How Will the Poor Be Educated Without Federal Funds

[Dwcomm01]

I was trying to explain to my brother why the DOE should be abolished, and he kept asking how those in poor areas would be able to fund their schools. He readily admits that the government wastes money. He can also even see how smaller government bodies could be better controlled by its communities. However, I cannot figure out how poor people would be educated without federal funding. I said that people would step up and donate when they see the need, but I don't really believe that. When I read "The Revolution: A Manifesto," I wanted to believe that the people of this country are kind enough to give when they need to, but I really don't think that's the case.

Thanks in advance for any input.

[RDM]

Like they did prior to DOE. Each state has their own DOE separate from the Federal DOE. There will still be state grants and discount tuition for in state residents plus the tuition costs will begin to come down due to no more federal funds which will force colleges to compete for business.

[Dwcomm01]

I'm talking about elementary through high school.

Thanks again.

[tsai3904]

State and local taxes.

[Dwcomm01]

I'm sorry. I'm looking for more specific answers. Are the state DOE's better? Do I argue that somehow the state DOE's will do a better job? Also, in poor, rural areas, I don't think the local taxes would be enough. Is that wrong?

Does anyone know how Ron Paul solves this problem?

[MelissaWV]

Screw it.

[tsai3904]

The more local the control, the better things are handled. If schools are funded by state and local taxes, decisions will be made by state and local officials who are more attuned to the problems in their area rather than by federal officials who are thousands of miles away in DC.

Your assumption that state and local taxes won't be able to fund rural schools is wrong. States and localities have the authority to shift their budgets to focus on areas they want.

[Keith and stuff]

I don't know how the Washington DC schools would be funded without federal funds. In the states, last I heard, the money the feds give is around the money it cost to comply with federal regulations. In other words, that isn't even a relevant question

[MelissaWV]

Screw it.

[RickyJ]

Let's see, there are public libraries open all day that have computers with access to the Internet in almost every town, correct? Poor people can take their kids there and let them get online to get an education. You say they don't know how to read? Then they can learn to read on online sites just for that purpose. There is no reason for any kid today to not have a great education with the Internet available just about everywhere. Sure it takes discipline, and it takes some effort and desire, but any kid that wants to learn today in America can without a ton of money.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

Your vote for Ron Paul will be appreciated.

[tommy949]

How about we privatize education and move onto the next generation, online education , you can go to the library or use donated laptops

[Dwcomm01]

I need something that shows that state and local taxes would make up the difference and that state DOEs would be better. Someone mentioned the cost of meeting federal requirements offsetting federal aid. Does anyone have a link to an article?

[osan]

I was trying to explain to my brother why the DOE should be abolished, and he kept asking how those in poor areas would be able to fund their schools. He readily admits that the government wastes money. He can also even see how smaller government bodies could be better controlled by its communities. However, I cannot figure out how poor people would be educated without federal funding. I said that people would step up and donate when they see the need, but I don't really believe that. When I read "The Revolution: A Manifesto," I wanted to believe that the people of this country are kind enough to give when they need to, but I really don't think that's the case.

Thanks in advance for any input.

Your quandary presupposes the legitimacy and necessity of government's role. Remove that and the problem vanishes.

Next: schooling has virtually NOTHING to do with education. I am a former NYC teacher and can attest very directly to the truth of this. Education is the responsibility of PARENTS and not the state. There is no rational and morally valid basis for public school that are funded through forcible theft. It is as plain as that. If the government tit is withdrawn, after some period of dependency withdrawal people will begin making the choice of either finding solutions or letting their children grow up as waifs. Their choice.

The world is s tough place in many ways. It is not my responsibility to make it easier for you. I help if I so choose, or do not. My right. Don't like? Don't look. Things are as simple as that.

[XNavyNuke]

I already put my answer in this previous thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ppen-to-my....

Before you can answer the question you must first decide: what do you consider education? Around here (we homeschool) its reading and writing at a 12th grade level per Flesch-Kincaid standard and mathematics through Calculus. Anything else is elective. All public schools, and to a large extent private schools, spend way too much time and money on things that are a distraction to education. Unless you can address that issue then you'll never be able to determine what you consider to be the amount that should be cut.

XNN

[playboymommy]

There is a school district that can't sustain itself. The state already forced two other districts to take in the the high school students and is now forcing the school districts to take in the elementary and middle school students. Should state officials have that right? I don't think so.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dail.../s_791347.html

[fisharmor]

osan, you always have a marvelous gift for putting your finger right on the point.

Your quandary presupposes the legitimacy and necessity of government's role. Remove that and the problem vanishes.

Indeed. I would also add that since the creation of DOE, education levels in this country have only gone down. In order to answer the question "how will children be educated" you must first answer the question "are children actually being educated now?" The answer is NO. Therefore DOE apologists have no point.

Next: schooling has virtually NOTHING to do with education. I am a former NYC teacher and can attest very directly to the truth of this. Education is the responsibility of PARENTS and not the state. There is no rational and morally valid basis for public school that are funded through forcible theft. It is as plain as that. If the government tit is withdrawn, after some period of dependency withdrawal people will begin making the choice of either finding solutions or letting their children grow up as waifs. Their choice.

At some point, people who examine education in this country have to look at a couple facts.
Fact 1: You're not getting anywhere with a High School diploma.
Therefore, you need to go to college.

Fact 2: The very first thing colleges do when you get in is give you a battery of standardized tests to find out what classes you can handle based on what you did in HS.
If you score very high, you can go on to Calculus and Survey of 18th Century British Literature.
If you score very low, you end up in Math for Art Students and Remedial English 101.
Therefore, it does not follow that HS is required for a college education,
furthermore, it does not follow that HS will prepare you for college, and
furthermore, it's axiomatic that other avenues to college preparation may work, if only because they can't be any less of a crap shoot.

Fact 3: Many colleges will give credit for time on the job or real-world experience in a topic to be studied.
Therefore, it's axiomatic that extra-college activities are equivalent to college study.


Since it's axiomatic that other education methods besides public school may work to prepare for college, and it's also axiomatic that those methods are capable of replacing college, therefore schooling is unnecessary.
Beneficial, perhaps. But unnecessary.



I did not learn any of the reasoning skills demonstrated in this post from public school.

[pcgame]

...

[osan]

I already put my answer in this previous thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ppen-to-my....

Before you can answer the question you must first decide: what do you consider education?

Bingo and +rep (stoopid program won't let me give you more rep)

One cannot make the determination without knowing the definition. The cookie-cutter training is not only not education, it is its precise opposite. Training is part of education, but it is not education itself.

The John Uoft dictionary of 1785 defines educations thusly:

EDUCA'TION. n.f. [from educate.~\ Formation of manners in youth ; the manner of breeding youth ; nurture.

Notice how there is no reference to school whatsoever, though training may be deduced as part of education by this definition.

Education is about exposing the pupil to a wide menu of experiences in order that they may discover their true interests and talents such that those talents may be nurtured and developed. It is a process of self discovery and refinement with the goal being to afford the pupil the opportunity to discover what he is made of and what he may become. It has NOTHING to do with sitting in a chair being bored to suicide by some rank, butt $#@!ing retard in pursuit of state mandated test requirements, regulations, and standards. What we do to children in this nation and in all the rest as well is absolutely criminal in the most literal and real sense of the word. I would not have any child of mine in a public school and anyone trying to force them into one would become well familiar with the local ICU.