No, I don't. However, I believe this is a problem associated with how we approach education as a task rather than how we fund it.
If it were merely an example of "gov't funded education" causes poor education then we would likely see significant gains when private education models are used to replace public schools. Currently, gains with private/charter schools are flat compared to public schools.
I do, however, believe that in absence of a publicly funded education system a large segment of our population would simply be locked out of educational opportunities. How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees?
> How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees?
You do realize that those people already do pay for their children's education right? It's just indirect through property taxes.
Yes people who don't have kids in school also contribute but it's not as though there are 10x as many people without kids as with kids, it might be 50/50 kids/no kids meaning that the best you can get is a 50% "discount" over directly funding instead of funding via taxes.
Setting aside that progressive taxation probably means that the population I was discussing isn't significantly funding their children's education (and would likewise not be able to cover the actual cost of education if they were called on that burden) -- I was responding to mrwarn's comment asking if gov't funded education is working, to which I responded that public schooling is not working, but that the problem is not dependent on the source of funding.
When we turn public schools into private schools (as Chicago has done by the dozens in the last few years) we don't see educational improvements when the students population remains the same. When we do, it's modest or an outlier (and education is filled with outliers).
Education is almost 100% funded by property taxes and sales taxes. Property taxes are a tax on the value of the property, not on your income or your equity in the property, but based on the "fair market value" of the property. Sales tax is based on the value of the transaction.
Everyone lives somewhere, and somewhere basically always has a value attached to it. Maybe run down apartments aren't worth as much as fancy new ones, but property tax still has to be paid.
Even if you rent, you still pay property taxes. The owner of the apartment considers property taxes as a part of his/her expenses the same way a mortgage, insurance, maintenance, etc are expenses. Those expenses get rolled into the rent.
Sales taxes are largely regressive, because any money saved is by default not going to get any sales tax applied. And poor people spend a larger portion of their income on things which are taxed than wealthier people do; look at the whole "buying experiences" advice that well-to-do participate in. Those are generally arranged as "services" which aren't taxable, rather than products, which are.
Progressive taxes are generally based on income, not property value or transaction value. As a result, funding for education is currently borne fairly evenly amongst people who both have an address and buy things, no matter their income level.
maybe the real problem is lack of grocery stores in places like Spain and Italy, http://flowingdata.com/2014/05/29/bars-versus-grocery-stores... now admittedly this might have nothing to do with the current economic problems faced by the EU, but at least in some of those places they have plenty of places to grab a drink!
The game against the Colts the Patriots clearly cheated. It is beyond reasonable that 11 of 12 footballs are 2psi less than the rule allows. Especially since the 12th football of regulation weight is the football used for kicking as you want the football inflated properly. But using fumbles as proof of long term violation is tough because their are too many factors to consider. Patriots are a pass heavy team and have been for a long time. They use multiple RB's and a fresh RB is less likely to fumble than one RB used heavily throughout the game due to mental and physical fatigue. WR's fumble but are less likely than RB's. An under-inflated ball is easier to grip so it would be interesting to see how WR's who left have fared on their new teams and if any returned later, after playing poorly on new team, to play well for the Patriots. Since 2007 has Tom Brady's completion % and interception ratio on the road improved drastically? All these things could be explained by an under-inflated but not definitively.
You are incorrect with respect to your explanation of "the 12th football being used for kicking". An entire separate group of footballs are used for kicking, outside control of either team. The kicking balls are brand new and are not allowed to be broken-in. They still have the waxy coating a new ball has. This was done some years ago to try to reduce the effectiveness of kickers.
I stand corrected, I didnt know that tidbit and just assumed that the 12th ball was for kickoff/field goals. But what about punting is it the same ball used for kicking or would it be part of the 12?
