Public education good or bad?

[praying]

1. Should it be the government's responsibility to guarantee an education for every child?

They should oversee that every child has the ability to get an education, be that private, public or home schooling.

2. If not, how would a completely private system be better?

It wouldn't unless the government guranteed that ALL children had access.

3. What about public universities, should the government pay 100% , continue to subsidize only, or leave higher education to the private sector?

Not sure.

 

[Ellethidhren]

Somebody please duct tape my mouth! I'm about to have a HISSY FIT and mouth off about how terrible the public school system has become. OK, I'm sure there are some good schools that actually TEACH kids instead of pawning them off to the next grade even if they failed. They're the schools that are NOT afraid to give you a life long complex that requires pshychiatric care for 10 years by using RED INK!!!.

 

[Spherical Time]

and the history of authoritarian regimes tells us that -without exception- use the public schools to indoctrinate the next generation into their ideology. it is potentially dangerous.

Agreed, which is why the federal government should be in the business of education: the public schools are so generalized that they can't possibly convey reasonable indoctrination. Only private schools have the ability to focus and contain the minds of the students they warp.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I believe people are being political hacks if they think public education is bad. It's one thing to want to fix problems, it's another thing to want to abolish the system.

You might just be on to something there. Humm....now who would want to abolish something like say, oh, the U.S. Department of Education and for what reasons???

Christian schools and a strong home schooling movement are the foundations of dominionism. "Until the vast majority of Christians pull their children out of the public schools," writes Gary North, "there will be no possibility of creating a theocratic republic."

From journalist Frederick Clarkson:

Among the top Reconstructionists in education politics is Robert Thoburn of Fairfax Christian School in Fairfax, Virginia. Thoburn advocates that Christians run for school board, while keeping their own children out of public schools."Your goal" (once on the board), he declares, "must be to sink the ship."

Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote:
"I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we don't have public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them." (America Can Be Saved!, Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, Tenn. 1979, p. 52-53.)
​

Rob Boston sums up the goals of education in Church and State, 2002 writing about the best selling author, the Reverend Tim LaHaye:

In LaHaye's perfect world, voucher subsidies for private religious education are freely available. Public schools are turned into centers for fundamentalist indoctrination with daily prayer, promotion of the Ten Commandments and creationism firmly ensconced. The Department of Education has been abolished, and teenagers are given no sex education at school. Instead, children are taught revisionist history about how the United States was founded to be a "Christian nation."

Makes ya think, doesn't it?
​

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

Double post

 

[SallyNow]

This is to discuss whether or not the concept is good or bad. Not necessarily how the system is currently failing in some cities.

Some thoughts:
1. Should it be the government's responsibility to guarantee an education for every child?
2. If not, how would a completely private system be better?
3. What about public universities, should the government pay 100% , continue to subsidize only, or leave higher education to the private sector?

It is not my intent that this discussion move into the content of what schools teach, although, I'm sure it will anyway.

1. Yes, it should the communities responsiblity to guarantee that every child has a solid education available to them (and used by them) up to grade 12, and that there is access for everyone to afford higher education.

2. A private eduaction system would be a distaster. The rich would get richer, the poor poorer, despite ability to actually perform well, with the exception of, perhaps, the most interesting novelties. Without a solid childhood education, the children of the lower incomes would have a near-impossible time doing jobs which they well be suited for, except for the lack of parents' income. Sometimes I even muse that some folks who put their kids in private education believe it must be better just because they pay so much for it, that their kids deserve better because they were born rich or higher-incomed (because, simply put, the more expensive, the better, some people believe)
Another problem with private education is often the lack of training and education teachers recieve. I've seen my share of "not-good-enough-for-public-school" teachers go to private education, although obviously there are many skilled teachers in private schools.

3. Higher education should be subsized, and the ability for all those desiring a higher education, with the drive to do it, should be able to have access to it. Grants, scholorships and need-based funding could be available from the private sector; affordable student loans should be available at all time to everyone willing to take up the responibiliy of being in university.
Student loan reduction programs for those going into education, health-care, social services, etc, fields (those fields which directly serve the greater good but are almost always under-paid for the level education they need) should be supported.

There are many places where post-secondary education is fully or totally subsidized by the government, and those countries seem to be doing quite well. So, if the government does have the resources, it should fund post-secondary education almost fully, if not totally. Otherwise, subsidizing it partially seems the necessary course of action.

Universities, because of their partnership between research, education, and workplace readiness, must also be partnerships between governments and the private sector, (as there is no need to turn out students who have no use in the current workforce) but also must maintain a neutral position in the private sector, something the government could do much better than Sprocket Tek Incorporated doing it, as for comflict-of-intrest. My point? Universities should be government corporations, with the focus on educating, not profit.

In all education systems of minors, parents must be involved in the education of their children; children must be challenged in a way which will have them learning; and in higher education, society and students in general must be involoved in making sure that it is both relevant to the current system and philosophical at the same time, because as much as philosophy is seen as useless, it is vital to society. Teachers are the front-line experts in the education system, and should have a diverse educational background, and a very rounded, thorough degree in teaching. It should not be goverment officials who make the decisions on what is taught, but teachers and parents combined, with consultation from the the government officials to make sure that it is economically feasible. (for instance, weekly fieldtrips would be a wonderful addition to the current educational system, but hardly feasible)

 

[rebel_conservative]

Agreed, which is why the federal government should be in the business of education: the public schools are so generalized that they can't possibly convey reasonable indoctrination. Only private schools have the ability to focus and contain the minds of the students they warp.

though that is rather contorted logic, I see where you are going with it - but I disagree.

whilst private schools can "focus and contain the minds of the students they warp," there will be other private schools (or homeschooling or Church schools whatever) that are teaching and directing their students in another direction. therefore, no one opinion can come to dominate society. this also gives parents more choice. you can send your child to a secular school where there is no Bible etc, or you can send your child to a Christian school, or you can homeschool, or you can send your child to a socialist school or whatever. the choice is the parents, and it ensures that there is diversity in society. if you want your child to have sex education, send them to a school where that is offered. if not, send them to an abstinence only school. personally, I do not think that pushing sex onto little kids should be legal. I think it is wrong on so many levels, but at least my child would not be exposed to it.

state schools would not be so much of a problem if a) public education was decentralised b) there was a more constructionist interpretation of the Constitution
-neither of which are going to happen!

(with a statewide education voucher scheme, parents would be able to have the choice and all parents would be able to afford a standard of education for their children)

- and btw, I read a while ago that somewhere that either Washington state or D.C. spends over $9,000 per student per year, whilst local private schooling cost just a little over $5,000

 

[praying]

You might just be on to something there. Humm....now who would want to abolish something like say, oh, the U.S. Department of Education and for what reasons???

Christian schools and a strong home schooling movement are the foundations of dominionism. "Until the vast majority of Christians pull their children out of the public schools," writes Gary North, "there will be no possibility of creating a theocratic republic."

From journalist Frederick Clarkson:

Among the top Reconstructionists in education politics is Robert Thoburn of Fairfax Christian School in Fairfax, Virginia. Thoburn advocates that Christians run for school board, while keeping their own children out of public schools."Your goal" (once on the board), he declares, "must be to sink the ship."

Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote:
"I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we don't have public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them." (America Can Be Saved!, Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, Tenn. 1979, p. 52-53.)
​

Rob Boston sums up the goals of education in Church and State, 2002 writing about the best selling author, the Reverend Tim LaHaye:

In LaHaye's perfect world, voucher subsidies for private religious education are freely available. Public schools are turned into centers for fundamentalist indoctrination with daily prayer, promotion of the Ten Commandments and creationism firmly ensconced. The Department of Education has been abolished, and teenagers are given no sex education at school. Instead, children are taught revisionist history about how the United States was founded to be a "Christian nation."

Makes ya think, doesn't it?
​

It makes me shudder.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

though that is rather contorted logic, I see where you are going with it - but I disagree.

whilst private schools can "focus and contain the minds of the students they warp," there will be other private schools (or homeschooling or Church schools whatever) that are teaching and directing their students in another direction. therefore, no one opinion can come to dominate society. this also gives parents more choice. you can send your child to a secular school where there is no Bible etc, or you can send your child to a Christian school, or you can homeschool, or you can send your child to a socialist school or whatever. the choice is the parents, and it ensures that there is diversity in society. if you want your child to have sex education, send them to a school where that is offered. if not, send them to an abstinence only school. personally, I do not think that pushing sex onto little kids should be legal. I think it is wrong on so many levels, but at least my child would not be exposed to it.

state schools would not be so much of a problem if a) public education was decentralised b) there was a more constructionist interpretation of the Constitution
-neither of which are going to happen!

(with a statewide education voucher scheme, parents would be able to have the choice and all parents would be able to afford a standard of education for their children)

- and btw, I read a while ago that somewhere that either Washington state or D.C. spends over $9,000 per student per year, whilst local private schooling cost just a little over $5,000

All this really sounds like is I don't like public schools because it doesn't follow what I want a school to be. However, if public schools did what I wanted in school then there really wouldn't be a problem from me (i.e., a specific teaching of the Constitution and no sex education).

 

[k]

Double post

Hey Kat


Great info on that post, and like Mhatten said, sHuDDeR!!

As for Lahaye, I'm actually an ex-Left Behind series reader. I read an article in Newsweek that featured him and Jenkins on the cover and when Lahaye was asked about Jesus' Commandment to give up wealth to the poor his response was, "Do you know how much I pay in taxes!" Horrible answer. Then he said he thought he could do more with the wealth. Two problems with that answer. One...he admittedly relies on his own human wisdom versus God's, and two...how does maintaining wealth help the poor?

Okay, sorry for the digression.

Education is a RIGHT not a privilege, so every child has the RIGHT to education. The government exists to ensure the RIGHTS of ALL individuals are not infringed upon.

To want to get rid of public education is to reveal a selfish heart.

 

[Spherical Time]

though that is rather contorted logic, I see where you are going with it - but I disagree.

whilst private schools can "focus and contain the minds of the students they warp," there will be other private schools (or homeschooling or Church schools whatever) that are teaching and directing their students in another direction. therefore, no one opinion can come to dominate society. this also gives parents more choice. you can send your child to a secular school where there is no Bible etc, or you can send your child to a Christian school, or you can homeschool, or you can send your child to a socialist school or whatever.

You say this like parents already don't have a choice. The public schools are for those parents that either don't want to make a choice or would have no other choice.

the choice is the parents, and it ensures that there is diversity in society. if you want your child to have sex education, send them to a school where that is offered. if not, send them to an abstinence only school. personally, I do not think that pushing sex onto little kids should be legal. I think it is wrong on so many levels, but at least my child would not be exposed to it.

Have you ever had a sex education class at a public school? They certainly don't "push" sex on students. Further, people are so afraid of sex education classes that they are woefully short and so thouroughly monitored that anything objectionable is scoured.

Finally, comprehensive sex education has been scientifically proven to be more effective in controlling sexually transmitted diseases than abstinense only. Because of this, that is why comprehensive sex education should be taught in public schools, and if the parents disagree, well, like you said, they have the choice to change schools.

state schools would not be so much of a problem if a) public education was decentralised b) there was a more constructionist interpretation of the Constitution
-neither of which are going to happen!

I agree that point b) is never going to happen. As for point a), having no central authority over the schools could lead to serious problems, like school districts teaching biology from the bible or from the KKK handbook. Having a universal set of standards (as much as I hate to say it) is sometimes necessary.

(with a statewide education voucher scheme, parents would be able to have the choice and all parents would be able to afford a standard of education for their children)

No they wouldn't. Vouchers don't help all students, they only help middle class students. The poor would be left in schools that have even less funding.

- and btw, I read a while ago that somewhere that either Washington state or D.C. spends over $9,000 per student per year, whilst local private schooling cost just a little over $5,000

Well, yes, that's true, but private schools can do things just a little differently. They usually don't have to fund buses, they don't have to provide comprehensive special needs programs and administrative costs are usually substantially lower. Further, as "for profit" companies, the private schools have an added incentive for making the costs go down: they get a bigger paycheck. There is no real point in comparing the per student costs of private and public schools. If public schools in America simply vanished one day, then the costs of private schools would jump dramatically or there would be a much more substantial group of students that are not in school.

 

[SallyNow]

Education is a RIGHT not a privilege, so every child has the RIGHT to education. The government exists to ensure the RIGHTS of ALL individuals are not infringed upon.

To want to get rid of public education is to reveal a selfish heart.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Neverstop again."


Very well said, Neverstop! You get right to point without mincing words: education is a right. It doesn't matter what your parents do for a living, it doesn't matter what area you were born into: it's a right, and should be treated as such. Anyone who would infringe on that right for a quaility education is not being caring or concerned or wanting the best for the world.

What would you want for yourself? An solid education no matter what part of society you were born into?

31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Solid public education seems to fit the bill.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Finally, comprehensive sex education has been scientifically proven to be more effective in controlling sexually transmitted diseases than abstinense only.

untrue.

No they wouldn't. Vouchers don't help all students, they only help middle class students. The poor would be left in schools that have even less funding.

utter nonsense!!! the reverse is true! middle class students already have good schools, they don't need vouchers. who wants vouchers more than any other group? - inner city blacks. vouchers allow poor parents to send their child to a better school. vouchers benefit the poor more than any other group.

Well, yes, that's true, but private schools can do things just a little differently. They usually don't have to fund buses, they don't have to provide comprehensive special needs programs and administrative costs are usually substantially lower. Further, as "for profit" companies, the private schools have an added incentive for making the costs go down: they get a bigger paycheck. There is no real point in comparing the per student costs of private and public schools. If public schools in America simply vanished one day, then the costs of private schools would jump dramatically or there would be a much more substantial group of students that are not in school.

a voucher system would not change anything. public schools would still exist. parents would just have the choice.

 

[SallyNow]

untrue.



utter nonsense!!! the reverse is true! middle class students already have good schools, they don't need vouchers. who wants vouchers more than any other group? - inner city blacks. vouchers allow poor parents to send their child to a better school. vouchers benefit the poor more than any other group.



a voucher system would not change anything. public schools would still exist. parents would just have the choice.

A voucher system will not work in the long run. The parents who are lucky enough to get vouchers for their kids will be able to send their kids to the higher-class schools; those can not, will not. And as the inner-city schools get less students, they will get less funding, and fewer teachers, making the situation worse.

The best course of action for all involved would be to, of course, improve inner-city schools. That's right, hire well-educated, solid teachers, perhaps with some sort of student-loan reduction as insentive at first, and more importantly, pay the teachers what they are worth (ie, higher than they are getting now) so they can afford decent lives and don't have to spend all their time worrying about rent or "moving up" to the "better" schools, but can instead work soley on educating students. Also, hire teachers that are skilled at working with a variety of different backgrounds, levels, and langauges, so that those do not become barriers to learning.

Try to get parents involved in educating their children no matter what the area. Even a little can help a lot.

Make sure the curriculam and standards are of the same quality in inner-city schools as in other schools-just because it's "inner city" doesn't mean it can be of poor quaility. Raise the bar in creative teaching-when you are in a city, there are places to go, things to learn everywhere, and probably some very good volunteer activities for kids to learn from. I've seen some good results in schools becoming "community schools", schools which actually serve the community in a well-rounded way.

 

[blackwasp]

indias universities are extremely good and a favourite recruitment place for many top MNCs like microsoft etc. but there is a huge imbalance between demand and supply , the good colleges are few as compared to the number of students applying . extremely intelligent students find it hard to get in because the cut off percentages are so high . like in some medical colleges the cut off percentage is as high as 98/100 . if someone has scored 95 ( which is brilliant) he still wont be able to get in and these students do not like to study at mediocre colleges

Hi sanaa

Could you name some of the top universities in India? I have a few Indian friends at my university, and they've always implied that the brightest students come to the States for an education. I doubt there are many institutions worldwide that can compete with MIT in engineering. Also, percentages seem to be highly subjective due to grade inflation at many prestigious colleges.

 

[sanaa]

Hi sanaa

Could you name some of the top universities in India? I have a few Indian friends at my university, and they've always implied that the brightest students come to the States for an education. I doubt there are many institutions worldwide that can compete with MIT in engineering. Also, percentages seem to be highly subjective due to grade inflation at many prestigious colleges.

hi blackwasp , the top engineering institutes in india are the 6 IITs, BITS Pilani , VJTI ( Mumbai ) and many others. most indian students go to the US for postgraduate studies as those programs are better than the ones here . it is not true the brightest students go there , just the ones that can afford it .....

 

[rebel_conservative]

A voucher system will not work in the long run. The parents who are lucky enough to get vouchers for their kids will be able to send their kids to the higher-class schools; those can not, will not. And as the inner-city schools get less students, they will get less funding, and fewer teachers, making the situation worse.

The best course of action for all involved would be to, of course, improve inner-city schools. That's right, hire well-educated, solid teachers, perhaps with some sort of student-loan reduction as insentive at first, and more importantly, pay the teachers what they are worth (ie, higher than they are getting now) so they can afford decent lives and don't have to spend all their time worrying about rent or "moving up" to the "better" schools, but can instead work soley on educating students. Also, hire teachers that are skilled at working with a variety of different backgrounds, levels, and langauges, so that those do not become barriers to learning.

throwing money at the problem does not work.

Try to get parents involved in educating their children no matter what the area. Even a little can help a lot.

amen!!! and getting them to think about their childs education would be a wonderful start. public education has allowed parents to abdicate their responsibility.

Raise the bar in creative teaching-when you are in a city, there are places to go, things to learn everywhere, and probably some very good volunteer activities for kids to learn from. I've seen some good results in schools becoming "community schools", schools which actually serve the community in a well-rounded way.

right, I could not agree more!!! it is important to get people who care about the community, ie from the community. you can not parachute educated middle class liberals into the inner city and expect a miracle.

 

[Spherical Time]

untrue.

Well, actually it isn't. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19531Teen's behavior doesn't change after abstinence only education. Countries that don't focus on abstinence only have much lower pregnancy and STD rates. Abstinence only programs lie to students. Abstinence and contraception should be focused on, according to the CDC. Finally, Abstinence only education can lead to greater chance of high risk behavior. For more information see:

Barbara Devaney et al., Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., The Evaluation of Abstinence Education Programs Funded Under Title V Section 510: Interim Report 1 (2002).

Peter S. Bearman & Hannah Bruckner, Columbia Univ. Inst. for Social & Econ. Theory & Research, Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges as they Affect Transition to First Intercourse 35 (2000).

utter nonsense!!! the reverse is true! middle class students already have good schools, they don't need vouchers. who wants vouchers more than any other group? - inner city blacks. vouchers allow poor parents to send their child to a better school. vouchers benefit the poor more than any other group.

Some private schools cost $10-15 thousand a year. Vouchers don't usually cover more than 5 to 6 thousand, tops, not to mention that private schools are more likely to require books, uniforms, and extraneous expenses like field trips. What reference do you have for your claim that vouchers benefit the poor more than any other group?

a voucher system would not change anything. public schools would still exist. parents would just have the choice.

They already have a choice, that of where to live? Why don't they move to a better school district? Why not apply for a tuition waver or scholarship to a private school? What usually happens with voucher systems is that middle class families with their own transportation to the private schools end up using the vouchers for schools that they could have afforded anyway, and the truly poor are stuck in increasingly underfunded public schools.

throwing money at the problem does not work.

You're the one suggesting that we throw money at people to fix the problem. SallyNow had good suggestions for how we can improve the performance of schools, and creatively implimented, it might cost less than vouchers.

amen!!! and getting them to think about their childs education would be a wonderful start. public education has allowed parents to abdicate their responsibility.

Parental involvement is a good indicator of student success. While I agree that public education has allowed some parents to abdicate responsibility, I don't see this as the school system's fault but the parents fault.

right, I could not agree more!!! it is important to get people who care about the community, ie from the community. you can not parachute educated middle class liberals into the inner city and expect a miracle.

. . . perhaps.