Public education good or bad?

[Ninja Turtles]

K-12 is a near government monopoly run by militant left wing unions. Throw all the money at it you want, such a system is incapable of delivering quality.

Wow, this is such an ignorant generalized statement, unbelievable. There are also conservative school districts that don't do well. All issues in the world are not left/right issues.

 

[12volt_man]

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

No.

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

Private schools continue to outscore pubic schools in standardized testing and private schools have much greater lattitude to remove problem students.

Private schools are also free to operate more independantly of political forces.

What I find ironic is that, while libs are constantly whining about how our schools are failing because we don't spend enough money, private schools manage to be much more successful with smaller budgets and comparable class sizes.

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

That would be up to the state or county. I, personally, believe that all education should be private.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

Oh well...so much for Bush's No Child Left Behind program.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Foreword by President George W. Bush \[/font]
Bipartisan education reform will be the cornerstone of my Administration.

The quality of our public schools directly affects us all as parents, as students, and as citizens. Yet too many children in America are segregated by low expectations, illiteracy, and self-doubt. In a constantly changing world that is demanding increasingly complex skills from its workforce, children are literally being left behind.

It doesnt have to be this way.

Bipartisan solutions are within our reach. If our country fails in its responsibility to educate every child, were likely to fail in many other areas. But if we succeed in educating our youth, many other successes will follow throughout our country and in the lives of our citizens.

This blueprint represents part of my agenda for education reform. Though it does not encompass every aspect of the education reforms I plan to propose, this blueprint will serve as a framework from which we can all work together Democrat, Republican, and Independent to strengthen our elementary and secondary schools. Taken together, these reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America. And I am very open to working with Members of Congress who have additional ideas to meet our shared goals.

I look forward to working with Congress to ensure that no child is left behind.

 

[sanaa]

All of our worldwide economic competitors--Germany, Japan, China, Korea, etc,. provide rigorous public education for their children. India, in particular, has free universities where students study science and engineering that are fully equal to our best, i.e., Cal Tech, or MIT. If we can't provide world class public education for everyone who wants it, especially in math, the physical and biological sciences, and language, our future is bleak.

i dont think the universities ur talking about are free , they do have low fees

 

[sanaa]

I had to reword this because at first it sounded too flip, and I don't mean to be insulting in any way, but I seriously doubt India's universities are as good as you make them out to be. If they were I doubt that almost every wealthy Indian family with college age children would send them to the U.S. or elsewhere abroad on student visas. Also most Indians do not have the luxury to attend school for very long into thier childhood anyway.

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

 

[Antoninus Verus]

I look forward to working with Congress to ensure that no child is left behind.

You know...the ONLY results Ive seen out of that program was a cartoon. That was IT. I was sitting in Tommies waiting for my food and one of the employees had her little girl there with her and the little girl was watching TV and she was watching cartoons. The run ended and it said "Funding for....was made possible by the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act".

 

[rebel_conservative]

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

no, of course not.

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

firstly, private does not mean for profit. I would like to point that out because people too frequently equate the two.
secondly, it does not have to be totally private, you could still have govt schools, BUT you should give every parent vouchers so that they can choose where their child is educated (or some tax back for those who homeschool) so you will have some public schools, and some children who are homeschooled, some who go to Church schools, some to fee paying schools, some to community schools etc. what you would not have is education controlled by one central organisation. you would have freedom in education, you could teach your children/your community your values. that could be Left wing values or conservative values, or libertarian values whatever.

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

the problem is that when the govt gives our money, they get to control what happens. if a university wants federal money, it has to play by the fed's rules. I would imagine that a Christian Univsersity that wanted only Christian professors would not be able to get funding from the state, but a liberal college can. that is wrong. that is why the govt should not get involved.

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

one of the most important reasons against govt schools is what they teach and the sameness of the curriculum, as well as the secular humanist agenda that it serves.

 

[rebel_conservative]

btw, the US Constitution does not allow the Fed to get involved in education (but hey, when has the Constitution ever mattered?)

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

The point was not the value of the program. The Point was that it not the "libs are constantly whining about how our schools are failing because we don't spend enough money".
Unless, of course, there is someone that considers Bush a 'lib'.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

as well as the secular humanist agenda that it serves.

Such as.....

btw, the US Constitution does not allow the Fed to get involved in education (but hey, when has the Constitution ever mattered?)

And where exactly does it say that

 

[rebel_conservative]

And where exactly does it say that

have you actually read your Constitution???

10th Amendment -

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"

Education is not delegated to the US by the Constitution. nor does it prohibit the states from determining it. therefore, education policy is reserved to the states or the people.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

The question: What in the Constitution gives the federal government any say in education?
Many people say that they can't find the word education in the Constitution, therefore, the government can't say or do anything about it one way or the other.
The fact is there are several ways that the federal government can get their foot into education quite legally. The government has every right to monitor how tax money it gives out is used, and to have some say in its use. There is the old standby, the commerce clause. Schools order and buy books and supplies from all over the country so Interstate Commerce is involved.


However, let's focus on the following: Part of the answer is here:

The Preamble of the Constitution, while not carrying the same authority as the rest (not actual law as such), does set the tone and the important portion of it is:

. . . promote the general Welfare . . .

The rest of the answer lies in the main body of the Constitution:

. . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; . . .

. . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. . .
From the very beginning a well-educated citizenry was thought to be essential to protect liberty and protect the general welfare.

Some of the first state constitutions had provisions requiring mass education of its citizens.

"The notion grew but slowly that 'education for liberty' might mean preparation to exercise and protect the basic freedoms of religion, press, assembly, trial by jury, security of person, due process and other guarantees of the Bill of Rights of 1791." ([size=-1]Butts, Public Education . . ., page 9[/size])

Jefferson, among many, saw the need from the beginning of having a universal school system, run by the government, free from religious, sectarian or private control, with an extensive elementary, secondary, capped by a university system operated by the government. ([size=-1]Butts, Public Education . . ., page 12, 13[/size]

Much more to be found at http://members.tripod.com/~candst/educ.htm

 

[Antoninus Verus]

have you actually read your Constitution???

10th Amendment -

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"

Education is not delegated to the US by the Constitution. nor does it prohibit the states from determining it. therefore, education policy is reserved to the states or the people.

That still doesnt say that the government cant have a hand in education for efficency's sake

 

[Blackmarch]

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.

Like about anything else, if handled correctly it can be very good, if not, it can fail miserably.

 

[rebel_conservative]

The question: What in the Constitution gives the federal government any say in education?
Many people say that they can't find the word education in the Constitution, therefore, the government can't say or do anything about it one way or the other.
The fact is there are several ways that the federal government can get their foot into education quite legally. The government has every right to monitor how tax money it gives out is used, and to have some say in its use. There is the old standby, the commerce clause. Schools order and buy books and supplies from all over the country so Interstate Commerce is involved.


However, let's focus on the following: Part of the answer is here:

The Preamble of the Constitution, while not carrying the same authority as the rest (not actual law as such), does set the tone and the important portion of it is:

. . . promote the general Welfare . . .

general welfare clause = you can't make decisions in favour of special interests. period.

it makes me angry that this has been so distorted and abused by big government liberals. the original language has been forgotten, and they interpret this by today's definition... that is nuts. the Constitution also ensures that the states will have republican governments. therefore, they should not allow the Democrats to stand in state elections, only the republicans can have power? that is the exact same logic.

The rest of the answer lies in the main body of the Constitution:

. . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; . . .

nothing to do with public education, not in the slightest. that relates strictly to patents.

. . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. . .

not related to public education

From the very beginning a well-educated citizenry was thought to be essential to protect liberty and protect the general welfare.

1. yes, but it was always viewed as a private matter, nothing to do with the govt.
2. from the very beginning a Bible-centred education was thought to be essential to protect liberty and protect the general welfare. do you want Bible-centric education???

Some of the first state constitutions had provisions requiring mass education of its citizens.

which is not a problem. that right was reserved to them by the 10th Amendment that I quoted. I oppose FEDERAL government intervention as it is grossly unconstitutional. of course the state govts can provide education.

 

[rebel_conservative]

That still doesnt say that the government cant have a hand in education for efficency's sake

are you kidding?

 

[Ninja Turtles]

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.

 

[rebel_conservative]

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.

well the Federal govt has no business in education.

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.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

are you kidding?

Enlighten me

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.

Ok...Im not exactly HAPPY with the federal government, but Id hardly call them authoritarian

 

[k]

What scares some people about public education is usually a two pronged stab of fear. One, some are afraid of the government controlling them, and two, public education both reveals and challenges problems in any society.