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

bheld · 01-30-2008, 05:58 PM

With the recent posts on school privatization I want to work toward understanding the arguments in favor. However, it became apparent that there are some philosophical incompatibilities that get in the way. So I want to start fresh and clean and work up to that particular debate.

Now, what is the purpose of education? Does every child need to be educated? Is education a societal responsibility or a parental one?

Publius · 01-30-2008, 06:16 PM

The purpose of education is to teach a child to think critically and to prepare them for life with skills to be a successful individual in whatever field they choose. An educated population is important to a proper functioning democratic-republic, which is why I have no problem with public education existing ALONGSIDE private education. I just don't feel that the government schools should have a virtual monopoly on the education system.

It should be the choice of the parent as to what school their child attends, and it shouldn't be a choice that they have to jump through a thousand legal hoops to make. Which is why I support vouchers that can go to either public schools, private schools as a credit towards tuition, or serve as funds for the purchase of school supplies for home schooling.

RMNIXON · 01-30-2008, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

The purpose of education is to teach a child to think critically and to prepare them for life with skills to be a successful individual in whatever field they choose. An educated population is important to a proper functioning democratic-republic, which is why I have no problem with public education existing ALONGSIDE private education. I just don't feel that the government schools should have a virtual monopoly on the education system.

It should be the choice of the parent as to what school their child attends, and it shouldn't be a choice that they have to jump through a thousand legal hoops to make. Which is why I support vouchers that can go to either public schools, private schools as a credit towards tuition, or serve as funds for the purchase of school supplies for home schooling.

nbiggershaft · 01-30-2008, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

The purpose of education is to teach a child to think critically and to prepare them for life with skills to be a successful individual in whatever field they choose. An educated population is important to a proper functioning democratic-republic, which is why I have no problem with public education existing ALONGSIDE private education. I just don't feel that the government schools should have a virtual monopoly on the education system.

It should be the choice of the parent as to what school their child attends, and it shouldn't be a choice that they have to jump through a thousand legal hoops to make. Which is why I support vouchers that can go to either public schools, private schools as a credit towards tuition, or serve as funds for the purchase of school supplies for home schooling.

I could possibly support vouchers, but to accredited schools, not home schooling.

6SpeedTA95 · 01-30-2008, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I could possibly support vouchers, but to accredited schools, not home schooling.

Why not home schooling?

WickedLou9 · 01-30-2008, 10:26 PM

I don't think that you will find much disagreement on what education is for and whether or not there is value in it. everyone agrees on those things. I think where you find disagreement is on how best to educate the children in our society. We all agree it needs to be done.

nbiggershaft · 01-31-2008, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Why not home schooling?

Well, for the same reasons I wouldn't support vouchers going to schools without accreditation. It's just a handout with no guarantee of education.

bheld · 01-31-2008, 09:28 AM

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?

Publius · 01-31-2008, 09:46 AM

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?

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.

bheld · 01-31-2008, 09:47 AM

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.

The government doesn't have a monopoly on the education system.

7960 · 01-31-2008, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by bheld

Now, what is the purpose of education?

So we don't have so many morons running around the streets.

Does every child need to be educated?

To a point, yes.

Is education a societal responsibility or a parental one?

Both.

7960 · 01-31-2008, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

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.

I don't feel like typing so this will be crude.

Public schools were the "last resort" because 200-300 years ago most people didn't get an education, they just went to work. They learned what they needed to do what they needed done. Your implication that someone set out to legislate public education as the de facto educator is misleading......for the most part nobody else was doing it, or doing it well.

There, rip that apart. I'll be back later.

6SpeedTA95 · 01-31-2008, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Well, for the same reasons I wouldn't support vouchers going to schools without accreditation. It's just a handout with no guarantee of education.

Even though homeschoolers tend to perform better on tests and in college?

Ardentfrost · 01-31-2008, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

The government doesn't have a monopoly on the education system.

Yeah they do, except in the few places vouchers exist. Everyone MUST pay for their school system, whether their kids (will) use it or not. That lack of choice we have in choosing the school that gets our money creates the monopoly. You are welcome to spend MORE money to send your kid elsewhere, but you're still paying for the government product.

Ardentfrost · 01-31-2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't feel like typing so this will be crude.

Public schools were the "last resort" because 200-300 years ago most people didn't get an education, they just went to work. They learned what they needed to do what they needed done. Your implication that someone set out to legislate public education as the de facto educator is misleading......for the most part nobody else was doing it, or doing it well.

There, rip that apart. I'll be back later.

No, 200-300 years ago people got schooled at home while they were helping support their families (esp in agrarian areas), but if that couldn't be done at home, as a last resort, local public schools could be attended. The last resort was in that they had no other choice. The parents couldn't do it for whatever reason (probably a lack of education).

In that way, the only result would be a more and more educated society because no educated parents would NOT educate their children. And uneducated parents had the choice of still educating their children despite their lack of personal ability.

Now public education isn't a last resort, it's the first. We all pay for it, regardless if our children use it, or if it's ineffective, or if it's not helpful to our child's specific situation.

bheld · 01-31-2008, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Even though homeschoolers tend to perform better on tests and in college?

Is that because they are home schooled?

Publius · 01-31-2008, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

Is that because they are home schooled?

correlation may not always equal causation, but when the numbers generally trend that way it makes for a pretty convincing argument.

bheld · 01-31-2008, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yeah they do, except in the few places vouchers exist. Everyone MUST pay for their school system, whether their kids (will) use it or not. That lack of choice we have in choosing the school that gets our money creates the monopoly. You are welcome to spend MORE money to send your kid elsewhere, but you're still paying for the government product.

Right, because it is providing a service to society that we all collectively have an obligation to provide. You don't get a refund on your tax dollars because you fly to LA instead of driving on the interstate. Just because you didn't derive a direct benefit from the use of your tax dollars doesn't mean that it has no indirect positive impact.

bheld · 01-31-2008, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

correlation may not always equal causation, but when the numbers generally trend that way it makes for a pretty convincing argument.

Growth rates of developing countries are always higher than growth rates here. Does that mean they are stronger economies? The numbers sure point that way.