Do You Support State Sponsered, Mandatory Education?

[Speedo]

If you honestly believe this, you are a fool. I know a woman who is home-schooling her daughter, and the girl is twice as smart as I am, and better-read. Home-schooling is tightly regulated (at least it is in CNY) because the teacher's unions are trying to crush it, for fear of losing their over-inflated salaries and tenures.

I know a woman who home-schools her daughters, but this woman is barely capable of telling you the answer to 2+2, but is trying to teach her children algebra, trig, and the like.

I also know twin 12 yr old boys who have been homeschooled all the way. They both read on about a second grade (7 yr old) level.

Shall I go on?

 

[Elden]

Originally posted by Speedo


I know a woman who home-schools her daughters, but this woman is barely capable of telling you the answer to 2+2, but is trying to teach her children algebra, trig, and the like.

I also know twin 12 yr old boys who have been homeschooled all the way. They both read on about a second grade (7 yr old) level.

Shall I go on?

Almost nothing will succed 100% of the time but nor will most things fail 100% for some people it may work for others it may not. I personally think it is a bad idea.

 

[Speedo]

My point exactly. Quite simply, a great many of the parents out there are not capable of giving their child a decent education. If they want to homeschool, let them prove that they are capable.

 

[Sims2789]

another problem with homeschooling is that the kids never learn essential social skills. i've known 1 person in my whole life who went to homeschool and wasn't messed up.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Most definitely.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by newfangle
Do you support the government forcibly removing your children from your house,

Yes, like Santa Claus the Mayor may penetrate all these homes for his evil designs, he has my permission.

Originally posted by newfangle
forcing them to learn subject material that you may or may (not) approve of,

As opposed to forcing them to learn subject matter that I, Sean Lindstrom, do approve of? I'll trust the Ministry of Education, thanks.

Originally posted by newfangle
while at the same time charging all members of society for public school

That's why we call it society.

Originally posted by newfangle
- even the ones who have no use for them?

If they're part of society, then yes.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Akka

Again this void argument

I don't need police force for the town 200 kilometers away, why should I need to pay for ?
I don't need the tribunals for the city in the north, why should I need to pay for ?
If I don't have a car, why should I pay for road ?

It's the difference between a SOCIETY, as a construct encompassing all its citizen, and a COMPANY which just sell products to the ones that want to buy them and that can afford them.

Of course, it annoyes self-centered people who resent to not pay for only the part they use (though they don't really mind to be protected by police and justice that EVERYONE fund, or to be cured in healthcare that EVERYONE fund, or to use roads that EVERYONE fund...

You're evading the point. Tell me exaclty why I should be forced into paying for the education of all children. Don't give me the usual altruist egalitarian diatribe. Tell me why. It's a very simply question.

Originally posted by jack merchant


As I pointed out on the first page, you benefit from other people's being educated too - adress those points, would you ?

Quantifyably prove to me how public education of others benefits me, and I might not ignore this.

Originally posted by Elden

It would probably be better if each city paid for everything in thAt city rather than every other city.

Why not further reduce that to, "It would probably be better if everyone paid for what they use."

Originally posted by Akka

NB : this rant is not targeted just at you, Elden, but rather at the whole "I just wish to pay for public services I use, and the hell with the rest of society".

I don't want to pay for any public services. I want to pay for what I use with the money that I earn. God damn me for being a self-centered little goon. What is wrong with, "to each his own?"

Originally posted by jpowers

I pay taxes each year to lock up criminals that steal cars. No one stole my car. Why should I pay?
I pay taxes each year to subsidize tobacco farmers. I don't smoke. Why should I pay?
I pay taxes each year to kill Iraqis. I don't really want this service, but the government provides it anyway. Why should I pay?

1) The judicial system is a seperate topic that I will readily discuss in another thread.
2) I disagree with any and all subsidies.
3) War is also a separate topic.

Please actually support your answer to the question posed on the poll instead of flinging the same old diatribe.

Originally posted by jack merchant
You aren't being compared to Bin Laden, the point is a totally hands-off government is exactly what allows the Bin Ladens of this world to thrive.

That is the largest bunch of BS I have heard in a while. A "hands-off" government refers to less economic penalties based on invdividual success, NOT a comprimise with their security. Check your premises.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
As opposed to forcing them to learn subject matter that I, Sean Lindstrom, do approve of? I'll trust the Ministry of Education, thanks.

If you are fine with the government making all decisions for you, that's your business. The rest of your post was just trolling....


Well, it seems no one can actually explain why I should be forced into paying equally for the education of all children. A successful thread indeed.

 

[Speedo]

You're evading the point. Tell me exaclty why I should be forced into paying for the education of all children. Don't give me the usual altruist egalitarian diatribe. Tell me why. It's a very simply question.

Because whether you like it or not, you benefit from their education.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by newfangle

Quantifyably prove to me how public education of others benefits me, and I might not ignore this.

How nice - instead of adressing this argument, you want me to prove something for which I provided logical & economic arguments while sticking to an assertion of your own that you provided no supportive reasoning at all for. I almost fell into that trap .*
Anyway, for the relation of education to economic growth, check Barro, Robert J., " Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), May 1991, pages 407-443 in particular. I don't presume you need me to spell out how economic growth benefits all members of a society, or how higher prosperity relates to lower rates of theft and violence. Do you ?

Originally posted by newfangle

A "hands-off" government refers to less economic penalties based on invdividual success, NOT a comprimise with their security. Check your premises.

Individual success still requires security, which is something that presupposes a public service that all pay for. Anyway, the concept of hands-off government I had in mind here is obviously quite different from yours, which is why it makes no sense to accuse me of spouting BS. You're going after a straw man there.

* (on edit) - damn, I did fall into that trap .

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by newfangle
You're evading the point. Tell me exaclty why I should be forced into paying for the education of all children. Don't give me the usual altruist egalitarian diatribe. Tell me why. It's a very simply question.

Because it's your social responsibility.

I don't want to pay for any public services. I want to pay for what I use with the money that I earn. God damn me for being a self-centered little goon.

I hope so

What is wrong with, "to each his own?"

I understand that you have just discovered the glories of capitalism, but this is what the rest of the capitalists on the board have had to ponder the whole time. You are presenting nothing new and it has little to do with education - the topic of the thread. (and then have the gall to accuse other people of the same when they go into arguing about the whole capitalism vs. socialism thing. at least be consistant if nothing else)

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by bobgote

Because it's your social responsibility.

Who says?

Originally posted by bobgote


I understand that you have just discovered the glories of capitalism, but this is what the rest of the capitalists on the board have had to ponder the whole time. You are presenting nothing new and it has little to do with education - the topic of the thread. (and then have the gall to accuse other people of the same when they go into arguing about the whole capitalism vs. socialism thing. at least be consistant if nothing else)

Provide evidence or go and quiver in the corner with the rest.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by jack merchant


How nice - instead of adressing this argument, you want me to prove something for which I provided logical & economic arguments while sticking to an assertion of your own that you provided no supportive reasoning at all for. I almost fell into that trap .*
Anyway, for the relation of education to economic growth, check Barro, Robert J., " Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), May 1991, pages 407-443 in particular. I don't presume you need me to spell out how economic growth benefits all members of a society, or how higher prosperity relates to lower rates of theft and violence. Do you ?

Where does this prove the merits of public education?

EDIT: You seem to think that I am anti-education. This is the furthest thing from the truth. I just believe that we should all be free to pay for the education we want.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by newfangle
Provide evidence or go and quiver in the corner with the rest.

Evidence of what?
Do you even know what you're talking about anymore?
I have provided my answer to the question of the thread already, and have answered all opposing points that made any kind of sense at all. And I humbly suggest you save your oh-so-clever victory line for a more appropriate occasion.

To try to straighten this out (and try to forget the trap that jack spoke of) - You're pretty much saying that only people who can afford to pay for their education, should be educated. I'd like to get this sorted out before I go any further as you haven't exactly provided a wealth of clarification up to this point.

 

[nihilistic]

Should there be public schools? Yes. However, I completely disagree with the way that public schools are run right now. Here's why: They encourage failure. They make stupid investments.

[Elitist_Tone]
The public schools fail because that they always try to find ways to invest more on those students who do not want or deserve the investment. The whole goal of "making sure everybody passes" is pathetic. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Regardless of how good a system of education is, regardless of how easy the tests are made, there will be people who fail. However, our school system has continually demonstrated itself to be willing to sacrifice its better students for its scum, with pathetic idealogies such as "we need to help the worse since the better students can help themselves". The policies of always teaching at the remedial level makes the better students bored, and eventually ruins many of them to the point that they no longer cared about learning and join the growing ranks of failing losers. Also, some schools even go as far to impair the welfare of better students by spreading them apart to mix in with the worse students, which gives them even more of an excuse to teach at the lowest level possible. To add insult to injury, the schools usually pass the failing students onto the next class just as they do the excelling ones, making it seem as if doing well in school work has no consequence whatever. This is simply unacceptable.

To succeed, there must be a shift of paradigm. Teachers must be able to tell certain parents that their child is incompetent, or at least unaccomplished. There must be an effort to make it more acceptable for the teacher to of fail people, to eliminate the practice of advancing an undeerving student to the next grade level. Just like how games are usually more fun higher dificulty levels, learning is not possible without the possibility of failure.

A third aspect of my rant consists of a criticism of the overwhelming dominance of sports over academics in our schools. I am not trying to belittle gym classes and sports teams, but when you consider that when if you happen to come across a NYC high school kid selling candy on the subway to allegedly help fund their extracurricular activities, you will almost always hear that it's their basketball team. I see a problem with the academic system when students decide (sometimes correctly, which is what makes it even more disturbing) that they have a better chance of success if they skip the physics final for football practice.
[\Elitist_Tone]

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by nihilistic
[Elitist_Tone]
The public schools fail because that they always try to find ways to invest more on those students who do not want or deserve the investment. The whole goal of "making sure everybody passes" is pathetic. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Regardless of how good a system of education is, regardless of how easy the tests are made, there will be people who fail. However, our school system has continually demonstrated itself to be willing to sacrifice its better students for its scum, with pathetic idealogies such as "we need to help the worse since the better students can help themselves". The policies of always teaching at the remedial level makes the better students bored, and eventually ruins many of them to the point that they no longer cared about learning and join the growing ranks of failing losers. Also, some schools even go as far to impair the welfare of better students by spreading them apart to mix in with the worse students, which gives them even more of an excuse to teach at the lowest level possible. To add insult to injury, the schools usually pass the failing students onto the next class just as they do the excelling ones, making it seem as if doing well in school work has no consequence whatever. This is simply unacceptable.

Are students split up into levels of ability at all?
admittedly i did go to a private high school, but i had friends who went to public schools, and I can recall that their math classes were split up into different ability groups - I can only imagine similar occurred for the rest of the classes (this was at a year 9 level, I know for certain that this occurs in year 11 + 12, no matter where you go). People who didn't want to be there dropped out by the end of year 10, which meant that most the people who were left were at least more serious in passing (although not completely )

and we don't have quite the same thing with sports over here - probably most of the schools involved at a high level in sports are private schools.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by bobgote

Are students split up into levels of ability at all?
admittedly i did go to a private high school, but i had friends who went to public schools, and I can recall that their math classes were split up into different ability groups - I can only imagine similar occurred for the rest of the classes (this was at a year 9 level, I know for certain that this occurs in year 11 + 12, no matter where you go). People who didn't want to be there dropped out by the end of year 10, which meant that most the people who were left were at least more serious in passing (although not completely )

and we don't have quite the same thing with sports over here - probably most of the schools involved at a high level in sports are private schools.

In NYC, not really. Their motto is basically: we don't care if the better students want to learn, we just want to maximize the people who pass the idiot tests (New York State Regents). In fact, if you happen to take a look at the nyc public high school admission policies, you will see that they are required to admit 16% of their students from the top 16%, 64% of their students from the middle 64%, and 16% of their students from the lower 16%. This is the policy when I applied to high schools, which resulted in me not getting accepted into any school except the elite public schools who are exempt from this system but require an exam. And get this: The elite pblic schools in nyc actually receive LESS funding per student! So much so that an quite famous saying around my high school was that our rights were "life, liberty, and the pursuit of alumni funding".

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by nihilistic


In NYC, not really. Their motto is basically: we don't care if the better students want to learn, we just want to maximize the people who pass the idiot tests (New York State Regents). In fact, if you happen to take a look at the nyc public high school admission policies, you will see that they are required to admit 16% of their students from the top 16%, 64% of their students from the middle 64%, and 16% of their students from the lower 16%. This is the policy when I applied to high schools, which resulted in me not getting accepted into any school except the elite public schools who are exempt from this system but require an exam. And get this: The elite pblic schools in nyc actually receive LESS funding per student! So much so that an quite famous saying around my high school was that our rights were "life, liberty, and the pursuit of alumni funding".

what level of schooling are we talking here, what year level? I don't really know about our admission policies etc but i just want to be able to compare our systems.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by bobgote

what level of schooling are we talking here, what year level? I don't really know about our admission policies etc but i just want to be able to compare our systems.

Every level up until one graduates high school. I've basically attended hellhole schools until I took the NYC Specialized HS test.

 

[Speedo]

Who says?

Society says. If you want to be a part of society, you live with it. If you don't want to live with it, there are plenty of uninhabited islands waiting for you

 

[Gothmog]

Where does this prove the merits of public education?

EDIT: You seem to think that I am anti-education. This is the furthest thing from the truth. I just believe that we should all be free to pay for the education we want.

It is a simple fact that not everyone can afford to pay for education by their own means. Also that not all cultures value education. You can play the blame game (i.e. "who's fault is that?") all you want, but that wont change the way that people live. This is especially unfair to children who are not capable of taking their destiny into their own hands. Without public education many of them would have no chance to better themselves or to contribute to the general welfare. Obviously, they would become an economic burden to society.

Public education provides a standard, it says - to live in this society you need to have a certain level of education. We all benefit from any increase in the average education of the populace.

As a society we need to maintain social stability, if there exists among us people who cannot support themselves we must deal with them in some way - otherwise social stability is threatened. It is much more cost effective to give as many of these people as possible the tools to support themselves - and hopefully to contribute to the general welfare. The ultimate resource for the betterment of humanity, is humanity its self; and that resource must be culled from all walks of life.

Provide evidence or go and quiver in the corner with the rest.

It seems to me that the need for evidence lays heavily on your side, the profit motive alone is enough to motivate all industrial nations to offer public education – not to mention the social stability benefits. There is a huge literature on the subject. Can you show any evidence that society would be better off without public education? If not, please go quiver in the corner .

The argument here is not about the type or method of public education – that is another interesting topic and nihilistic has addressed some interesting points. However, I would point out that I myself was completely educated in public institutions, and I now make a good living simply by thinking about science.