastic ability will find a means to educate themselves and the people that buy their way into the university may not take advantage of their educational opportunity.
UWBADGER1 3 years ago
Even if they were given the money to do so. Colleges work out so much better because the child is older and has the means to either move or drive a car to the school that could address their needs. All in all people just don;t take k-12 all that serious. If they do, their children are already attending private schools.
benb6725 4 years ago
Most economist promote free-markets, and as little as government intervention in the lives of citizens as possible. I don't really agree with the voucher system because I don't feel student or parents would make the effort to CHANGE schools because they feel their needs are not being addressed. They simply don't have the means to drive their child to another town every morning to get the education their child "deserves."
benb6725 4 years ago
actually, no, most economists are socialists
JosephtheLibertarian 3 years ago
Is there anything wrong with "simplifying" a problem? Sometimes I feel people "complicate" the problem.
Seiku 4 years ago
Lol. Was that David Horowitz at the beginning?? Sure sounds like him!!
Whoo69 4 years ago
I appreciate his dedication to retaking control from... the bureaucrats(boo, hiss), but I think his neoliberalist views are overly simplistic and a clumsy boondoggle to siphon more money to him and his corporate buddies.
avmonkey 4 years ago
Friedman is dead. Wow your smart. Friedman was a kind-hearted humble man, but you fucking bastard brainless hippies call anyone not wearing a tye-dye shirt a corporate scum bag.
benb6725 4 years ago
you sound like a moron
JosephtheLibertarian 3 years ago
"School vouchers take power from the ...bureaucrats(boo, hiss) and return it to parents!" Ok, but property taxes pay for schools... and in rich neighborhoods schools are usually better. What about in a poor neighborhood with a shit school? If all the parents decide to take their kids elsewhere... where do they go? A neighborhood over? Can that school handle a doubling of students?
avmonkey 4 years ago
I found uncle Milty to be a fascinating guy, but I can't say that I really agree with him on much.
He seems to oversimplify and distort the truth a great deal.
"Want a great higher education? Just go to Dartmouth!" Well, great Milty, but tuition ain't cheap, and a waitress couldn't possibly afford to make it. Maybe for someone who brought in the kind of moolah you did slinging voodoo economics...
avmonkey 4 years ago