Public education (1 Viewer)

[Nobones]

I don't believe that there should be any sort of public education. The private sector can do it much better. We would all save money. There are too many controversial issues that are discussed and taught that I don't want my kids exposed to. I believe that it leads to indoctrination of our children to believe whatever the given agenda is. Public school children are not taught to think, but taught to follow.

 

[Kandahar]

Education is one of the few issues where government intervention in the economy produces a better result than laissez-faire economics.

If there were no public education, many people who couldn't afford it would simply not attend school at all or be stuck in a horrible school where they learned nothing. This problem would become worse and worse with each successive generation, until we had an aristocracy...and not only that, even the aristocracy wouldn't be that well off because their workers would be incompetent.

Vouchers, on the other hand, would allow everyone to attend a high-quality school of their choice.

 

[Stace]

Vouchers, on the other hand, would allow everyone to attend a high-quality school of their choice.

Not necessarily. From my understanding, in most areas of the country, the amount of the vouchers wouldn't be enough to cover the entirity of the tuition for private school....I know they wouldn't in my area, and we simply couldn't afford to cover the difference.

In my opinion, public schools themselves are not the problem. The problem lies with the parents - they don't show enough interest in their child's education, don't do anything to motivate and/or encourage them, and therefore, the child doesn't care. Private school parents have a vested interest in their child's education, because they want to ensure that they're getting their money's worth. And even though we all fund public schools, most parents don't even think about it, since that funding is provided through our tax dollars, and most people just don't see exactly where their money is going.

Not only that, but people are getting way too concerned about making the children feel good versus actually making them learn. There are a lot of schools that won't even allow teachers to correct papers with red pens anymore because the child would get their feelings hurt or some such nonsense. Parents don't push their kids enough because it might give them self esteem problems. The teachers can only do so much - you can't teach a child that doesn't want to learn, though. And it is the parents' responsibility to make them want to learn.

As far as the OP goes.....if there are things you don't want your child learning, either find a private school that teaches some sort of curriculum that you agree with (though there are plenty of things that are mandated across the board, so there are plenty of things that you wouldn't be able to avoid by going that route), or homeschool them. As for the rest of us....I really don't see how it would save us any money. In most areas, the tuition for a private school is much higher than what it costs taxpayers per child for a public education. There are many families out there that simply couldn't afford the tuition rates. And I highly doubt the government would just eliminate the percentage of taxes we pay to fund public schools - they'd just redirect the funds elsewhere, which means that we'd all be spending MORE money. No thanks.

 

[Kandahar]

Not necessarily. From my understanding, in most areas of the country, the amount of the vouchers wouldn't be enough to cover the entirity of the tuition for private school....I know they wouldn't in my area, and we simply couldn't afford to cover the difference.

That's a problem with the amount of money funding vouchers, not a problem with the idea itself. Ideally, MOST taxpayer-funded education money would go to vouchers rather than toward specific schools.

We should run our primary and secondary schools the way we run colleges (which are the best in the world): The overwhelming majority of taxpayer dollars would be attached to students, and they could go wherever they wanted.

In my opinion, public schools themselves are not the problem. The problem lies with the parents - they don't show enough interest in their child's education, don't do anything to motivate and/or encourage them, and therefore, the child doesn't care. Private school parents have a vested interest in their child's education, because they want to ensure that they're getting their money's worth. And even though we all fund public schools, most parents don't even think about it, since that funding is provided through our tax dollars, and most people just don't see exactly where their money is going.

Every country in the world has bad parents and good parents, but no modern country performs worse in education than the United States. I doubt American parents are that much worse than any other parents, and if they are, it's because THEY got a bad education thanks to our dysfunctional system.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

What issues do you feel are too controversial to expose your children to? I have no kids, but I think sheltering children from difficult issues only makes them less able to deal with such things when they inevitably encounter them in the future. I mean, why can’t ya just tell them “Daddy thinks this, because A, B, and C; but there are other people who think that, because Z, Y, and X.?” Ya know, make them question things and come to their own conclusion. Putting blinders on them, and shielding them from issues that aren’t black and white gets them in the habit of believing whatever was dictated to them and thinking that those who feel otherwise are worthy of nothing but contempt.

Not to say that we should be teaching 2nd graders about abortion or anything like that, but when a child is neurologically capable of seeing an issue from multiple viewpoints, we should do everything possible to provoke critical thought. Making them process differing views is the best way to agitate neurons into forming more connections, and makes them much more likely to think critically in the future.

No matter what school your children attend, they’re going to be exposed to someone’s agenda. You would rather them go to a school whose agenda coincides with yours than have them learn how to cope with opposing viewpoints? I think I’d rather have my children disagree with me for good reasons than having them agree with me because they don’t know any better.

Hmm, maybe that’s why I’m so reluctant to have kids, ‘cuz I know how much hard work it would be.

 

[Narph]

to Befuddled_Stoner
I believe in home shooling. That aside it should be a parents right poor or rich to expose there children to the agenda that they see fit. I believe that all issues when broken down are black and white or rather wrong or right.
This is what I will teach my children and I do not want
a public school teaching them something else. This is confusing for a child no matter what the issue. Just like if
a father tell his kids he/she can't do something then the mother says they can. This is not good parenting and I see
it as no different.

I think public schools should be burned to the ground.
I say the private sector should take over we have some of the best colleges in the world but the worst public schools
mainly because any government can't seem to manage money,and fire incompetent teachers.

For the issue of the poor. The private schools would be tax exempt in exchange for this they would educate the poor. The state of Oregon use over 50% of it income tax for public schools and I am not sure of the % of property tax or of the lottery tax and they still can't get there **** together. Besides someone with out children should not have to pay for every one else's children. I am not a comi.

 

[PeteEU]

Home schooling should be banned. It prevents the child from developing healthy soical relationships plus the child gets a very onesided and bad education frankly. No parent can teach the same as a school can and teaching the basics of math and language aint gonna get you far.

 

[Narph]

Home schooling should be banned. It prevents the child from developing healthy soical relationships plus the child gets a very onesided and bad education frankly. No parent can teach the same as a school can and teaching the basics of math and language aint gonna get you far.

Are you a communist. This is suppose to be a free country.
No one should tell me what I can or can not decide for my children. They are my children not yours.

 

[The Mark]

Home schooling should be banned. It prevents the child from developing healthy soical relationships plus the child gets a very onesided and bad education frankly. No parent can teach the same as a school can and teaching the basics of math and language aint gonna get you far.

I do not agree.

I was homeschooled through high school.

I may have had a few small problems with the social part of it, but I did not have a bad education.

Perhaps it depends on the parents.

 

[Kandahar]

Home schooling should be banned. It prevents the child from developing healthy soical relationships plus the child gets a very onesided and bad education frankly. No parent can teach the same as a school can and teaching the basics of math and language aint gonna get you far.

That is not true at all. Home-schooled students, at least here in the United States, overwhelmingly outperform public-schooled students. I don't know if that's the same in Europe, because your public schools are generally better than ours, but even if it's not that is certainly no reason to ban it.

As for the social aspect, that's simply a matter of who the parents and students are. If the parent encourages the child to get involved in social activities and the child does so, then they won't have any social problems. If they don't, then they probably will. Just like public schools.

Who are you to decide you know what is best for everyone in the world? This is what the Soviet ideology was predicated on, and if you'll recall, that was a spectacular flameout.

 

[Caine]

Hmm....
Destroying the system of public schools in order to create a voucher system for private schools.

What is to stop the Private Schools from increasing thier tuition to outrageous amounts since the government is paying for it anyways? The program wouldn't save the government any money. There would no longer be any standards placed on the quality of education, so some private schools could end up just as bad or worse as our inner city public schools.

Personally, I had no problem with my public education, but Im starting to understand why some people have concerns. Since moving to Charlotte ive noticed alot of "discussions" in the local news about the School System here, and so I did some research.
The "BEST" High School in the county had an Algebra I pass rate of 70%. that blows, my "redneck" school I went to was better than this.
It seems the furthur away from a metropolitan area I went in doing my research, the better the schools were.
If you want better education, move away from the city :2razz:

 

[Kandahar]

What is to stop the Private Schools from increasing thier tuition to outrageous amounts since the government is paying for it anyways?

The government wouldn't have to pay any amount. It could mandate $X in voucher money per student, to attend any school they wanted. If schools charged more than this, the difference would come out of the student's pocket. As long as the voucher money was enough to cover basic public school education, this would be great. Students who wanted to attend private school would only be responsible for the difference in cost, as opposed to the current system where they pay private school tuition AND public school taxes. And students who wanted to attend public school would get a much better education at no direct cost to them.

The program wouldn't save the government any money.

No, but that's not the idea. I don't think the amount of money we spend on education is outrageous, it's just the crappy results that are outrageous.

There would no longer be any standards placed on the quality of education, so some private schools could end up just as bad or worse as our inner city public schools.

The government could still set some basic standards to ensure that students aren't just placed in K-12 daycare where they watch television all day. It could still mandate that voucher money only applies to ACCREDITED schools, the same way federal college loans can't be used at diploma mills.

As for private schools ending up as bad or worse as our inner city public schools: How would they stay in business?

 

[Narph]

That is not true at all. Home-schooled students, at least here in the United States, overwhelmingly outperform public-schooled students. I don't know if that's the same in Europe, because your public schools are generally better than ours, but even if it's not that is certainly no reason to ban it.

As for the social aspect, that's simply a matter of who the parents and students are. If the parent encourages the child to get involved in social activities and the child does so, then they won't have any social problems. If they don't, then they probably will. Just like public schools.

Who are you to decide you know what is best for everyone in the world? This is what the Soviet ideology was predicated on, and if you'll recall, that was a spectacular flameout.

I concur 100% I don't think it could be said better than that. Yet people will still try and control other people.

 

[Caine]

As for private schools ending up as bad or worse as our inner city public schools: How would they stay in business?

No other affordable alternative for the woman on welfare? Maybe the other schools refuse to accept the poor families? Private schools can be very selective.

Also, im not certain im understanding this voucher thing....how is there no money exchange involved yet students still go to the private school.

You are are that private schools cost in upwards of over 10 thousand per yer per student right?

Through my research I haven't found one in my area to be less than 10 grand.

 

[Caine]

I concur 100% I don't think it could be said better than that. Yet people will still try and control other people.

Well, I wouldn't agree 100%.
I have a friend back in my hometown who was "homeschooled" by his Mom.
He wasn't a very smart individual.

 

[Kandahar]

No other affordable alternative for the woman on welfare? Maybe the other schools refuse to accept the poor families? Private schools can be very selective.

If the voucher money was enough to cover the cost of public education, there would be an affordable alternative. And the public schools would be made better by the competition with each other and with the private schools.

You're right that (some) private schools can be very selective, but I've never heard of one selecting students based on their economic status as long as they're able to pay the tuition.

Also, im not certain im understanding this voucher thing....how is there no money exchange involved yet students still go to the private school.

It'd work something like this. The taxpayers pay the government (state or federal, but definitely not local) a certain amount of tax money to be spent on education. The government would then allocate something like 10-25% of it on individual public schools, and 75-90% on individual students. The government could apportion the 75-90% voucher money to be spent equally on students, resulting in the government granting every student $X per yera to attend a school of his choice.

The students/parents would then inform the government where they'll be attending school, and the government writes a check to that institution for $X. If the tuition is more than that, the family would be expected to cover the difference. As long as the voucher was enough to cover the tuition at public schools, no one would be left out.

This is more or less the way that our college system works, which is the best in the world.

You are are that private schools cost in upwards of over 10 thousand per yer per student right?

Some of the parochial schools cost as little as $5,000. The number of affordable private schools would most likely increase if we switched to vouchers, because the public schools would be more competitive. The private schools would need to lower their cost to compete with the public schools and/or improve their education even more to differentiate themselves from these new-and-improved public schools.

But the public schools spend over $10,000 per year per student under the current system. Switching to vouchers wouldn't require a massive tax increase, it would just require smarter spending of the education tax money the government already receives.

 

[Caine]

If the voucher money was enough to cover the cost of public education, there would be an affordable alternative. And the public schools would be made better by the competition with each other and with the private schools.

You're right that (some) private schools can be very selective, but I've never heard of one selecting students based on their economic status as long as they're able to pay the tuition.



It'd work something like this. The taxpayers pay the government (state or federal, but definitely not local) a certain amount of tax money to be spent on education. The government would then allocate something like 10-25% of it on individual public schools, and 75-90% on individual students. The government could apportion the 75-90% voucher money to be spent equally on students, resulting in the government granting every student $X per yera to attend a school of his choice.

The students/parents would then inform the government where they'll be attending school, and the government writes a check to that institution for $X. If the tuition is more than that, the family would be expected to cover the difference. As long as the voucher was enough to cover the tuition at public schools, no one would be left out.

This is more or less the way that our college system works, which is the best in the world.



Some of the parochial schools cost as little as $5,000. The number of affordable private schools would most likely increase if we switched to vouchers, because the public schools would be more competitive. The private schools would need to lower their cost to compete with the public schools and/or improve their education even more to differentiate themselves from these new-and-improved public schools.

But the public schools spend over $10,000 per year per student under the current system. Switching to vouchers wouldn't require a massive tax increase, it would just require smarter spending of the education tax money the government already receives.

Okay.
I'll admit, I jumped into a debate thinking I had a bit of an idea of what I was talking about. But I understand what you are talking about now.
I thought your ideas were for completely abolishing public schools entirely.
I getcha now.
Yeah, It does suck that students who live close to areas where there are large numbers of those living in poverty have to be forced to go to a crappy school, or pay big bucks to go to a private school, or move to another side of the town. With something like this the Students could choose which school to go to without being limited to the one in his/her area. Now the only problem with that is the public transportation aspect, which probably isn't a problem at all.

 

[Nobones]

Home schooling should be banned. It prevents the child from developing healthy soical relationships plus the child gets a very onesided and bad education frankly. No parent can teach the same as a school can and teaching the basics of math and language aint gonna get you far.

What ever. I know quite a few private schoolers, and frankly, they are way smarter and more educated. The reason? They are not held back by idiots in the classroom, 2) They develop an attitude for learning, and 3) they are not wasting time learning how to put condoms on a pickle, but actually learning math reading and writing. (by the way a high percentage of high school grads cannot do basic math reading or writing). And If you don't think the public schools are one sided, I don't know what planet you are from,
1) Religion and moral teaching is banned... I take that back, christian moral teaching...
2) Liberalism is flouted. Just look at Jay Bennish, and all the tolerance policies.

My last point is that social skills are not as well developed in public schools. Did the kids at columbine have good social skills? There are geeks and nerds who don't develop social skills. Many that do, party drink and do drugs. I believe that kids are too young to be put in such unsupervised situations with kids I don't know. If parents were involved in church activities, and other groups, social interaction can be learned easily. I like Narph am not a comi. I don't believe that the government should be given that kind of mind control.

 

[Deegan]

Home schooling should be banned. It prevents the child from developing healthy soical relationships plus the child gets a very onesided and bad education frankly. No parent can teach the same as a school can and teaching the basics of math and language aint gonna get you far.

Spoken like a public education subscriber, lol!

You don't know what you're talking about, I know many young people who have been much better off, had been taught in a close, and caring enviornment!

They learned more, and they didn't have to worry about what they wore to school that day. They also played with their friends in the neighborhood, and were just as healthy, just as socially adept, and just as ready for the world they faced!

This issue is a$$!:roll: :roll:

 

[Caine]

What ever. I know quite a few private schoolers, and frankly, they are way smarter and more educated. The reason? They are not held back by idiots in the classroom, 2) They develop an attitude for learning, and 3) they are not wasting time learning how to put condoms on a pickle, but actually learning math reading and writing. (by the way a high percentage of high school grads cannot do basic math reading or writing). And If you don't think the public schools are one sided, I don't know what planet you are from,
1) Religion and moral teaching is banned... I take that back, christian moral teaching...
2) Liberalism is flouted. Just look at Jay Bennish, and all the tolerance policies.

I disagree with all the above.
I find it funny that you have stated as one of your big points that public schools are wasting time learning how to put condoms on a pickle. This is ridiculous, I went to public school and never once did we even bother with "putting condoms on a pickle" in fact, we never had any sort of "condom" discussion. The class idiot NEVER held the rest of the class back, and every graduate knew how to read and write and do basic math, proficiently. There was no religious or moral teaching, because its not the public school system's job to do so, that belongs in the household with the parents, and in the church. Liberalism? Im sorry, we were taught from textbooks that taught the subjects we were learning, I don't understand what you are talking about with all this "liberalism" crap. Unless, of course, you believe public schools should be teaching intolerance. Intolerance of crime yes, intolerance of different cultures/religions/etc. ABSOLUTELY NOT. I'm assuming you described above what I would consider an "inner city school". Most school systems in large metropolitan areas suck. If you want your child to get a good education at a good public school, don't live in a large city.

My last point is that social skills are not as well developed in public schools. Did the kids at columbine have good social skills? There are geeks and nerds who don't develop social skills. Many that do, party drink and do drugs. I believe that kids are too young to be put in such unsupervised situations with kids I don't know. If parents were involved in church activities, and other groups, social interaction can be learned easily. I like Narph am not a comi. I don't believe that the government should be given that kind of mind control.

Mind Control? You are being over dramatic. The government in no way "brainwashed" me as you seem to think they are doing through the public education system. The comment that confuses and possibly bothers me is the bolded one above. Are you trying to shelter your child from the world because you fear they will make friends and hang out with you around every moment? This is bad for child development in so many ways. But I do understand your concern, you have to trust your child to make the right decisions on his/her own. Your not going to be around supervising them the rest of thier life, might as well let them learn life lessons before they get older and make the wrong ones at the wrong times.

 

[Stace]

Spoken like a public education subscriber, lol!

You don't know what you're talking about, I know many young people who have been much better off, had been taught in a close, and caring enviornment!

They learned more, and they didn't have to worry about what they wore to school that day. They also played with their friends in the neighborhood, and were just as healthy, just as socially adept, and just as ready for the world they faced!

This issue is a$$!:roll: :roll:

It can go either way, on all three angles (public, private, or home schooling). There are plenty of home schooled children that are just as socially adept as kids that attended a public or private school; there are home schooled children that are NOT as socially adept and were in fact quite sheltered; and there are kids that have attended public and private schools that don't have the social skills you would expect them to have. A large part of it is based upon the child's personality. There are plenty of children out there that could be considered "loners", yet they have wonderful social skills - they just use them when necessary and when they want to. And then there are kids that are perceived to have great social skills simply because they have lots of friends, when in fact they have horrible social skills, they just know how to keep people entertained, so others will overlook that.

Same thing as far as learning goes. You've got stupid people and smart people on all three angles. And again, you have to look at each child/family individually. A child that doesn't want to learn, won't, and that's what makes public schools look so bad - they drag down the entire average. But there's not really a lot of reliable data on home schooled efforts, especially because home school curriculums can stray so far from government mandated curriculums. Regardless of which kind of education your child is receiving, it is up to you as the parent to instill in them a love and respect for education.

Oh, and I can tell you that I for one never worried about what I wore to school, except on picture day. As long as I was comfortable and liked what I was wearing, I didn't really give a rat's *** about what other people thought, and didn't really pay a whole lot of attention to what they were wearing, either.

 

[RightOfCenter]

I believe the reason that American public schools have such horrible test scores isn't because the system is bad, its because the kids just don't care. When given standardized tests they just go down the line and select C or use the bubbles to make airplanes, trees, or trace the outline of their hand. Doing this drags down the average scores incredibly.
If you had 50 kids in a class taking a test 40 could could get perfect scores but due to the 10 zeros, or almost zeros, the average score would still only be 80%, not very good. And that's with the other 40 getting PERFECT score, not something that happens very often.

 

[Deegan]

I think John Stossel had it correct with his 20/20 report "stupid"

 

[Kandahar]

I believe the reason that American public schools have such horrible test scores isn't because the system is bad, its because the kids just don't care. When given standardized tests they just go down the line and select C or use the bubbles to make airplanes, trees, or trace the outline of their hand. Doing this drags down the average scores incredibly.
If you had 50 kids in a class taking a test 40 could could get perfect scores but due to the 10 zeros, or almost zeros, the average score would still only be 80%, not very good. And that's with the other 40 getting PERFECT score, not something that happens very often.

How is that unique to American schools?

 

[Kandahar]

I think John Stossel had it correct with his 20/20 report "stupid"

Agreed. John Stossel is the one who convinced me about the need for vouchers.