Money wasted on education

Of all the things the government funds, public education is by far the most wasteful.\nIt may seem unethical to jump off the bandwagon, which nearly everyone rides while saying American public education needs to improve via more government money.\nAn analogy may be the best way to explain the problem with public education. A child starts to cry in a public place and his mother gives him a lollipop to make him happy.\nLater, he becomes upset when his lollipop is completely consumed and he cries again. People around them begin to start whispering about how the mother is a bad parent for keeping him in such misery.\nAfraid to look bad in front of the public, she gives him another lollipop.\nThen another. And another.\nPretty soon, the value of happiness the child receives with each lollipop lessens with each offering.\nThe child is the school system; the mother represents the politicians fearing the next election; the lollipops are the money; the whispering people are the liberal democrats.\nThe value of the child's happiness experiences diminishing returns. Education money experiences the same thing.\nSo the improvement of education each dollar brings is reduced with each dollar spent on schooling.\nBut schools don't care. They like having the money regardless of how it is spent. They always spend all they can so they receive the same amount -- or more -- the following year.\nThis is why some public schools in Illinois can pay their gym teachers six-figure salaries. This is why you can find IU equipping its computer clusters with very expensive flat-screen monitors.\nThe difference between the full use of each dollar and the actual use of each dollar -- affected by diminishing returns -- is what makes up the waste.\nDemocrats don't see this at all.\nThey are like liberals. They get an idea in their head, they come up with a goal and then they act before thinking the processes through.\nIn this case, they want to improve education by putting more and more money into the school system.\nThey ignore diminishing returns and say if you give the school an extra $1 million, that money will provide a better education.\nWhile this is true, they don't care that a large portion of that money is wasted due to the current system.\nThey don't mind schools paying beaucoup dollars on the latest technology and $100 sets of Candyland so that they can maximize their budgets.\nThe liberals actually want the mother to give the crying kid a truckload of lollipops.\n This is just not a good way to use the money. Shoveling money into an inefficient system is the epitome of liberalism and bad practice.\n There is a better way, and I'll tell you how it has to be done.\nThe government needs to set more standards and make them more stringent also. They need to make sure that teachers undergo evaluations.\n Students need to take standardized tests to reflect the quality of their education.\n Essentially, the pool of eligible teachers needs to be reduced. We should no longer pay people to teach simply because they have been there for a long time. If you don't pass your evaluations, you're out. Where 1,000 people are eligible to teach now, the new standards will reduce this number to 10 people.\nThe more highly skilled workers will need to be enticed to teach, so their salaries will need to be increased.\nThis is the right way to put money into education.\nAny other way is stupid or liberal. The two are interchangeable.