• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schools, how to make them better.

Ban private schools because Finland has the right idea.

  • Total voters
    33
Cephus said:
No, it isn't. Education is not a right in the reality that we live in. That you WANT it to be is irrelevant. It is not.
Click to expand...

ACtually, it is a right. It's just not a right guaranteed at the federal level. All 50 state constitutions mandate the provision of public education.

The right to a public (free) education (up to high school) is not in the federal Constitution because schooling is viewed as the domain of the states and their governments, not the federal government. The consequence of that is that one's zip code, because about half of all school funding is funded by property taxes, plays a huge role in the nature of education delivered to students.


map-us.png
 
Xelor said:
ACtually, it is a right. It's just not a right guaranteed at the federal level.
Click to expand...

Just because it exists, doesn't mean it's a right. Rights must be enumerated. Education is not. All 50 states have decided to provide primary and secondary education. Any of them could change their minds at any time.
 
Cephus said:
The only thing vacuous around here is you. I'm discussing reality. If you want to discuss your fantasies, go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Resorting to personal insults is a classic sign of a failing argument.
 
Cephus said:
Just because it exists, doesn't mean it's a right. Rights must be enumerated. Education is not. All 50 states have decided to provide primary and secondary education. Any of them could change their minds at any time.
Click to expand...

Only if they alter their constitutions in that regard. So far, not one of them has seen fit to do so for over 100 years. Have you some sound reason to think any of them is on the verge of doing so in the foreseeable future?

You know, the other member is right: You make vapid remarks.
 
I dunno, guys... in grad school in a very socialist country in a rather socialist program, they taught the greatest difficulty in the transfer of Scandinavian socialism to other contexts was the scaling up in population and geography, and accommodating a diverse population.

But I dunno... Maybe Swedish grad school professors in the environment and world development department don't know anything about socialism.

Maybe they just make crap up like anonymous people on the internet.

Maybe.

But I'm going with my real education and not internet denials.
 
trouble13 said:
I'm not picking on you or the thread but I do find it difficult to debate over an undefined term.

It's like trying to debate which degree is better liberal arts or engineering. They both have prison n cons. It boils down to what metrics you're using to measure it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The issue is that it can't be closely defined.

A brief way would probably be (if I were defining it) "what are the results?"

But what is a good result changes from year to year, as do the students, teachers, and perhaps methods of teaching.
 
ecofarm said:
I dunno, guys... in grad school in a very socialist country in a rather socialist program, they taught the greatest difficulty in the transfer of Scandinavian socialism to other contexts was the scaling up in population and geography, and accommodating a diverse population.

But I dunno... Maybe Swedish grad school professors in the environment and world development department don't know anything about socialism.

Maybe they just make crap up like anonymous people on the internet.

Maybe.

But I'm going with my real education and not internet denials.
Click to expand...
I never said it would be easy.
 
The Mark said:
So, Finland has the best schools in the world in many categories.

Part of their method to get there was banning private schools.
They don't test children until high school.
They have small class sizes (20?) and I think 3 teachers per class.

Should we do this in the USA?

If not, why?



Edit: To clarify my argument, allowing private schools clearly results in public schools being underfunded and understaffed, thus children getting poor educations.

I find that result unacceptable, and it seems that in Finland, banning private schools addressed it by only giving the public school option.

This means that they have to get sufficient funding so that everyone gets good education, or the children of parents who currently send their kids to private school (because of course they would, since the public schools have so many problems) won't get the education their children deserve.

It puts all the people behind making the schools very good, and all children benefit as a result.

The downside is only that thousands of private schools will have to be ended, or made public.


That seems a decent trade.
Click to expand...

First of all I disagree with your premise that the existence of private schools result in public school underfunding, if they are indeed underfunded. The single most devastating problem with our schools is the widespread use of multiple choice testing. Short term recall is not a measure of learning and internalizing concepts.
 
johndylan1 said:
First of all I disagree with your premise that the existence of private schools result in public school underfunding, if they are indeed underfunded. The single most devastating problem with our schools is the widespread use of multiple choice testing. Short term recall is not a measure of learning and internalizing concepts.
Click to expand...

Also, social training and indoctrination instead of actual education. Public schools often are not there to impart knowledge, they are there to indoctrinate ideology.
 
johndylan1 said:
First of all I disagree with your premise that the existence of private schools result in public school underfunding, if they are indeed underfunded. The single most devastating problem with our schools is the widespread use of multiple choice testing. Short term recall is not a measure of learning and internalizing concepts.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a major issue, but it might be a minor one.

Hadn't considered it frankly.

Certainly some schools are underfunded, and many are understaffed.

max 1 teacher per 20 students would be good, but in plenty of places that is not a thing. Allows the teacher to give individual attention to each student at least somewhat each day, for a better result.
 
The Mark said:
I never said it would be easy.
Click to expand...

My post is directed at the ignorant and uneducated who would dismiss my concerns. You wanted to discuss them.
 
No, it gives the government too much power over what is taught .
 
ecofarm said:
It's the goals and expectations that present a problem. When those are the same for everyone, socialism works well.

Diversity in teaching methods and considerations provides a more robust experience for all students. Diversity in the classroom is good.
Click to expand...

We don't get diversity in the classroom under the republicans, we're trying to figure out how to keep people out of the country with republicans. Can't have it both ways. Can't call for diversity when you're also trying to discourage it.
 
The Mark said:
So, Finland has the best schools in the world in many categories.

Part of their method to get there was banning private schools.
They don't test children until high school.
They have small class sizes (20?) and I think 3 teachers per class.

Should we do this in the USA?

If not, why?



Edit: To clarify my argument, allowing private schools clearly results in public schools being underfunded and understaffed, thus children getting poor educations.

I find that result unacceptable, and it seems that in Finland, banning private schools addressed it by only giving the public school option.

This means that they have to get sufficient funding so that everyone gets good education, or the children of parents who currently send their kids to private school (because of course they would, since the public schools have so many problems) won't get the education their children deserve.

It puts all the people behind making the schools very good, and all children benefit as a result.

The downside is only that thousands of private schools will have to be ended, or made public.


That seems a decent trade.
Click to expand...

Oh hell no. I want private schools for the privileged and public schools that ain't worth a crap. Don't you dare try to educate my children to the best of their ability you socialist leftist. The right only wants to complain and shoot down any idea they don't come up with. Try to talk to them about anything and all you get is why it will fail.
 
The Mark said:
So, Finland has the best schools in the world in many categories.

Part of their method to get there was banning private schools.
They don't test children until high school.
They have small class sizes (20?) and I think 3 teachers per class.

Should we do this in the USA?

If not, why?



Edit: To clarify my argument, allowing private schools clearly results in public schools being underfunded and understaffed, thus children getting poor educations.

I find that result unacceptable, and it seems that in Finland, banning private schools addressed it by only giving the public school option.

This means that they have to get sufficient funding so that everyone gets good education, or the children of parents who currently send their kids to private school (because of course they would, since the public schools have so many problems) won't get the education their children deserve.

It puts all the people behind making the schools very good, and all children benefit as a result.

The downside is only that thousands of private schools will have to be ended, or made public.


That seems a decent trade.
Click to expand...

id actually be for it with a real plan that would seem to work but thats the rub so i had to answer other . .

the issue is the logistics of implementing it here int he US .. . . the hurdles and task it would take is monumental... but thats not the ONLY revamp we would need, it would just be part of it so i would need much more to support it beyond theory.
 
The US college system is the envy of the world. It is based on choice. Both private and government money follows you, where ever you go; public or private school. Whenever possible, you pick your teachers (most of the time) and you pick your major. (Everyone has about the same core classes). Some schools accept everyone, while others have admission requirements. And the system works on a large scale, with a diverse population. Today entire degrees are available online.

We don't need to look at a podunk country like Finland for the example we should be adopting for K-12 education. It's right in front of us. It has ALWAYS been right in front of us. We should be moving as fast as possible reforming K-12 along college lines. Adapt as much as possible from our excellent college system.

This thread is simply an attempt by the haters of school choice to discredit private schools and increase funding of public schools. Keep those inner city kids on the (Democrat) reservation. Can't let any of those slaves escape and find freedom in a better school....ESPECIALLY if it's a private school they want to attend. The problem facing public schools isn't a lack of funding, it is the culture of too many public schools. Can't fix that by throwing money at it. Can't fix that by closing all the private schools.
 
The Mark said:
So, Finland has the best schools in the world in many categories.

Part of their method to get there was banning private schools.
They don't test children until high school.
They have small class sizes (20?) and I think 3 teachers per class.

Should we do this in the USA?

If not, why?



Edit: To clarify my argument, allowing private schools clearly results in public schools being underfunded and understaffed, thus children getting poor educations.

I find that result unacceptable, and it seems that in Finland, banning private schools addressed it by only giving the public school option.

This means that they have to get sufficient funding so that everyone gets good education, or the children of parents who currently send their kids to private school (because of course they would, since the public schools have so many problems) won't get the education their children deserve.

It puts all the people behind making the schools very good, and all children benefit as a result.

The downside is only that thousands of private schools will have to be ended, or made public.


That seems a decent trade.
Click to expand...

Finland and Sweden are ahead in many areas, and this is one of them. However, you also have culture to consider. Those are countries that place more importance on time with family and recreational activities. They pay higher taxes and have more socialized services. The United States, by comparison, is very driven toward the acquisition of capital and its accompanying "performance" markers, such as school grades. My cousin lives and teaches in Denmark. She says that people buy way less stuff there and spend a lot more time with one another. If you look at what the United States is actually about - which is being a competitive force on the world stage - then it's obvious why education is driven toward performance and productivity rather than internal self-progress.

The problem is that we lack, as a nation, a unified vision of education. Because we are constantly polarized by right vs. left, we can't seem to achieve consistent government policy. There is constant flip flopping between funding priorities and pedagogy. The result is a watered down half-assed system that doesn't really give our children the best that they could get. The Republicans support de-funding public education because if people want better they should have to pay for it, resulting in higher ignorance levels. The Democrats are obsessed with standardized testing and qualifying what "smart" looks like, ensuring that everyone meets those criteria, taking all the creativity and individuation out of the educational process.

My sense is that the U.S. could use more socialization, but the right wing will never allow it. We are still recovering from McCarthyism and embedded fears of the Red Tide. People still associate the word "socialism" with loss of individuality and economic homogenization. The irony is that a dumbed down education system does just that. Ignorant people never self-actualize and so they not only become ineffectual human beings but they become increasingly unaware of the requirements of maintaining a democracy. Unfortunately, people think that 2 weeks of vacation a year is lenient, and that you just need to save for retirement when you'll hypothetically start really living life.

We work way, way too much in North America. Our fiduciary responsibility here is to being "productive" and paying taxes. I think that should shift toward a life focused on self-actualization. The more actualized a population is, the more advanced the country becomes.
 
The Mark said:
So, Finland has the best schools in the world in many categories.

Part of their method to get there was banning private schools.
They don't test children until high school.
They have small class sizes (20?) and I think 3 teachers per class.

Should we do this in the USA?

If not, why?



Edit: To clarify my argument, allowing private schools clearly results in public schools being underfunded and understaffed, thus children getting poor educations.

I find that result unacceptable, and it seems that in Finland, banning private schools addressed it by only giving the public school option.

This means that they have to get sufficient funding so that everyone gets good education, or the children of parents who currently send their kids to private school (because of course they would, since the public schools have so many problems) won't get the education their children deserve.

It puts all the people behind making the schools very good, and all children benefit as a result.

The downside is only that thousands of private schools will have to be ended, or made public.


That seems a decent trade.
Click to expand...

Leftist BS. What do you think the odds are that that will happen?
 
bongsaway said:
We don't get diversity in the classroom under the republicans, we're trying to figure out how to keep people out of the country with republicans. Can't have it both ways. Can't call for diversity when you're also trying to discourage it.
Click to expand...

I agree that sometimes it seems a bit much "separate but equal" diversity, but let's not discount diversity as a principle.
 
The Mark said:
Edit: To clarify my argument, allowing private schools clearly results in public schools being underfunded and understaffed, thus children getting poor educations.
Click to expand...

How do private schools in the US result in substantially less in funding? The parents of kids going to private schools still have to pay taxes that go to public schools.

I realize that overall student #s affect budgets but can you prove that that makes a significant difference in education?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom