What's the purpose of education? Part 1 in a continuing series.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by bheld

Everybody else is in agreement that society itself has a responsibility to educate the next generation. That's also the current basis for our system. With that in mind, the argument that not every person will benefit directly from public education is outside the scope of this discussion.

I am not in agreement. It is not a responsibility. It is a good public investment. It is good for the private sector economy and reduces crime. Not everyone will benefit, but the larger public will benefit. The taxpayer in particular.

The problem is when that investment is failing. That is an easy indicator that the public money is not being well used. No doubt most people believe children have a right to a public education. I don't think most people would agree that anyone has a right to a secure job in a public institution if they are failing their obligation to the public interest.

[kombayn]

Public Schools ran by government need to be eliminated, it's not successful. We need private schools and small schools to work together and have complete privatization. Government needs to get with multiple charities, foundations and investors to teach an accurate by law form of text. But our public schools are failings, kids don't care, and part of it, is the pop-culture phenomenon that has kids my age and younger pandering to reality tv stars, drugged-out pop-stars and celebrities. That shouldn't be important, family values, expanding the mind, being artistic and helping our fellow man should be. To be famous and have lots of money is just pandering to our egos, that's retarded because it'll make us either really depressed or really arrogant. Fuck that.

[RMNIXON]

I wonder how many even know how public schools started?

From "Freedomnomics" by John R. Lott:


As in many other countries, public education in the United States began at the instigation of churches. For a long time, schooling was openly religious. In the 1820s, in New York and in other states, legislators became concerned that many students were receiving the wrong type of education. It was not that children were going uneducated--in 1821, about 93 percent of New York's school age youths were already attending private schools.

As expressed in legislative debates, the fear was that students educated in private Catholic schools would learn the wrong values and end up becoming criminals. If Protestant schools could be made less expensive through government subsidies, the legislators reasoned, some Catholics would transfer their children there, thus saving them from a life of crime.

The subsidies began as a kind of voucher system in which approved Protestant schools received a per pupil payment. However, this had an unintended consequence: the subsidized Protestant schools started competing against each other to attract Catholic students. To compete, they began teaching more of what Catholic parents and students wanted--reading, writing, and math--and less of what they didn't want--Protestant religious training. Advocates of the subsidies found that the subsidized schools were no longer providing the religious training that justified the funding program in the first place.

In response, subsidies were limited to the approved Protestant school nearest to a student's home. This reduced the incentive for the schools to compete against each other, and thus to limit their Protestant religious instruction. As government programs tend to do, over time the subsidy scheme grew until it began eliciting complaints that the subsidized schools were getting most of their money from the government while being protected from competition. With the Free Schools Act of 1867, the state simply took over the subsidized schools, which then became public institutions. This is the surprising, true origin of America's public schools system.


As you can see the problem even then was more about a battle of values indoctrination than actual basics in education. The private schools were able to provide the basics of education from the beginning.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I am not in agreement. It is not a responsibility. It is a good public investment. It is good for the private sector economy and reduces crime. Not everyone will benefit, but the larger public will benefit. The taxpayer in particular.

The problem is when that investment is failing. That is an easy indicator that the public money is not being well used. No doubt most people believe children have a right to a public education. I don't think most people would agree that anyone has a right to a secure job in a public institution if they are failing their obligation to the public interest.

You're buying in to the company line that schools are "failing." There are schools that need to be improved to be sure, but as a whole public schools are anything but.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Public Schools ran by government need to be eliminated, it's not successful. We need private schools and small schools to work together and have complete privatization. Government needs to get with multiple charities, foundations and investors to teach an accurate by law form of text. But our public schools are failings, kids don't care, and part of it, is the pop-culture phenomenon that has kids my age and younger pandering to reality tv stars, drugged-out pop-stars and celebrities. That shouldn't be important, family values, expanding the mind, being artistic and helping our fellow man should be. To be famous and have lots of money is just pandering to our egos, that's retarded because it'll make us either really depressed or really arrogant. Fuck that.

Life's answers aren't found in the pages of "The O'Reilly Factor for Kids."

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

You're buying in to the company line that schools are "failing." There are schools that need to be improved to be sure, but as a whole public schools are anything but.

I don't think public schools are outright failing, but I do think that VERY few offer as good of an education as their private counterparts. There needs to be systems introduced that increase competition so those public schools can benefit from the better education. And just throwing money into the system isn't the answer, as it rarely is in any system (public or private). Money without a plan is wasted.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I wonder how many even know how public schools started?

From "Freedomnomics" by John R. Lott:.....

As you can see the problem even then was more about a battle of values indoctrination than actual basics in education. The private schools were able to provide the basics of education from the beginning.

He also calls public schools "government re-education camps," believes women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and that in order for air traffic controllers to file for disability due to stress they must show a "near collision" so they're allowing these situations to happen so they can file for benefits.

Before I'll believe his version of how public schools developed I'd like to read someone else who supports his view.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Publius

It is the duty and right of the parent to get the child the education that they feel they should receive. While I feel that society as a whole should provide an education of last resort (public schools) so that those children with less-than-caring parents still receive schooling, I do not feel that government should have a monopoly on the education system.

Public schools were originally designed to be the educator of last resort, it has taken a long and regulation-filled road to become the de facto educator with a virtual monopoly on the education market.

Shall we have government grocery stores as well for a last resort to make sure everyone is fed? Shall we have government housing as a last resort to make sure everyone is housed? How about retail stores? How about government theme parks and movie theatres too, just to make sure the poor get entertainment? I guess we need government run automobile plants and government run airports too, I mean, just as a last resort, to make sure the poor get cars and plane rides too.

BTW, the government does not have a monopoly on education. But it does have a monopoly on force, and everyone is forced to pay for the program, even if they do not agree with it or simply do not want to pay for it. How many people can afford to not only pay the taxes for public education, but to then pay for a private education as well?

As to vouchers, how can any true libertarian agree with any wealth redistribution program?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

So we at least all agree that society should educate all of its children? That it isn't the parent's duty alone but society as a whole?

I sure do not agree that society should "educate" all of its children. What a lame statement anyways. As if people "need" a formal education to get an "education".

The question you are really asking is if everyone "needs" a formal education. And no, they don't. Obviously. There are plenty of people that have dropped out of high school, and are doing just fine. There are plenty of people who dropped out of college, and are not only doing just fine, but are some of the wealthiest people in the world. So not only do you need to clarify you are talking about formal education, but you also need to clarify for how long. And then you have to decide what exactly should make up formal education. Should it just be Math? Or should it be Math and English? What about History? What about life skills? What about exercise/diet? How about penmanship, typing, or computers? Then you have to decide when these should begin being taught and then you have to decide what exactly should be taught in these subjects.

So you not only need to figure out if formal education should be state run or not, you have to decide what curriculums should be included in the formal education, and what exactly should be taught in those classes. And I guarantee you, that you will not come to a consensus.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

There are plenty of people that have dropped out of high school, and are doing just fine. There are plenty of people who dropped out of college, and are not only doing just fine, but are some of the wealthiest people in the world.

And the majority who dropped out make minimum wage or less for the rest of their lives.

Earnings also drop dramatically for those without a diploma. In 2002, the Employment Policy Foundation found that high school graduates, on average, earn $9,245 more per year than high school dropouts. In fact average earnings across all educational levels look like this:

n High School Dropout $19,095

n High School Graduate $25,081

Were you thinking your "plenty of dropouts do fine" argument was in any way valid?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

And the majority who dropped out make minimum wage or less for the rest of their lives.

Earnings also drop dramatically for those without a diploma. In 2002, the Employment Policy Foundation found that high school graduates, on average, earn $9,245 more per year than high school dropouts. In fact average earnings across all educational levels look like this:

n High School Dropout $19,095

n High School Graduate $25,081

Were you thinking your "plenty of dropouts do fine" argument was in any way valid?

First of all, I did not say all high school dropouts do just fine. Second of all, your statistics do not tell us why they are not doing as well. It may be just that most people who drop out are underachievers. It may also be that employers simply use a high school diploma as a way to weed out applicants. This does not necessarily make them more qualified.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by 7960

He also calls public schools "government re-education camps," believes women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and that in order for air traffic controllers to file for disability due to stress they must show a "near collision" so they're allowing these situations to happen so they can file for benefits.

Before I'll believe his version of how public schools developed I'd like to read someone else who supports his view.

I don't have time to find the source, but in one of my Grad classes we talked alot about how (with the English Discipline) we are essentially indoctrinating people into an idea of what an education is, when really the amount of education someone has is subjective.

I will post a source later....it was interesting.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by bheld

You're buying in to the company line that schools are "failing." There are schools that need to be improved to be sure, but as a whole public schools are anything but.

No "Company" tell me what I can see with my own eyes. I went to some of the top performing public schools in Los Angeles County. A local District that was smart to break with LA Unified in the 40's. Award winning public schools. I had some great teachers. I also had some who had no business in a school room. I would hate to think who pretends to teach in some of the lesser performing schools! Perhaps you are a great teacher? If you are you do not need to fear competition and to produce results. But when you line up with a system that protects those who are not I take issue.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I don't have time to find the source, but in one of my Grad classes we talked alot about how (with the English Discipline) we are essentially indoctrinating people into an idea of what an education is, when really the amount of education someone has is subjective.

I will post a source later....it was interesting.

Much of what we call education is very subjective.

The problem begins when an employer hires a High School graduate with really poor reading, writing, and math skills. Then it is far less subjective. When colleges must load up with taxpayer paid remedial classes it is much less subjective.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I sure do not agree that society should "educate" all of its children. What a lame statement anyways. As if people "need" a formal education to get an "education".

The question you are really asking is if everyone "needs" a formal education. And no, they don't. Obviously. There are plenty of people that have dropped out of high school, and are doing just fine. There are plenty of people who dropped out of college, and are not only doing just fine, but are some of the wealthiest people in the world. So not only do you need to clarify you are talking about formal education, but you also need to clarify for how long. And then you have to decide what exactly should make up formal education. Should it just be Math? Or should it be Math and English? What about History? What about life skills? What about exercise/diet? How about penmanship, typing, or computers? Then you have to decide when these should begin being taught and then you have to decide what exactly should be taught in these subjects.

So you not only need to figure out if formal education should be state run or not, you have to decide what curriculums should be included in the formal education, and what exactly should be taught in those classes. And I guarantee you, that you will not come to a consensus.

So who decides who gets an education? The six year old? You're spinning back off into theory-land. Most of your questions have already been answered.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

No "Company" tell me what I can see with my own eyes. I went to some of the top performing public schools in Los Angeles County. A local District that was smart to break with LA Unified in the 40's. Award winning public schools. I had some great teachers. I also had some who had no business in a school room. I would hate to think who pretends to teach in some of the lesser performing schools! Perhaps you are a great teacher? If you are you do not need to fear competition and to produce results. But when you line up with a system that protects those who are not I take issue.

I teach in a rural area. Who is going to compete with me?

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

So who decides who gets an education? The six year old? You're spinning back off into theory-land. Most of your questions have already been answered.

I guess he's saying if a 7 year old plans to dig ditches for the rest of his life then he should be able to choose to only take ditch-digging classes, or drop out altogether.

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I don't have time to find the source, but in one of my Grad classes we talked alot about how (with the English Discipline) we are essentially indoctrinating people into an idea of what an education is, when really the amount of education someone has is subjective.

I will post a source later....it was interesting.

Any time someone makes a decision that puts boundaries on a system then people are going to be limited. You can say people are being indoctrinated because we force kids to take some english, some math, some history, etc, when really all they want is 4 years of shop class, but I don't believe that's indoctrination.


cliffs: how would my son have ever figured out he likes cauliflower if I never asked him to try it?