PDA

View Full Version : Case for or against Public Education?




CoreyBowen999
06-13-2010, 10:00 AM
Before I set off for the day I'd like to ask a question about all of yall's opinion on public education. Should their be locally funded schools, federally funded schools, privately operated schools, or some other option? I have been wondering about this issue for a while and I would like to know what you guys think. Please provide facts or links to back up your opinions.

MRoCkEd
06-13-2010, 10:08 AM
As local as possible, with the ultimate goal of complete privatization.
Public schooling brings with it the same problems of any socialistic service.
More choice means more competition, higher quality, lower cost.

Vouchers and charter schools are steps in the right direction.

Here's a good John Stossel 20/20 special:

YouTube - Stupid in America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw)

Travlyr
06-13-2010, 10:09 AM
Before I set off for the day I'd like to ask a question about all of yall's opinion on public education. Should their be locally funded schools, federally funded schools, privately operated schools, or some other option? I have been wondering about this issue for a while and I would like to know what you guys think. Please provide facts or links to back up your opinions.

Public schools indoctrinate not educate. Our literacy rates are way down from the 1840's before public education.
Proof: You will have to find the facts for yourself, but you can start here: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/EducationForEveryone.htm

angelatc
06-13-2010, 10:13 AM
Vouchers are my preferred, albeit imperfect, solution.

CoreyBowen999
06-13-2010, 10:16 AM
Public schools indoctrinate not educate. Our literacy rates are way down from the 1840's before public education.
Proof: You will have to find the facts for yourself, but you can start here: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/EducationForEveryone.htm

good link.. Thanks! Any others? :)

angelatc
06-13-2010, 10:20 AM
Public schools indoctrinate not educate. Our literacy rates are way down from the 1840's before public education.
Proof: You will have to find the facts for yourself, but you can start here: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/EducationForEveryone.htm

I think that Browne contradicts himself here. Why was the literacy rates among slaves excluded from the entire total, if socioeconomic standing isn't really an indicator of literacy?

Travlyr
06-13-2010, 10:22 AM
Stefan Molyneux talks about it in this series: YouTube - The Death of the West Part 1: Prehistory to World War One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASODMKCJcsk&feature=player_embedded#)

slothman
06-13-2010, 10:23 AM
Public schools are different throughout the nation.
Some are better than others.
Private schools aren't always better either.
Schools should teach civics and logic.

As for funding, it shouldn't be parents only; otherwise poor people wouldn't be able to afford school.

Curriculum(sp) should be decided state-wide but able to be changed locally.

@Travlyr
Where did you get your literacy rate values?
I can't find it on the internet for that long ago.

Isaac Bickerstaff
06-13-2010, 10:25 AM
Public education does not have to be an abysmal failure, it just is.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/

Travlyr
06-13-2010, 10:30 AM
I think that Browne contradicts himself here. Why was the literacy rates among slaves excluded from the entire total, if socioeconomic standing isn't really an indicator of literacy?

That is a loaded question. :) Literacy rates of people allowed to be literate was very high percentage wise. Higher than it is today. I think that is appropriate. Those were horrible times for slaves. People not allowed to be literate should be excluded the overall literacy rates if you are seeking the truth.

Travlyr
06-13-2010, 10:40 AM
Public schools are different throughout the nation.
Some are better than others.
Private schools aren't always better either.
Schools should teach civics and logic.

As for funding, it shouldn't be parents only; otherwise poor people wouldn't be able to afford school.

Curriculum(sp) should be decided state-wide but able to be changed locally.

@Travlyr
Where did you get your literacy rate values?
I can't find it on the internet for that long ago.

You are comparing today's private schools with today's public schools. Compare the educational techniques of the private schools before public indoctrination became the tool of the oligarchy.

Prior to pubic schools, private schools did not place all children of the same age in the same class. They taught the older children to teach the younger children. It is true even today that if you know the material well enough to teach it, then you reinforce your knowledge.

I am not claiming that those private schools were perfect, I am saying that the model of older students teaching younger students was of high value.

slothman
06-13-2010, 11:22 AM
The private and publics schools I went to were basically the same, except that the private was religious.
All the kids of the same age were in the same grade.
The teaching was about the same as well.
Both were good.
Of course this is anecdotal but in my region it seems to be true.
Many of the people weren't indoctrinated.
Or if they were they "got better" meanign the school wasn't the end of learning.

Travlyr
06-13-2010, 11:39 AM
The private and publics schools I went to were basically the same, except that the private was religious.
All the kids of the same age were in the same grade.
The teaching was about the same as well.
Both were good.
Of course this is anecdotal but in my region it seems to be true.
Many of the people weren't indoctrinated.
Or if they were they "got better" meanign the school wasn't the end of learning.

Great! Glad to hear it because I did not have that experience. In my public indoctrination, I learned that if your older sister turns down your math teacher for a date, then you fail math. I learned that knowing how to write a paper was irrelevant to graduating high school. I was 33 before I went back to community college to learn how to write. When I went to the university, I learned that it was mostly like my high school days, a little more rigid, but still they were teaching what they wanted teachers to teach the children. My university experience was not Socratic at all.

MelissaWV
06-13-2010, 12:07 PM
I've been to an odd variety of schools.

For Pre-K through 4th grade I was in Catholic school. This was by far the best educational segment of my life. I learned a lot of things by 4th grade that it would take four or five years to catch up to again and expound upon. The teachers were absolutely invested in students learning, because the parents and students were "customers." It should be noted that my parents are not, and were not, really rich or anything. The school cost a ridiculous amount of money. The people I carpooled with from time to time had phones in their Mercedes (it was the early 80s... that was the height of richness) and three-story houses (in Florida that's a big deal) with intercoms and peacocks strolling through their neighborhoods and whatever else.

My mother worked at the school specifically to gain reduced pricing for my sister and me. There were a number of other parents who did the same thing. The teacher:student ratio was something like 15:1, with students split into groups within their grade based on their learning speed and technique. In other words, some really fast kids were in one group, and some who needed one-on-one attention, flashcards, and other additional explanation were in another, and those with genuine learning disabilities that hampered their experience in that subject were in another group. There were generally 2-3 teachers per classroom leading these groups.

In 5th grade I went to public school and thought it was pretty awesome. I didn't get what all the fuss was about, because though it wasn't as good academically, I found myself surrounded by actual peers for once, and the days were shorter since there were no religious classes.

In 6th grade I went to a different public school. Dear God. This was my glimpse into why people harp on and on about public school being terrible. The teacher:student ratio was about 30:1, but made worse by the fact that all learning types and behavioral categories were lumped into classes. The teachers did not give a rat's ass and just wanted their paychecks. History/social studies classes were especially error-prone, and when I pointed it out I was glared at by teachers suspiciously. There were fights. There were sometimes weapons on campus. There were girls dressing really, really slutty. There were people cutting class. There were drugs. All of those things were merely symptoms, though, of those who want to learn being utterly bored, and those who don't want to learn being forced to go to school. I tested into the Gifted Program and it was miles ahead of everything else. The problem was that "Gifted" was only one class per day, and the rest were co-mingled. It didn't surprise me when my parents announced, almost at the end of the year, that I would be switching schools.

In 7th through 12th grade I went to a Laboratory School. Allegedly this school was much better, and there was an annual cost, but it still had the sluttiness, the drugs, the cutting class, and other problems (just to a lesser degree). The teacher:student ratio was around 20:1, and classes weren't bad, it was just stuff I'd seen before. By the time I was in 11th grade, the school was virtually out of classes for me to take, and I only had a half-day which consisted of a study hall and a few unimportant classes. Senior year went much the same way. The teachers did have a stake in teaching advanced material, if only because most of them were getting advanced degrees. Their salaries were tied to the highest level of education they'd achieved, so naturally they were always striving for another level. Often this meant the teacher was studying, and we were doing busy work or writing essays or supposed to be working on presentations. Without structure, even in AP or Honors or Gifted classes, most of the classes were boring.

Gifted in 7th and 8th grades was interesting. It involved "You Be The Judge" court reinactments and games of "Jeopardy!" played between members of the class. In 9th or 10th grade (can't remember which is which!) we had Civics, which meant we put historical figures on trial for their crimes. I was pretty happy when Socrates was found "not guilty," but a weak defense attorney for Joan of Arc (me) meant that I found myself sadly burned at the stake for heresy. It wasn't that we were learning a lot of useful knowledge, but it was mental exercise that kept us all fairly unbored and out of trouble.

I guess the point is that it's the ratio and the investment of the teachers that make the difference, imo. Students are who they are, and should be let go from schooling duties if their parents don't care and the student can't be bothered. Go learn a trade; it's not as bad as people pretend.

I would love community schools, where parents get together and seek out experts on certain subjects to teach. A lot of the teachers might be retirees who are still bright and want to contribute, but don't want to do the same boring job. Think of it as shared homeschooling. Homeschooling is, of course, an option... but for a lot of families it's just not feasible. Whatever the school is, it should be funded by the school itself and by parents. Someone said earlier "oh but then the poor cannot afford school," and this is theoretically true. Schools don't have to actually charge admission fees, though. Parents could work for the school when possible, or they could help run bake sales and yard sales and other fundraising events. Schools would cost far less money to run in this ideal universe, where beauracracy is minimal and communities would be more willing to donate materials. All things considered, it's a way better way of going about things than to have me pay in for kids I don't have and won't have and don't care about, many states away... well, let's face it; I'm not even paying for schooling. I'm paying a lot of salaries for people who argue about funding "the children."

Travlyr
06-13-2010, 12:36 PM
There were girls dressing really, really slutty.

And this was my favorite part. :cool:
I had no business being there. I had no clue; my parents were good to me, but they were not involved in my education.


I would love community schools, where parents get together and seek out experts on certain subjects to teach. A lot of the teachers might be retirees who are still bright and want to contribute, but don't want to do the same boring job. Think of it as shared homeschooling. Homeschooling is, of course, an option... but for a lot of families it's just not feasible. Whatever the school is, it should be funded by the school itself and by parents. Someone said earlier "oh but then the poor cannot afford school," and this is theoretically true. Schools don't have to actually charge admission fees, though. Parents could work for the school when possible, or they could help run bake sales and yard sales and other fundraising events. Schools would cost far less money to run in this ideal universe, where beauracracy is minimal and communities would be more willing to donate materials. All things considered, it's a way better way of going about things than to have me pay in for kids I don't have and won't have and don't care about, many states away... well, let's face it; I'm not even paying for schooling. I'm paying a lot of salaries for people who argue about funding "the children."

Great plan. I hope we can get there some day.

Wesker1982
06-13-2010, 12:42 PM
As local as possible, with the ultimate goal of complete privatization.
Public schooling brings with it the same problems of any socialistic service.
More choice means more competition, higher quality, lower cost.

Vouchers and charter schools are steps in the right direction.

Here's a good John Stossel 20/20 special:

YouTube - Stupid in America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw)

this is a MUST SEE

Isaac Bickerstaff
06-13-2010, 02:39 PM
In Kindergarten, I learned that only the brightest kids got to call the teacher "Grandma".:rolleyes:

phill4paul
06-13-2010, 02:47 PM
The private and publics schools I went to were basically the same, except that the private was religious.

I experienced both and they were worlds apart. I went to a private school in 8th and 9th grade. Everything that I absorbed during those two years carried me through 10th, 11th and 12th grades in public. I'm talking skating.

In the private we were reading and discussing books such as "A Separate Peace", "The Catcher in the Rye" and "A Clockwork Orange." We discussed movies like "Apocalypse Now".

Every single teacher was engaging and enthusiastic about their role. They had to be. There livelihood was at stake. No teachers union. No government check.

No. I say do away with public school. Do away with state funding. Do away with property taxes to fund local ones.

Public education drives the bar down. On all levels.

Parents are guaranteed their children will be educated with minimal income generation. Teachers are guaranteed of a paycheck with minimal effort. Students are guaranteed of a high school diploma with minimal achievement. I'm talking skating.

slothman
06-13-2010, 03:29 PM
In the private we were reading and discussing books such as "A Separate Peace", "The Catcher in the Rye" and "A Clockwork Orange." We discussed movies like "Apocalypse Now".


Those particular books don't seem a good choice.
The discussing part is good but how will they help you at all.
At least Shakespeare has some relationship in reality.

Does anyone think homework seems useless?
It's just a way to increase the school day.
Most jobs won't require it, even higher tech jobs.
Maybe it can be used for extra credit or extra help but other than that, it should be removed.

Does anyone have any weird experiences with school?
I learned that the vowels were, "a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y and w."
I found it odd that they were in alphabetical order except for the 'w' and they never did tell me words that used it.
It took me 20 years to leard about "cwm", a valley, and "crwth", an harp-like instriment(sp).

emazur
06-15-2010, 12:55 AM
I hate public school and certainly am not thrilled about education run by the states (though vouchers that come from state (not federal) money would be tolerated), but federal education must end
YouTube - 75% of dollars collected for federal education budget STAYS in Washington DC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw6xbMWEmw4)

teacherone
06-15-2010, 03:54 AM
The solution-- 100% tax write-off for the portion of taxes which goes to public schooling if one's child is enrolled in private school.

forcing parents to pay for a shitty service they don't utilize whatsoever is immoral.

Kylie
06-22-2010, 02:14 PM
Why not have a state tax that is equal across the board. This would allow for even the poor to have the opportunity to pay for their childrens' educations.

Everyone pays in the same, and everyone has a voucher(or whatever) to attend whatever school they choose within that state. All schools would see drops and increases in their rolls depending on how well the teachers were teaching the children.

BTW, we just bought home curriculum and are starting now in homeschooling our kids. If it works out this summer, we are pulling them from public school in the fall.

MelissaWV
06-22-2010, 02:18 PM
The solution-- 100% tax write-off for the portion of taxes which goes to public schooling if one's child is enrolled in private school.

forcing parents to pay for a shitty service they don't utilize whatsoever is immoral.

And the taxes of those who don't have children?

MelissaWV
06-22-2010, 02:19 PM
Why not have a state tax that is equal across the board. This would allow for even the poor to have the opportunity to pay for their childrens' educations.

Everyone pays in the same, and everyone has a voucher(or whatever) to attend whatever school they choose within that state. All schools would see drops and increases in their rolls depending on how well the teachers were teaching the children.

BTW, we just bought home curriculum and are starting now in homeschooling our kids. If it works out this summer, we are pulling them from public school in the fall.

So... everyone pays, and gets a voucher, even for the children they don't and won't have?

Kylie
06-22-2010, 03:21 PM
So... everyone pays, and gets a voucher, even for the children they don't and won't have?

Nope. Maybe.....I dunno. :o


Just an idea. I'm more of the mind to pay it like you would for a private school, out of pocket each year, and in turn get free reign as to where your children go.

No kids? No payment. If you CHOOSE to donate to "underprivileged" children, what better way would there be than to pay for that year's school tuition? Charity at it's finest.

Travlyr
06-22-2010, 04:14 PM
So... everyone pays, and gets a voucher, even for the children they don't and won't have?

Yes, I see this as an appropriate tax... for education. Not for public schooling, but for private education. Everyone benefits from the true understanding of the world around us.

It makes sense for humanity to pool their resources together to promote a better understanding of the universe.

heavenlyboy34
06-22-2010, 04:23 PM
Yes, I see this as an appropriate tax... for education. Not for public schooling, but for private education. Everyone benefits from the true understanding of the world around us.

It makes sense for humanity to pool their resources together to promote a better understanding of the universe.

If you fancy yourself a Constitutionalist, you're wrong. This amounts to an unapportioned direct tax. Even if it were Constitutional, it's naive to expect the government to handle something like this.

It's true that everyone benefits from understanding the world, but not everyone is capable of this. (just like not all people are cut out for college) Besides, it is the parents' responsibility for the education of children, not "society". (then there's the question of who decides what exactly a "true understanding of the world" is. If it's not the private sector and parents, you can bet corruption and poor teaching will abound)

As Gatto, Stossel, etc have shown, socialization of education is ineffective and unnecessary.

MelissaWV
06-22-2010, 04:31 PM
Yes, I see this as an appropriate tax... for education. Not for public schooling, but for private education. Everyone benefits from the true understanding of the world around us.

It makes sense for humanity to pool their resources together to promote a better understanding of the universe.

And if I don't want to "pool my resources" to educate your children, you'll make me? Awesome!

Please study where the money for our current education system comes from, and how it's distributed. In particular, you should look up California's public school funding, and notice that a great portion of it comes from Federal funds. I pay into those funds, and not only do I NOT have children, but I am highly unlikely to "benefit" from anyone who gets that money.

What if I don't agree with the "true understanding" you are promoting via the school being funded with my dollars? Too bad, so sad? That's what goes on now. I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm sponsoring it. The "oh but everyone benefits from a well-educated society!" argument is utter bunk. Everyone benefits from common manners and politeness, too; let's make that mandatory, please. Everyone benefits from proper hygeine, that's for sure. I think we should have mandatory hygeine classes, with refresher courses, of course.

Nope. How about parents, who want their children to get an education, being responsible for funding schools? Teachers, whose very employment depends on schools being open for business, will likely want to help out, I'm sure. Without the top-heavy machine that currently operates the school system, it will not be anywhere near as expensive as you think. Those of us without children who would like to donate to local schools can do so, and will, but without the force behind it, and without the in-between bureaucracy to help "distribute funds" on our behalf.

heavenlyboy34
06-22-2010, 04:59 PM
And if I don't want to "pool my resources" to educate your children, you'll make me? Awesome!

Please study where the money for our current education system comes from, and how it's distributed. In particular, you should look up California's public school funding, and notice that a great portion of it comes from Federal funds. I pay into those funds, and not only do I NOT have children, but I am highly unlikely to "benefit" from anyone who gets that money.

What if I don't agree with the "true understanding" you are promoting via the school being funded with my dollars? Too bad, so sad? That's what goes on now. I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm sponsoring it. The "oh but everyone benefits from a well-educated society!" argument is utter bunk. Everyone benefits from common manners and politeness, too; let's make that mandatory, please. Everyone benefits from proper hygeine, that's for sure. I think we should have mandatory hygeine classes, with refresher courses, of course.

Nope. How about parents, who want their children to get an education, being responsible for funding schools? Teachers, whose very employment depends on schools being open for business, will likely want to help out, I'm sure. Without the top-heavy machine that currently operates the school system, it will not be anywhere near as expensive as you think. Those of us without children who would like to donate to local schools can do so, and will, but without the force behind it, and without the in-between bureaucracy to help "distribute funds" on our behalf.

~Standing ovation for Melissa~ :D:)

MelissaWV
06-22-2010, 05:01 PM
~Standing ovation for Melissa~ :D:)

And a Bunchies-colored apple for you :D

heavenlyboy34
06-22-2010, 06:09 PM
And a Bunchies-colored apple for you :D

Thank you, mistress! You are indeed a very generous benefactor! ~hugs~ :D

K466
06-23-2010, 09:07 AM
Why is education different from anything else? It's not the states responsibility whatsoever.

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 09:35 AM
If you fancy yourself a Constitutionalist, you're wrong. This amounts to an unapportioned direct tax. Even if it were Constitutional, it's naive to expect the government to handle something like this.

It's true that everyone benefits from understanding the world, but not everyone is capable of this. (just like not all people are cut out for college) Besides, it is the parents' responsibility for the education of children, not "society". (then there's the question of who decides what exactly a "true understanding of the world" is. If it's not the private sector and parents, you can bet corruption and poor teaching will abound)

As Gatto, Stossel, etc have shown, socialization of education is ineffective and unnecessary.

I don't label myself a Constitutionalist. I have argued that the Constitution established a republic in 1787 and that three separate branches of government were created to separate the powers, but it is not my opinion that it is the best way to organize society. But all that is in another thread.

Society agreeing to provide funding to educate the public in a laissez-faire free market manner does not seem like a bad idea to me. I am not an extreme individualist. While I have not studied this issue, it seems that an educated society benefits everyone more than an uneducated society.

You raise a very important question, "there's the question of who decides what exactly a "true understanding of the world" is." That is a tough question, however it is not impossible to come to an agreement on minimum standards for individuals. What I am referring to is a basic fundamental understanding of our world: calculation, reading, writing, communication, interaction, appreciation, etc. I am not referring to specialized education.

Assuming that parents can or will properly teach children on their own seems naive to me. What about the children who's parents can't or won't teach? Just tough luck for them? Besides that, some fundamental knowledge requires interaction with others in society. I have found that I learn from everybody. Each of us have limits on our abilities, what we know, and what we can share.

I am very much against government schooling. But I would agree to providing some of my funds to provide a basic level education to others in laissez-faire free market private institutions.

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 09:36 AM
And if I don't want to "pool my resources" to educate your children, you'll make me? Awesome!

Yes, I would. You may not realize the fact that you benefit from the knowledge of others, but you absolutely do. Society cannot be organized under strict individualism. "No Man Is an Island meaning "Human beings necessarily depend on one another", or as in "You can't manage this all by yourself." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man_Is_an_Island)
Why should you not share in that cost?


Please study where the money for our current education system comes from, and how it's distributed. In particular, you should look up California's public school funding, and notice that a great portion of it comes from Federal funds. I pay into those funds, and not only do I NOT have children, but I am highly unlikely to "benefit" from anyone who gets that money.

This is completely irrelevant to my statement. The way funding and education is performed now is wrong, and it in no way resembles how education should be funded or administered.


What if I don't agree with the "true understanding" you are promoting via the school being funded with my dollars? Too bad, so sad? That's what goes on now. I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm sponsoring it. The "oh but everyone benefits from a well-educated society!" argument is utter bunk. Everyone benefits from common manners and politeness, too; let's make that mandatory, please. Everyone benefits from proper hygeine, that's for sure. I think we should have mandatory hygeine classes, with refresher courses, of course.

What I am referring to is fundamental education with minimum standards as in my post above. If you don't agree, it is my opinion that that level of selfishness is inappropriate.

You bring valid points of education to light. Good manners, good hygiene and healthy habits are good fundamental skills for societies.

You statement, "mandatory hygeine classes, with refresher courses, of course." is extreme and I am not suggesting this level of ridiculousness.
The only thing I am suggesting be mandatory is funding for a basic level education for society.


Nope. How about parents, who want their children to get an education, being responsible for funding schools? Teachers, whose very employment depends on schools being open for business, will likely want to help out, I'm sure. Without the top-heavy machine that currently operates the school system, it will not be anywhere near as expensive as you think. Those of us without children who would like to donate to local schools can do so, and will, but without the force behind it, and without the in-between bureaucracy to help "distribute funds" on our behalf.

The expense of basic level education in private institutions in a free market would be easily manageable by society... the benefit far outweighing the cost.
I suppose in Utopia, I agree with you. However, do you realistically believe that you do not benefit from those around you being able to read, write, properly communicate, etc?

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 09:48 AM
Why is education different from anything else? It's not the states responsibility whatsoever.

It is my opinion that I benefit from your knowledge, and your education was not free. If you did not have parents that could or would teach, then it is to my benefit to help you get a basic level education.

MelissaWV
06-23-2010, 10:14 AM
...

The expense of basic level education in private institutions in a free market would be easily manageable by society... the benefit far outweighing the cost.
I suppose in Utopia, I agree with you. However, do you realistically believe that you do not benefit from those around you being able to read, write, properly communicate, etc?

I benefit from doctors, too. I pay for them. I benefit from co-workers. They are compensated. People already read, write, and communicate poorly, and that's FINE as long as it doesn't prevent them from doing the job I would pay them to do. Jobs which require more danger, more work, or for that matter *more education* are those for which I would expect to pay much more. In order for a doctor to become a doctor, of course, it's assumed he or she would need some basic knowledge. It would, therefore, behoove most parents to err on the side of big bucks, and have their children learn the basics. If not, they still have the option of learning a trade, or attempting to catch up with their peers as adults. We already have this, except there's a strange emphasis on college, without regard for what it is the person in question wants to do with their lives.

Proper communication is not taught in school. You learn your speech from your parents, your peers, and your general surroundings. You learn your grammar and syntax rules, and things of that nature, in school. Most people who have no idea whether to use "who" or "whom" are, nonetheless, understood by those around them the majority of the time. Additionally, a youngster is usually speaking in full sentences long before they officially enter school.

You are deciding that the benefits outweigh the cost. If I agree with you, being that I have no children and won't have any, I may donate to my local schools. These donations might come in the form of cash, but more likely would come in the form of equipment or supplies needed. I might donate my time. If I disagree, I might devote my money to other causes. Those causes also deserve attention and funding, and if we're all focusing on "the children," they will have a pretty bleak world to grow up in.

The "all or nothing" approach doesn't sway me. Communities already have (or try to have) daycare pools where parents share responsibility for watching and educating the children at an early age. They might have the group of five kids one day per week, and be in charge of the entire "school day" for them. The other four days, they work, or run errands, or clean, or go to a spa, or whatever suits them. On a larger scale, a community school is a pooling of resources to educate children. Those resources are voluntarily surrendered, or they are required of the people who most directly benefit. Can't afford the school? Some of those kind donors would potentially have given enough money to cover "free tuition" for those students, or the parents would give time to the school to "work off" the tuition, or the school could decide that they will raise everyone's tuition by a relatively small amount that, added together, will go into an account from which scholarships are written.

Community schools would also depend on fundraisers and events, and even corporate donations. Each school would need to come up with rules as to how corporate donations are handled, obviously, but HP donating paper (for example) would mean people would see that logo every time they go to change the paper on a printer, copier, or fax machine. It's highly likely they would have already seen one particular logo on those occasions; HP is now ensuring it's theirs. Businesses also buy space in yearbooks and newspapers, and on athletics fields. Bake sales are wonderful things, and so are "movie nights" or other ideas for fundraisers. They also teach kids that if you need something, you should plan for it, raise the money, and then purchase it. If the money is not raised, then plans are changed.

So, basically, I don't agree with your idea that there should be one flat, uniform level of education to which all children are brought. I certainly don't agree that it should be paid for by forcing people with no children to double-pay for the benefits of education. I absolutely don't agree that manners, communication, and other such things should be the same across the board and taught by schools. Lastly, I'm downright dismayed by the fact that people on this board still cry out for centrally-funded projects, which means having a central agency to collect that money with the promise of force behind it. No, no, a thousand times no.

This is the line of reasoning that got us to where we are.

Everyone's all for freedom until it touches on their pet issue.

heavenlyboy34
06-23-2010, 11:17 AM
I don't label myself a Constitutionalist. I have argued that the Constitution established a republic in 1787 and that three separate branches of government were created to separate the powers, but it is not my opinion that it is the best way to organize society. But all that is in another thread.

Society agreeing to provide funding to educate the public in a laissez-faire free market manner does not seem like a bad idea to me. I am not an extreme individualist. While I have not studied this issue, it seems that an educated society benefits everyone more than an uneducated society.

You raise a very important question, "there's the question of who decides what exactly a "true understanding of the world" is." That is a tough question, however it is not impossible to come to an agreement on minimum standards for individuals. What I am referring to is a basic fundamental understanding of our world: calculation, reading, writing, communication, interaction, appreciation, etc. I am not referring to specialized education.

Assuming that parents can or will properly teach children on their own seems naive to me. What about the children who's parents can't or won't teach? Just tough luck for them? Besides that, some fundamental knowledge requires interaction with others in society. I have found that I learn from everybody. Each of us have limits on our abilities, what we know, and what we can share.

I am very much against government schooling. But I would agree to providing some of my funds to provide a basic level education to others in laissez-faire free market private institutions.

If these are your arguments, then you must be against public education as we know it, for it is well understood that government schools do not effectively teach the subjects you mentioned to the majority of people. (that is why activist organizations have to fill in the gaps of ignorance left in the general public's knowledge after 12 years of State sponsored un-education)

Melissa's post has a lot of good points, and I'm inclined to agree with her. :cool:

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 11:36 AM
If these are your arguments, then you must be against public education as we know it, for it is well understood that government schools do not effectively teach the subjects you mentioned to the majority of people. (that is why activist organizations have to fill in the gaps of ignorance left in the general public's knowledge after 12 years of State sponsored un-education)

Melissa's post has a lot of good points, and I'm inclined to agree with her. :cool:

Right, I am against public education as we know it, but I am for an educated society. Melissa does have good points, and I tend to agree with Melissa as well, but I do not see her proposal obtainable in my lifetime.

MelissaWV
06-23-2010, 11:39 AM
Right, I am against public education as we know it, but I am for an educated society. Melissa does have good points, and I tend to agree with Melissa as well, but I do not see her proposal obtainable in my lifetime.

Welcome to Liberty Forest. Most of the stuff discussed here isn't obtainable in one's lifetime :p

Working within the current systems is a nightmare, and will continue to sap one person's wallet for another person's dreams, with the approval of everyone else who thinks the wallet-raid is for something else. Reality is a world of baby steps.

Travlyr
06-23-2010, 11:44 AM
Welcome to Liberty Forest. Most of the stuff discussed here isn't obtainable in one's lifetime :p

Working within the current systems is a nightmare, and will continue to sap one person's wallet for another person's dreams, with the approval of everyone else who thinks the wallet-raid is for something else. Reality is a world of baby steps.

The people have much more power than we pretend we don't have. We need to be taking a different tack, and use our power. We are all in this together. :cool:

IceForester
06-23-2010, 12:04 PM
An ideal system would allow all children to access any school of their choice.
If a human child does not have access to education because he or she came out of the birth canal of a person thats less fortunate, humanity wastes its human potential. How many Einstein, Louis Pasteur, have died from malnutrition before they even knew the name of the country they happen to be born in or were denied education for not being able to access it?

Also, the overwhelming majority of the information content of education should imo be free, made available online to all people and all schools, as well as online testing for each subject.

Corporate sponsoship of education would run a great risk of extending corruption into the education realm, for the corporation exists to maximize its profits, not to benefit mankind, so its in a conflict of interest.
Has anyone seen College, Inc on Frontline (PBS)?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/

So imo schools should be publically funded, but locally managed with mechanisms for parent input and total transparency, with a cooperation and support non-profit organization(or network) that has no decisional power over local schools but provides services (sharing, cooperation, support) to local schools (bottom-up funding).

This way, parents can access any information about schools they want and choose which one they prefer. Schools have a lot of autonomy for initiatives and the material, methods and results are available for all other schools which are free to integrate good ideas based on their take, parent input and inscription trends.

===
A car's effectiveness on the road does not mean its best on water.

romacox
06-23-2010, 12:08 PM
We use to have an education that surpassed anything the rest of the world had, but that was when the Federal Government was not involved as they are today. The more involved they become, the worse it gets.

Today homeschooled children rate better on college entrance exams than do public schooled children. That being said homeschool is not for everyone, and parents should make the decisions about what is best for their child, not the government.

heavenlyboy34
06-23-2010, 12:13 PM
We use to have an education that surpassed anything the rest of the world had, but that was when the Federal Government was not involved as they are today. The more involved they become, the worse it gets.

Today homeschooled children rate better on college entrance exams than do public schooled children. That being said homeschool is not for everyone, and parents should make the decisions about what is best for their child, not the government.

w00t! :D:cool: