Odinn wrote:
On 2/15/2006 10:24 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
Joe Barta wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
If our dysfunctional education system (which more-or-less-fails
the impoverished anyway) still manages to make us a successful
culture, imagine what a *Better* (not perfect) system could do.
Let me ask you further, what would you hope to achieve by
implementing a "better" system? What is better? How would we know
it was better? What are the benefits of better?
Joe Barta
"Better" is one whe
1) Parents are expected to care for their own children.
Getting rid of public schools won't change this.
Sure it will. The *expectation* would be that parents see to
the education of their children. If they failed to do so, they
could be charged with child neglect, thereby making this a priority
in the parents' lives. This would also serve as a good feedback
mechanism to discourage people from having children they could not
afford.
2) Parents are more directly involved with the content and quality of
their childrens' education.
Getting rid of public schools won't change this. If they're not
interested in their education now, having no public schools won't make
them interested.
Today's (public) schools cannot refuse service to any student.
But a private schools can. Private schools could (and do) demand
parental involvement as a condition of their kid attending. If a parent
remained remiss in this responsibility, their kid could not get into
any private school and then the parents could be charged with some
form of child neglect as previous discussed.
3) The knowledge base, analytical skills, and self-learning habits of
the students are increased (compared to today).
How do you get an increased knowledge base when the only information
they have is coming from their parents, who may be uneducated themselves?
'Ever heard of private schools? They don't have to be expensive
and they don't have to be out of reach of the average person.
If you gut the collectivist tax system we have today, most people
could easily afford some kind of private education for their child.
For the very poorest families, private charity would cover some of
it, and schools catering to the economic underclass would emerge
(as previously mentioned).
4) Teachers are compensated according to ability and their work
product not treated like hourly factory workers. Good teachers
prosper bad ones get fired.
If there are no schools, who's going to pay the teachers (parents).
Why is it that when people defend collectivism they never can do
so honestly? I *never* said there should be *NO* schools. I said
there should be no *public* schools - Big Difference. Schools
should be run as any other business is with the customers deciding
where to spend their money and the school rewarding or dismissing
their employees on the basis of merit.
5) Schools have the ability to maintain an environment of learning
not be a dumping ground for parents to abdicate their own
responsibilities.
What schools? You're getting rid of public schools.
See the above - your strawman is on fire.
6) Government presence in the private lives of its citizens is
reduced.
Govt presence in private lives is all over the place, and VERY little
involvement is through schools.
You obviously haven't done much reading on the subject. Between
the Federal Department Of Education, the various State/Local
taxes, and public university fees (which are rising faster than
the rate of inflation), there is a considerable presence of
government in our lives.
7) Wealth redistribution at the point of the government's gun is reduced.
Let's see, when I was poor, I didn't get any rich kids money because I
was going to public school. We both got the same education so that I
had the same chance as he did to make it in life. Funny how I'm
successful today and that rich kid I went to school with never made it
past high school and is still living off his parents. Had it not been
for public schools, there's no telling where I would have ended up,
Ah yes, the classic "The Ends Justify The Means" argument. There is
no question that some, perhaps even most, public schools often produce
good - or at least acceptable - results. This is not a moral justification
for theft. I paid for the education of the children I could afford,
why must I also pay for the children of people who have no reproductive
self-control? Why must I continue to pay for the education of children
when I no longer have any to still send to school? The answer of
course is that the US tax system is run by mob rule. Everyone who
wants something, begs for it from the politicians, trades in their
liberty for a "Freebie", and in many cases, does so at the expense of
their fellow-citizens. Would robbing banks be OK if you gave half
the money to charity?
probably in jail for being a drug dealer or a thief because I couldn't
get a job. As for private schools when I was growing up. The only one
that existed near me existed strictly for the sole reason of not having
any blacks in the school. They were taught from the same books as the
public school, they had misfits in the classroom, just like the public
schools. They would take anyone's money as long as they were white,
didn't matter if the student was a good student or a bad. No one was
ever thrown out of that school for bad behavior.
So your experience generalizes? Since we're doing Proof By Anecdote, let
me offer mine. I went to public K-12. I then attended private undergrad
and graduate programs. I too grew up quite poor. I made it through the
end of grad school without: a) Taking a dime of public money in the form
of grants/loans/etc. b) A dime of debt. How? By *working*. I could live
with public K-12 if the Federal government completely butted out and let
the States and municipalities run things as they saw fit. At least then
the parents have a hope of controlling the quality and content of the
curriculum. But there is *no* reason for any government involvement at
the university level. People going to college are adults and ought thus
to be expected to take care of themselves.
The educational establishment has a vested interest in Things As They
Are. This is especially true at the collegiate level wherein schools
have become ideological madrassas. I rather think that people having to
pay the actual costs of their own education (i.e., Not being able to
mooch off their fellow citizens for tuition) would be fairly disinclined
to waste their own money on Women's Studies, Deconstructionist Theory,
Queer History, and all the rest of the nonsense that has clogged the
arteries of education.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/