Who really isn't "paying their fair share"?

[charter.rights]

That was a political decision. The need was from the voters to do something, do it fast, and as least painful as possible. Had it been up to market forces, the people of the usa would have been "free to fail" and it would have hurt for quite a while. Now they just taken on more debt and kicked the can down the road. Voters can't handle pain, that's why govt gets bigger all the time.

The free market is self regulating. Look at all those crooks who ended up getting caught with their pyramid schemes. When the tide goes out, that's when crooks get found out. It is definetly self regulating, just not the way you like it. All govt is supposed to do is provide a secure environment for the market to operate in, at election time voters decide what kind of environment that is.

You missed your own lie.

The BANKS and the CORPORATIONS needed the money to survive. In another wise true market economy they would have collapsed, taking all our investment and jobs with them. If as you say the market will bear, then we should not have intervened, right? But the fact that the market does not bear the burden suggests that a self-sustaining and self-regulating market economy is an international lie.

Then we can start to talk about all the subsidies that corporations and resource companies receive from governments all the time. Tax incentives and breaks, low interest loans guaranteed by government, free access to Crown land,and bail outs which had been a longstanding tradition in the world economies.

No this is not a market economy, nor do they work. They depend on government regulation and taxpayer investment to remain viable. And funny enough our government stills sees fit to give them our money after they have shipped most of the jobs out of this country.

And you apparently are living in a delusion.

[blueblood]

You missed your own lie.

The BANKS and the CORPORATIONS needed the money to survive. In another wise true market economy they would have collapsed, taking all our investment and jobs with them. If as you say the market will bear, then we should not have intervened, right? But the fact that the market does not bear the burden suggests that a self-sustaining and self-regulating market economy is an international lie.

Then we can start to talk about all the subsidies that corporations and resource companies receive from governments all the time. Tax incentives and breaks, low interest loans guaranteed by government, free access to Crown land,and bail outs which had been a longstanding tradition in the world economies.

No this is not a market economy, nor do they work. They depend on government regulation and taxpayer investment to remain viable. And funny enough our government stills sees fit to give them our money after they have shipped most of the jobs out of this country.

And you apparently are living in a delusion.

The only reason intervention occured was because a large amt of voters were going to take a long bath. It is self sustaining, just not in the timeline those voters wanted. Now countries who did the bailouts have massive debt because they appeased those voters. How do you propose we get out of that debt, fire up the printing press? the us can just print 14 trillion dollars and balance their books right?

Those "subsidies" your thinking about is the govt making a better environmrnt to operate in, as a result society is better for it. Thank goodness we have had a business friendly govt for a decade. As a result books will be balanced by 2015 and no money printed. Also coming out of a devestating recession on top of the western world.

Its always been a market economy, govts are a part of it and have a part to play, not the creator. The cdn govt isn't giving money to those big corporations its taking less. But at the end of the day we know that countries that embrace the market economy are the richest, most prosperous, and healthiest in the world. Why anybody wants to copy the ussr, venezuela, and cuba is beyond me, those countries are failures.

[Dave_ON]

The market is always right. It is the fairest system out there. The only reason leftists complain about the free market is because it doesn't always work how they want it to. In the free market its free to succeed and free to fail. The free market can be both kind and cruel. Those who do well in the free market know this and work to make sure that the cruel part of it is minimized. Leftists tend to not understand both sides of the market and as a result their countries tend to fail.

Perhaps if more canadians were educated in how the free market works in high school, we would be more equipped to compete with other countries. Maybe boting cars together isn't that valuable to society in the first place.

It never ceases to amaze me how people cannot understand the basic principles of supply/demand and how this does indeed make everything fair. It's only when we introduce outside interference that we run into problems. Bailouts are corporate welfare, but unfortunately they're politically expedient and so we must live with them. Labor is no different than any other commodity, the general availability of it determines it's value. Not everyone has the skills/training of a doctor ergo they do not/cannot make the salary of a doctor. Even within the medical profession a GP does not make the money that a specialist does, as medically speaking a GP's skills are more "common".

It's very easy to get ahead, obtain training and skills that make you distinct from the mob, but ensure they're useful and in demand, a BA in English isn't going to cut it. I don't want to hear that not everyone can afford to get training/ear a degree. There are plenty of programs to help out students and I managed to pull myself through university, working several low paying jobs. The opportunities are out there, all you need to do is avail yourself of them.

[charter.rights]

The only reason intervention occured was because a large amt of voters were going to take a long bath. It is self sustaining, just not in the timeline those voters wanted. Now countries who did the bailouts have massive debt because they appeased those voters. How do you propose we get out of that debt, fire up the printing press? the us can just print 14 trillion dollars and balance their books right?

Those "subsidies" your thinking about is the govt making a better environmrnt to operate in, as a result society is better for it. Thank goodness we have had a business friendly govt for a decade. As a result books will be balanced by 2015 and no money printed. Also coming out of a devestating recession on top of the western world.

Its always been a market economy, govts are a part of it and have a part to play, not the creator. The cdn govt isn't giving money to those big corporations its taking less. But at the end of the day we know that countries that embrace the market economy are the richest, most prosperous, and healthiest in the world. Why anybody wants to copy the ussr, venezuela, and cuba is beyond me, those countries are failures.

You are still delusional.

It isn't a market economy if the government is protecting and subsidizing the corporations. It is a socialist economy when taxpayers have to invest in it, regardless if it was taxpayer revolting or government bailouts as the reason.

[WIP]

The market is always right. It is the fairest system out there. The only reason leftists complain about the free market is because it doesn't always work how they want it to.

Free market fundamentalism is based on ideology, not reality. The market is supposed to be some kind of absolute arbiter that punishes and rewards according to merit....just like the rightwing God apparently! According to the religion of free market fundamentalism, wealth is bestowed on those who deserve it, and they must be unencumbered by taxes and regulation to do whatever the hell they want with it. Likewise, those who are poor, are in poverty because they are lazy and unmotivated to improve their condition in life. This simple, fundamentalist religion removes any reasons to develop any further understanding of social problems, such as racism, poverty and their correlation with crime, incarceration, drug abuse etc.. No surprise that this religion is popular among those who would like to ignore social problems.

Here's the reality of what freemarket fundamentalism has brought us: Rising Income Inequality in the US: Divisive, Depressing, and Dangerous The graph showing the % of total income received by the top 10% of income earners, shows that the U.S. is now surpassing the inequality levels of the Roaring 20's and Great Depression era. Rising inequality correlates with declining social mobility that most Americans (even liberals) are blithely unaware of. One economist said recently: "if a young American wants to live the American Dream, he or she would be better served to move to France or Sweden."

Income inequality has not been as exhaustively researched as studies from the U.S. or England, but the pattern looks the same, and if anything, is growing faster, and the middle class is shrinking quicker here than in the U.S. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-paying-peoples-way-out-of-poverty-can-help-us-all/article2011940/ Income inequality -- especially rapidly increasing inequality creates envy, resentment and hostility within a society, so it should be no surprise now that our politics has become as nasty and divisive as American politics has since the middle class started collapsing 30 years ago.

Edited May 7, 2011 by WIP

[bush_cheney2004]

....Income inequality has not been as exhaustively researched as studies from the U.S. or England, but the pattern looks the same, and if anything, is growing faster, and the middle class is shrinking quicker here than in the U.S. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-paying-peoples-way-out-of-poverty-can-help-us-all/article2011940/ Income inequality -- especially rapidly increasing inequality creates envy, resentment and hostility within a society, so it should be no surprise now that our politics has become as nasty and divisive as American politics has since the middle class started collapsing 30 years ago.

Gee...you say that as if it's a bad thing. Better dead than Red!

[bloodyminded]

So I agree, that something is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it, but the general availability of said item also factors a great deal into it's value. Many do not like to hear this but Supply/Demand does make wages fair. We can't all make 100k a year, if we did, the supply of money would increase and it's value would decrease. It's really quite that simple.

No, it's really not quite that simple; if it were, there wouldn't be a market for highly-skilled PR agents (intentionally and directly practiced in deceptive rhetoric, which you'll see with even a cursory glance at this multi-billion dollar industry), telling us exactly and repeatedly what you're telling us right now.

The Public Relations/Advertising/Marketing nexus, which spends and makes billions of dollars a year, was not concocted to inform us of the unvarnished, "quite that simple" truth.

A "fair market," which evidently is a conscious, wise, practical entity (at least by your own formulation, which totally elides all human responsibility, aside from the "good" who succeed and the "bad" who do not, in this intrinsically "fair" system), would have no need of a PR industry informing us precisely what you are informing us of.

Why would it?

It would be self-evident, a truism, "simple," as you say, and so common knowledge.

And yet, oddly, the "trampling herds" (in the words of PR and propaganda professional, Walter Lippman, referring to the overwhelming majority of human beings) simply can't understand the "simple" and ineffable wisdom of those who defend powerful interests as the Natural Order of things.

Edited May 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Agreed there are labor laws but again this does not directly, or even indirectly affect my pay. The exception of course being statutory holidays, and overtime requirements.

And safety requirements...still a bone of contention for many companies that employ mostly low-wage labour, though perhaps not overly objected to by your company (because such people are less important, as human beings, than you are, as you well know; someone with more education or a more in-demand skill-set deserves safety in a way that others do not); legal requirements about the way employers may behave towards employees; and various other aspects coveed in one way or another under labour laws.

I re-stress: some companies, including North America's largest employer, have many profit-driven issues with such trivialites as safety.

You are correct though, there are various private trade unions, associations, guilds what have you that can cause artificial inflation of the value of a particular skillset.

It's artificial (inflation or deflation of value) by definition, with or without unions.

Edited May 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[KeyStone]

"I have read constant posts from the left about how the corporations aren't "paying their fair share", but I don't think that could be further from the truth. The only people who aren't "paying their fair share" are public servants."

Both corporations and public servants produce goods and services desired by the public. Sometimes, however, the desire for the government service is obscured or indirect (parking tickets, tax collecting).

Regardless of public or private, we pay for those services - whether it is directly, or through taxation.

Now, there are a few differences:

1) Generally, unless in the case of profit-making public enterprises (LCBO), government produces goods and services for the public good - such as education, health care, national defense.

2) Corporations, on the other hand, do not usually produce products for the common good. Therefore, they are subject to a different set of rules than government enterprises.

Granted, corporations can do good things, and do not need to be villainized, but there are reasons, why they pay taxes:

1) Resource depletion: Oil, gas, minerals are things that can not be replaced. These belong to the people of Canada. Compensation needs to be paid for extracting these.

2) Environmental damage: Pulpmills, smokestacks, Co2 emissions, etc, can take a toll.

3) Government services: some businesses need extra police services, fire services, trade agreeements etc.

4) Human Resources: unlike many countries, we educate our citizens, and even help them in post-secondary edcuation. This benefits business and is a large reason why they locate here. Same logic applies to the health care and pensions that businesses don't have to pay for.

Most of the reasons that you use to justify corporations can apply to public servants, as well, except that government agencies don't pay taxes, largely because government paying taxes to government would simply be unnecessary bureaucracy.

"The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else. The larger the public sector grows, the more the private sector has to be encumbered with paying for the salaries of public servants."

I'm not really sure what your issue is here. We pay for cars in the form of money. We pay for health care in the form of taxes.

In either case, the employees providing the good or service get a wage. The more the public service grows, the more taxes go up, but the more goods and services are provided to people. The only question is who is better able to provide it.

"The private sector is the one paying for the public sector to exist."

It's a symbiotic relationship. The public sector makes it possible for the private sector to operate. Without government building and maintaining roads, jails, courthouses, schools, hospitals etc - how well do you think the private sector will fare?

"Wherever the private sector can provide a good or service profitably, they should be allowed to do so (yes I am advocating two-tier health care)."

I disagree with this statement for many reasons.

1) Some things are immoral. It does not matter if they can make a profit. Dog fighting, russian roulette, child prostitution.

2) Corporations are only more efficient than government when there is competition. Without competition, the private sector is no more efficient. The worst thing is an unregulated corporate monopoly. Not all industries lend themselves to competition.

3) Corporations have one goal: profit. When there are other considerations, the profit model does not work.

"We need to work within the framework of a globalization and the corporate form of organization to invite more business and private enterprise into our country to support our social wants."

If the goal of corporations is to raise tax revenue to fund social programs as you seem to suggest, then it would kind of be defeating the purpose to cut social programs, to afford tax decreases to attract more business. One of the reasons that corporations are villainized is that they are generally the ones lobbying the government hard to reduce taxes.

"Canada is a nation that is blessed with vast and diverse natural resources, we could be economic superpowers. Corporations are the true key to the utopian society we all dream of."

We can create a business friendly environment without abandoning all rights of labour, cutting social programs etc.

[WIP]

Gee...you say that as if it's a bad thing. Better dead than Red!

So, it's better to be a dead conservative than a living socialist? If you're willing to die for a political ideology, that's got to be the pinnacle of fanaticism!

[Bonam]

So, it's better to be a dead conservative than a living socialist? If you're willing to die for a political ideology, that's got to be the pinnacle of fanaticism!

I dunno about a socialist, but living under the pall of a communist regime is hardly life at all. It is a form of living death.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else. The larger the public sector grows, the more the private sector has to be encumbered with paying for the salaries of public servants.

Quick lesson on economics: Everyone pays everyone elses wage. That is how the economy works.

Your post represents a typical right wing misunderstanding on how the economy actually works, popularized by the elite to keep the money flowing into their pockets instead of the average worker.

Public schools provide the service for cheaper than private schools.

Public health care is cheaper than private health care.

Of course, that is because they are there to provide a service. Notably, this is NOT to deliver profit to shareholders (added unnecessary cost to essential services).

Edited May 10, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[CPCFTW]

Quick lesson on economics: Everyone pays everyone elses wage. That is how the economy works.

Your post represents a typical right wing misunderstanding on how the economy actually works, popularized by the elite to keep the money flowing into their pockets instead of the average worker.

Public schools provide the service for cheaper than private schools.

Public health care is cheaper than private health care.

Of course, that is because they are there to provide a service. Notably, this is NOT to deliver profit to shareholders (added unnecessary cost to essential services).

How can you say public health care and education are cheaper? Last I checked we spend over 50 billion on education and over 100 billion on health care. That would be close to 10000 per canadian worker if 1/4 of the work force wasn't exempt from paying taxes. As it is, canadian taxpayers probably pay over 15000 per year paying for other people's grandparents and kids.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

How can you say public health care and education are cheaper? Last I checked we spend over 50 billion on education and over 100 billion on health care. That would be close to 10000 per canadian worker if 1/4 of the work force wasn't exempt from paying taxes. As it is, canadian taxpayers probably pay over 15000 per year paying for other people's grandparents and kids.

You are talking out of your behind, making unsubstantiated remarks based on ignorant assumptions.

I remember a really conservative professor speaking out in favour of removing public education. He said that the only reason we still use public education is because it is cheap, and costs around $8/classroom hour.

$8/hour!!!! [add more emphasis, I was dumbfounded that it was soooo cheap!]

People pay me $50/hour to fix their computer. I guess computer repair is more important than the education of future generations, figures. He was a staunch conservative, loved private schools and said they are the future.

Let's look at a real example, using facts instead of heresay.

Ontario as an example:

19.1 Billion - Funds put into public education.

2 087 588 - Student enrollment in Elementary and Secondary.

$9149.31/Student

Let's see if my professor had the right number.

6 Classroom Hours Per Day * $8 * 194 in class days.

$9312/student per school year. (Pretty close)

Start looking for valid information, stop parroting the conservative elites talking points. Those talking points are tired, worn and based on misinformation to keep the middle and working class down.

The information is out there, if you actually want to know the truth. Of course, you have to be willing to actually look for it.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/educationFacts.html

[CPCFTW]

You are talking out of your behind, making unsubstantiated remarks based on ignorant assumptions.

I remember a really conservative professor speaking out in favour of removing public education. He said that the only reason we still use public education is because it is cheap, and costs around $8/classroom hour.

$8/hour!!!! [add more emphasis, I was dumbfounded that it was soooo cheap!]

People pay me $50/hour to fix their computer. I guess computer repair is more important than the education of future generations, figures. He was a staunch conservative, loved private schools and said they are the future.

Let's look at a real example, using facts instead of heresay.

Ontario as an example:

19.1 Billion - Funds put into public education.

2 087 588 - Student enrollment in Elementary and Secondary.

$9149.31/Student

Let's see if my professor had the right number.

6 Classroom Hours Per Day * $8 * 194 in class days.

$9312/student per school year. (Pretty close)

Start looking for valid information, stop parroting the conservative elites talking points. Those talking points are tired, worn and based on misinformation to keep the middle and working class down.

The information is out there, if you actually want to know the truth. Of course, you have to be willing to actually look for it.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/educationFacts.html

Um that's 8$/hr for like 30 kids/teacher. That's $240/hr. A private system could probably pay teachers 25/hr with 2 weeks vacation (instead of 2 months). I have a hard time believing a private system couldn't cover the remaining fixed costs and overhead with the remaining $215/hr (school of 2000 kids = over 250k per day!) Hell a private system could probably serve our kids catered lunches every day and still cost half the price. I'm not parroting any "elites".. You on the other hand seem to be parroting left wing kooks with your claims that the elites and the man are holding everyone else down. Hahaha.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Um that's 8$/hr for like 30 kids/teacher. That's $240/hr. A private system could probably pay teachers 25/hr with 2 weeks vacation (instead of 2 months). I have a hard time believing a private system couldn't cover the remaining fixed costs and overhead with the remaining $215/hr (school of 2000 kids = over 250k per day!) Hell a private system could probably serve our kids catered lunches every day and still cost half the price. I'm not parroting any "elites".. You on the other hand seem to be parroting left wing kooks with your claims that the elites and the man are holding everyone else down. Hahaha.

Again, you spread your misinformation and are trying to oversimplify a complex scenario.

I never said that costs couldn't be cut. I just said your arguments are unfounded because they are based on conservative propaganda, not sound facts. I just hope that you stop and reflect on this discussion and realise how silly it is to spout off arguments without any support. Supporting your arguments to prove a point is something that is learned in high school. Maybe it is time to review. Here is an easy way to formulate proper arguments.

Point - The Argument. "Education is actually cheap"

Proof - The Evidence. "As seen in the budgeting costs at this link[link containing factual, scientific data], it only costs $8 per student or $42 per day."

Comment - "This cost is much lower than a standard $50 a day to put a child in day care."

If the private industry deems day care worth $90 a day in Toronto...... You are dreaming if the cost of education will drop with private industry. Instead of paying teachers reasonable wages for the 5 years of Post-Secondary and student debt they accrue, you have to pay shareholders. I'd rather pay to attract better people into the profession. Not only that but, I want people from industry teaching my kids. Why would anyone from industry leave to teach at the salary you are suggesting?

Edited May 10, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[CPCFTW]

Again, you spread your misinformation and are trying to oversimplify a complex scenario.

I never said that costs couldn't be cut. I just said your arguments are unfounded because they are based on conservative propaganda, not sound facts. I just hope that you stop and reflect on this discussion and realise how silly it is to spout off arguments without any support. Supporting your arguments to prove a point is something that is learned in high school. Maybe it is time to review. Here is an easy way to formulate proper arguments.

Point - The Argument. "Education is actually cheap"

Proof - The Evidence. "As seen in the budgeting costs at this link[link containing factual, scientific data], it only costs $8 per student or $42 per day."

Comment - "This cost is much lower than a standard $50 a day to put a child in day care."

If the private industry deems day care worth $90 a day in Toronto...... You are dreaming if the cost of education will drop with private industry. Instead of paying teachers reasonable wages for the 5 years of Post-Secondary and student debt they accrue, you have to pay shareholders. I'd rather pay to attract better people into the profession. Not only that but, I want people from industry teaching my kids. Why would anyone from industry leave to teach at the salary you are suggesting?

That's 3000/mo. There's 8% unemployed in ontario. You don't think those unemployed people would want to teach grade 3 writing for 3000/mo? I wouldn't mind reading dr seuss to 8 year olds for that.

[ninjandrew]

That's 3000/mo. There's 8% unemployed in ontario. You don't think those unemployed people would want to teach grade 3 writing for 3000/mo? I wouldn't mind reading dr seuss to 8 year olds for that.

What about trying to teach grade 8's about the French Revolution? Fun fun!!

[RNG]

Again, you spread your misinformation and are trying to oversimplify a complex scenario.

I never said that costs couldn't be cut. I just said your arguments are unfounded because they are based on conservative propaganda, not sound facts. I just hope that you stop and reflect on this discussion and realise how silly it is to spout off arguments without any support. Supporting your arguments to prove a point is something that is learned in high school. Maybe it is time to review. Here is an easy way to formulate proper arguments.

Point - The Argument. "Education is actually cheap"

Proof - The Evidence. "As seen in the budgeting costs at this link[link containing factual, scientific data], it only costs $8 per student or $42 per day."

Comment - "This cost is much lower than a standard $50 a day to put a child in day care."

If the private industry deems day care worth $90 a day in Toronto...... You are dreaming if the cost of education will drop with private industry. Instead of paying teachers reasonable wages for the 5 years of Post-Secondary and student debt they accrue, you have to pay shareholders. I'd rather pay to attract better people into the profession. Not only that but, I want people from industry teaching my kids. Why would anyone from industry leave to teach at the salary you are suggesting?

The fallicy of your argument is that you claim $8 a day per kid is cheap. What if a private school could deliver it for $6. See how that works.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The fallicy of your argument is that you claim $8 a day per kid is cheap. What if a private school could deliver it for $6. See how that works.

Here is a private school listing:

http://www.ourkids.net/school/school-search.php

Under 10k is definately not the norm, especially for high school and speciality programs like robotics and engineering which is part of the the Ontario Curriculum.

I suppose I do need to express my opinion further as it is being assumed that I believe the system is perfect, when I don't. Some positions a clearly out of line and it is not as though I don't believe that changes can be made within our current system. Just that our current system is pretty damned good. It was ranked #2 by OECD overall.

[KeyStone]

That's 3000/mo. There's 8% unemployed in ontario. You don't think those unemployed people would want to teach grade 3 writing for 3000/mo? I wouldn't mind reading dr seuss to 8 year olds for that.

So, let's say for argument's sake that the cost of education could be reduced.

What would a private model of education look like?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

That's 3000/mo. There's 8% unemployed in ontario. You don't think those unemployed people would want to teach grade 3 writing for 3000/mo? I wouldn't mind reading dr seuss to 8 year olds for that.

I hear there's an early morning breakfast program for children at some schools. I bet the homeless would want in on that! Know what I'm saying? (stolen from the Daily Show, re: Wisconsin)

You really have no idea what teaching actually entails. I suggest you become a teacher. I know enough teachers to understand what it is like. Try keeping track of 24 different cognitive areas for each student and the paperwork to back it up, as well as indepth analysis on what subjects and concepts they understand and specifically where their holes in understanding are. I'm grateful that I don't teach grade 3. It's chaotic and the paperwork kills you.

BTW, those unemployed people can get into teaching if they have a professional designation that relates to a curriculum area (Manufacturing, Hairstyling, Hospitality and Tourism, Autobody, Programming, Contruction, Electronics, Health Care). Or a University degree to teach academic subjects. As long as they are wiling to take out a student loan like most teachers and complete a year of teacher's college.

[RNG]

So, let's say for argument's sake that the cost of education could be reduced.

What would a private model of education look like?

In Alberta, the government decided to grant private schools the same grant per student that they gave to the public systems. Then they instituted a rule that said you could opt out of paying the school tax part of the property tax if your kid was in a private school. With those things, the private schools aren't out of reach anymore. But I do not have data to show they are cheaper, I will admit. Thought there is proof that they are better, given standardized test results.

Edited May 11, 2011 by RNG

[MiddleClassCentrist]

In Alberta, the government decided to grant private schools the same grant per student that they gave to the public systems. Then they instituted a rule that said you could opt out of paying the school tax part of the property tax if your kid was in a private school. With those things, the private schools aren't out of reach anymore. But I do not have data to show they are cheaper, I will admit. Thought there is proof that they are better, given standardized test results.

You mean... private schools that can deny access to behaviourally challenged students and academically weak students have higher standardized test results? This is astonishing!

/sarcasm off.

[RNG]

You mean... private schools that can deny access to behaviourally challenged students and academically weak students have higher standardized test results? This is astonishing!

/sarcasm off.

My daughter was a gifted student. The system we have rewards the idiots and punishes the good ones. The major difference between a conservative and a socialist. A conservative believes in equal opportunity. A socialist believes in equal outcomes, no matter how much you have to screw the good ones and carry the a**holes.