At least they wont be affecting others education.
If you intent is to keep them off the streets and committing crimes, there are better way than forcing their presence on decent kids and underpaid teachers.
I am astounded by the quality of your argument on this issue. It's so compelling especially in a thread about education.
Do you have any evidence yet or are we just going to keep up with the small talk?
and just what would those "better way"(sic) be? Would your"better way" save taxpayers money?
I think the current state is the 'evidence' that the system needs major reform. Total privatization is a 'way'...just not the only way. However you didnt make this an argument against privatization...you merely made this an attack against all Libertarians based on one individuals idea. Frankly...when you start pointing out Libertarian ideals as ridiculous it makes you look awfully stupid, considering how completely ****ed up things are and which political parties and mindsets have gotten us here.And I've already said that the system needs major reform, but major reform and flushing the entire system and starting over with an ill-defined private enterprise that the OP cannot even explain, nor support with a shred of evidence, makes no sense.
And what do you do with the kids who's families can't pay?
All the best schools are private, no matter what country you're in. If you throw money at the problem you're likely to end up wih some pretty nice schools until you run out of other people's money. Privatization is the only way to efficiently and sustainably address this problem.
This is a recipe for disaster. Some kids don't want to be in school and the number of those kids usually increase in poor and minority neighborhoods where they are given less reason to be in school. Give them more reasons, more of them will get themselves together. Kick them out without even attempting to give them the same reasons wealthier kids have and that's bad news for the country in addition to being morally reprehensible.
I think that Guy is about to provide us with some evidence from places where this approach has been tried (there must be some) or from pilot schemes or from educationalists who have carried out research in the field. There are clearly many examples of where the current system lets kids down, and quite a few examples of good practice and places where state provision is excellent.
What's needed is some kind of empirical evidence to persuade law-makers to give this privatised approach a chance. Without that why would they take such a huge risk? The worst possible scenario would be to ditch the current system, no matter how flawed it may appear, in favour of something that you have simply no idea whether it could or would work. That would simply be an ideology-based experiment and schoolkids are not lab rats.
No, he's not producing anything because he has nothing to produce.
The problem is, you simply cannot get a private solution to work, given the same requirements that we impose on public schools. If public schools could do what private schools do, throw out bad students, expel the disorderly, etc., then public schools would function exactly as well as private schools. They can't. If private schools took over, we'd have to require them to take all comers just like the public schools do. That's not open to negotiation, education is guaranteed in this country.
So Guy would have to explain how he could take every kid that comes through the door, the kids with learning disabilities, the kids on drugs, the kids who just don't give a damn, and turn out well-educated young adults. Unfortunately, he has no solutions, he's just convinced that private enterprise would magically pull a solution out of it's ass.
That's not evidence for his argument. That's a random study on homeschooling.
I can't think of anything more ridiculous than your implication that if government public education is abolished then education itself will cease to exist.Privatization of education is the only way to maintain the class system that had dogged our society for millenniums. It was only when public schooling came into play and girls were allowed to read, that poverty started to decline massively. If you knew anything about history you would know the better educated a country is the better off the country is. In fact it is when education standards start to slip that we see a downward trend in over all economic and society performance...
Take a look at your own country. When was the greatest generation of Americans? After WW2, where the GI bill went into effect and millions of American men suddenly had the means to get a college education. This transformed America into what it is today. But now you want to un-do that for some reason, just because the system you have in place now is not working to your partisan "satisfaction". Guessing it is cause teachers are union and vote for the Democrats. And no I dont agree with the teacher principles that keep bad teachers in place because of seniority.
Bad schools has more to do with bad parents and crime/society as it has to do with lack of funding and bad teachers. There is a reason that the worst schools are in the poor under privileged areas where single parent homes and high crime are the norm and the best schools are in the rich white areas...And funding does have an impact... trying to learn things on outdated falling apart books, in class rooms where normal people would not even keep animals.. does not exactly motivate children...and that is on top of having to dodge bullets and drug gangs on the way home.
The worst thing you can do in any country is cut education of young people and making it only for the privileged and it is even worst if you let the religious institutions get involved in education..
Education might be guaranteed, but it should not be compelled or age limited.
Kick them out, and tell them to come back when they grow up. If they live long enough.
I think the current state is the 'evidence' that the system needs major reform. Total privatization is a 'way'...just not the only way. However you didnt make this an argument against privatization...you merely made this an attack against all Libertarians based on one individuals idea. Frankly...when you start pointing out Libertarian ideals as ridiculous it makes you look awfully stupid, considering how completely ****ed up things are and which political parties and mindsets have gotten us here.
And they ain't so smart. Good to see ya, Guy (kickass avatar).
No, they're just going to end up on welfare and never go back. Education needs to be compulsory through age 18 or high school graduation, whichever comes first. We shouldn't allow anyone to drop out. If you really don't want to be there, you're free to take your GED at any time and if you pass, you get your diploma and you can go do whatever the hell you want to with yourself. Anyone who doesn't graduate, whether because they fail so many grades that they "age" out or simply refuse to go, need to be exempt from receiving public assistance. If you want to be a part of society, this is the entry requirement. Get a goddamn education.
I can't think of anything more ridiculous than your implication that if government public education is abolished then education itself will cease to exist.
If YOU knew any history, you would know that the sun girls aren't allowed to read it is because government is stopping them. It is absurd to suggest that ending public education will result in anything other than a market based solution to meet the demand for affordable education.
What would be wrong with the idea of a voucher system, in which parents were able to choose their child's school with education department funding paying for it? One of the problems is that parents are entirely too passive with the education of their children, and when parents are passive, the child is a victim of whatever poor standards the public schools are offering. Parental involvement is essential for the wellbeing of their child and his education.And what do you do with the kids who's families can't pay?
Do kick them out of school. They are going to do those things anyway and in the meantime you allow them to negatively impact the education opportunities for everyone around them. We have to stop reducing our expectations to the lowest common denominator.Yeah, kick those little **** offs out of school! Then spend more taxpayer dollars in an attempt to reduce the rate of petty crimes and vandalism committed by a bunch of bored kids with nothing to do. Should work really well.
What would be wrong with the idea of a voucher system, in which parents were able to choose their child's school with education department funding paying for it? One of the problems is that parents are entirely too passive with the education of their children, and when parents are passive, the child is a victim of whatever poor standards the public schools are offering. Parental involvement is essential for the wellbeing of their child and his education.
I have no problem with a voucher system. I approve of one.
There are a lot of bad parents. Public education should not be a replacement for bad parents.
No...keep them in school...keep them disrupting classrooms and force teachers to be babysitters and corrections guards instead of educators.Yep, kick em all outa skool, Then lockem up when they vandalixe an burlurlis yur naborhood... More correction facilities..that's the solution!
The free market will provide the solution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?