Do You Support State Sponsered, Mandatory Education?

[newfangle]

This question is mainly aimed towards parents, but anyone is free to respond.

Do you support state sponsered, mandatory education?

Before you answer, perhaps the question should be read differently:

Do you support the government forcibly removing your children from your house, forcing them to learn subject material that you may or may approve of, while at the same time charging all members of society for public school- even the ones who have no use for them?

 

[MrPresident]

Yes, with a reservation. All children should be required, by law, to have an education. However if a parent wishes to provide home education, regulated by the government, then that should be acceptable. Education is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society and every citizen should be educated to a certain level.

 

[addiv]

Of course I support (mandatory) education. It's one of the most important tasks of the government. I think all education should be run by the state, because it's the only way to really ensure objective, quality education and to have it accessible for all students, of all religions, whether poor or rich.

 

[jpowers]

Children are schoolable between the ages of 4 and 18. After that they are adults. If they are a resource drain between the ages of 4 and 18 for the purposes of educating them with enough knowledge to avoid being a resource drain between 18 and the end of their life, then it is absolutely cost-effective to sponsor education. In the rare case when a parent is capable of educating their child to this level in the home, this should be an option, provided the child is able to pass a basic examination which will establish the likelihood of that child being a resource drain in the future. If the child does not pass the exam, the parent responsible for educating this child should be fined an amount equal to or greater than the expected resource drain represented by the undereducated child. This includes filling your child's mind with religious hatred and insanity and making it impossible for the child to normally socialize with other people in society.

 

[RoddyVR]

i think that depends. if its one of the primary Goals of the government, then yes.
if its a secondary (or minor) goal then no.

I consider the US to have a Minor education system, so i think that they have the wrong system going.
If their Education system ate up anywhere NEAR the money that their army ate up, then they wouldnt NEED so much money in the amry (the smart kids would make a lot of inventions to cheapen the "advanced" weaponry).

 

[zippy]

I support state sponsored quality education. Unfortunately, in this country at least, it is in very short supply. The existance of a private education system gives the state system a gauge against which it can be judged. Sadly, in the UK at least, public education falls far short of any acceptable standard.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Education is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society and every citizen should be educated to a certain level.

I find this statement contradictory. How is society "free" if education is payed for in a very communist-like manor and all children are forced into it in a very fascist-like manor.

Originally posted by addiv
Of course I support (mandatory) education. It's one of the most important tasks of the government. I think all education should be run by the state, because it's the only way to really ensure objective, quality education and to have it accessible for all students, of all religions, whether poor or rich.

Thats's another contradictory statement. You flind around this word "objective" like the government owns the sole rights to it. Was state endorsed education in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia objective? Is the state ever objective, or does it only exist to perpetuate its own existence?

Originally posted by jpowers
Children are schoolable between the ages of 4 and 18. After that they are adults. If they are a resource drain between the ages of 4 and 18 for the purposes of educating them with enough knowledge to avoid being a resource drain between 18 and the end of their life, then it is absolutely cost-effective to sponsor education. In the rare case when a parent is capable of educating their child to this level in the home, this should be an option, provided the child is able to pass a basic examination which will establish the likelihood of that child being a resource drain in the future. If the child does not pass the exam, the parent responsible for educating this child should be fined an amount equal to or greater than the expected resource drain represented by the undereducated child. This includes filling your child's mind with religious hatred and insanity and making it impossible for the child to normally socialize with other people in society.

Evidence please. By the by, there is another alternative to homeschooling, which is of course private education. (who many people opt for in the US).

Originally posted by zippy
I support state sponsored quality education. Unfortunately, in this country at least, it is in very short supply. The existance of a private education system gives the state system a gauge against which it can be judged. Sadly, in the UK at least, public education falls far short of any acceptable standard.

Who would you force to supply the necessary funds for quality education?

 

[addiv]

Originally posted by newfangle
Thats's another contradictory statement. You flind around this word "objective" like the government owns the sole rights to it. Was state endorsed education in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia objective? Is the state ever objective, or does it only exist to perpetuate its own existence?

It's not a contradictory statement, unless you want to argue that perfect 'objectivity' is never attainable (which is in fact true), but I meant that I think the government in a democratic state is the institution that will be able to provide the most objective education (better than individuals, private undertakings, churches etc.). You are right that education in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union was far from objective, but those were extremely ideological dictatorial states, and in modern democracies the public education is and will be objective and of high quality, if funded adequately.

 

[zippy]

Originally posted by newfangle

Who would you force to supply the necessary funds for quality education?

I already pay through the nose for a sub standard level of education.

Personally, I don't think that money is the issue, rather the initial stampede towards trendy teaching methods that didn't work, followed by constant tinkering by successive governments in an attempt to show that they are doing something have failed a whole generation (or two) of schoolchildren.

Maybe if they actually sat down and decided what they wanted people to learn at school (basic adding up, spelling and grammer would be a start), drew up a comprehensive and challenging syllabus, and set tests to accurately assess the knowledge of students, then maybe the certificates awarded at the end of the process would be worth something more than the paper they are printed on. (Edit -- This would also require recognising that some students will not perform as well as others in an academic environment, but that this does not mean that they do not have any contribution to make to society. Allow students to fail exams, and introduce vocational training such as NVQ's etc)

If they also realised that 50% of students going on to university is not a meaningful target if they cannot read or write when they get there, or are destined to end up working in Mcdonalds as there are no extra graduate level jobs for them to take up when they get their degree, then perhaps the resources wasted in fulfilling a purely politically correct target could be redirected to providing the country with the skills that are currently in very short supply (Eg Engineering etc)

Paying for education is not wasted resources, it is an investment into the future of society. If politicians actually recognised this fact, instead of concentrating on voting themselves 40% pay rises, perhaps this country could close the productivity gap it has suffered for the last 40 years.

 

[Akka]

Of course I do.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by newfangle

Thats's another contradictory statement. You flind around this word "objective" like the government owns the sole rights to it. Was state endorsed education in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia objective? Is the state ever objective, or does it only exist to perpetuate its own existence?

A democratically chosen government is objective. If the people don't like schools, thay can vote for a party that wants to change schools.

Comparing the nazi or Stalin organised education system with the Dutch education system (4-16 year it is 99.5% government organised) is completely ridiculous.

 

[Yago]

Do you support the government forcibly removing your children from your house, forcing them to learn subject material that you may or may approve of, while at the same time charging all members of society for public school- even the ones who have no use for them?

Yes.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. And I wonder how much tons of acid you would need to get any people which are product of such a system to ever give up its benefits.

Then again, those people aren't adressed with this question, I guess.

 

[jack merchant]

Given that all of society benefits from both primary & secundary education (not just economically; countries with a highly educated population also tend to have fewer social problems and a lower incidence of violence) I don't see why it should not be publicly paid for - after all, not everyone has the option of going to homeschooling or private schools. But when a homeschooled kid becomes an entrepreneur, he'll still be happy to have a highly qualified pool of people from which to hire from.

Moreover, the fact that education in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany was biased (I'm not familiar with how biased exactly, and in what subjects) is hardly an argument against public education in a free and democratic society. While I'm not opposed to private education, I do think that private schools too should be held to publicly regulated standards, both with regard to quality and with regard to the curriculum.

 

[Yago]

Moreover, the fact that education in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany was biased

To put it blunt. The possibility to be dumbed full of **** is much higher in "private" uncontrolled teaching then in public teaching, where parents have a say. Logically. Because they are the voters !

And to something in my right toe says to me, that if we talk about "bias" in education, we will sooner or later crash into a wall of cultural/regional differences.

 

[Zarn]

Just like to say a couple of things...

1) Education is one of those few things that should be provided by government. So, I pretty much agree with others here. An uneducated nations is not the way to go.

2) IIRC, the amount of money towards military is not as high as most people think compared to the rest of the budget. I don't have the numbers on me, but I'm sure someone has that kind of info. Don't forget all the useless programs that the government pays for.

 

[Yago]

2) IIRC, the amount of money towards military is not as high as most people think compared to the rest of the budget. I don't have the numbers on me, but I'm sure someone has that kind of info. Don't forget all the useless programs that the government pays for.

Oh, oh, that is a question of "state-accounting". Do you take the fiscal-quote or the "taxes", i.e. the money which is at the disposal of the congress to actually funnel somewhere, instead of being part of a "fund".

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Yago
To put it blunt. The possibility to be dumbed full of **** is much higher in "private" uncontrolled teaching then in public teaching, where parents have a say. Logically. Because they are the voters !

I disagree. Logically, you'd have much more say as a customer, since the school would need your money to make profit.

I'd be in favour of private schools and vouchers to make sure the poor also can send their kids to get an education. This would probably be much cheaper than the current system. Where I live, funding has never been larger to the public sector, but some still say it is in a crisis.

 

[Yago]

I disagree. Logically, you'd have much more say as a customer, since the school would need your money to make profit.

Locally, you have the exact same thing to say, because the community would need to take your taxes to keep the school going.

Then again, I do not live in a central state.

 

[Leha]

I don't know how it goes in other countries , but I think due to mandatory education in USSR ( and I went to school there - just look at my perfect english ) , they have pretty high educational level . I'm sure it is good thing .

 

[zippy]

Originally posted by Hayek

I'd be in favour of private schools and vouchers to make sure the poor also can send their kids to get an education. This would probably be much cheaper than the current system. Where I live, funding has never been larger to the public sector, but some still say it is in a crisis.

Unfortunately, here in the UK, the voucher system was shouted down as being elitist

After all, if allowing students to get the best education based on merit rather than wealth were encouraged, who knows what terrible consequences this could have on society.