| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Equality 7-2521 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
 Posted: September 10 2010 at 14:51 |
I'm not saying its the only reason, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that in the past people were able to educate their children without schools. I don't see the case you're making for why this has changed and would not apply to present society.
You mentioned universities in your post. I'm not expecting that people attain university level education. I'm talking about a basic education needed to function in society.
You are right though ultimately I don't care if people are educated are not. Some people should be more educated than others. We can't expect all people have the same level of education.
If you're unaware I'm a libertarian. So ultimately no matter how cogent an argument you make (I do think my argument is more valid for the record) I will not agree to a public school system supported by taxes. If it were supported by donation I and attendence was voluntary, I wouldn't have a problem with the government providing the school, but I won't support tax collection.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
 |
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 14:22 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
When did I say no education? I'm saying people were educated just fine without a schooling system. |
But you seem to be oblivious (or uncaring) of the fact that, especially in today's society, it's not possible for everyone to get a consistent, proper education without some sort of system in place. I'm not saying it's the ONLY way to go about it, but it needs to be there for those who cannot educate themselves, cannot afford tutors or private universities, and so forth. You present your case to me as if I lack the mental capacity to understand the history of education, and I'm not as thick as you think in that regard; I'm simply trying to be realistic. What worked back then isn't always guaranteed to work now, and I've seen firsthand how poorly-implemented home education can be more of a detriment to a child's growth than an advantage. So, I say again: I do not recommend home-schooling to everyone, and I know that many people cannot afford to send their kids to a private school. So, what's left? Public school or no school. That's why it's there. It's not even close to perfect, but unless we can make private education more affordable or home education more practical, most folks are going to take the government-funded route. It's amazing to me that you don't seem to understand where I'm coming from, here. All you can say in response is that my opinion is a product of the time I live in? No sh*t. And so is yours. But our opinions still differ. I'm not incapable of seeing your side of this, and I even agree up to a point. But please don't act as if the only reason I am not kissing home-schooling's ass is anything other than a well-informed stance I take based on personal experience.
And before anything potentially starts: no, I'm not angry, and no, I don't wish to start a fight. Apparently I rub everyone the wrong way, so I thought I would put that out there right from the start so there is no misunderstanding later. 
Edited by JLocke - September 10 2010 at 14:25
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:57 |
When did I say no education? I'm saying people were educated just fine without a schooling system.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:53 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Your viewpoint directly reflects your education in the modern system. You have to realize that throughout history homeschooling was predominant and compulsory schooling at an institution has arisen only recently. |
I don't understand your point, though. Just because something is relatively new doesn't mean it's wrong or insufficient. Frankly, I'm not smart enough to directly influence a child's education, and I would want my children to have as well-rounded of one as possible. Of course I could provide my kid with a private tutor or recommend books and topics I feel would suit his or her personality, but I can't give the diploma myself. It's just more practical and respected these days for achild to learn set curriculum from a recognisable institution. Plus, a lot of parents are stupid. |
My point is the way that you feel that way is because of the system which has been a norm. The fact is that children without a public school system did just fine for a long, long time. |
Yes, and in a modern society they would do very poorly for themselves without some sort of reputable education. Come on, you know that. It doesn't have to be government-funded, but an education of some sort. I'm not anti-home-school. I'm simply pro-education. And I personally don't recommend home-schooling for everyone, because not everyone can pull it off.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:51 |
I agree that I would like them to exist. There used to be quite a few which were available for people and provided at no cost to the student. More of these would again prop up if we reverted back.
However, that would be my secondary goal. My first goal is to remove the compulsion element. Glad to see people are agreeing with me on that point.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:48 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
In response to T:
The way it used to work is that public schools existed only for poor children. They weren't forced to attend, but the option was available if the parents chose it. Public schooling used to be in a spirit of charity and not compulsion. I would be very happy if we returned to this stage. I would see it as a great victory.
However, I do not believe that money can be taken from people to fund the schools. So I would like even this minimal system done away with hopefully to be replaced by private schools which are funded by donation. These were again pretty prevelent before the public schooling system took over.
I don't think people are as doomed as we suggest without schools. Frankly, people learn very little in public schools now anyway. |
Well, okay, when you put it like that, I can agree a little more. I still think public school should always be there, though. Not everyone can afford private schools.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:46 |
JLocke wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Your viewpoint directly reflects your education in the modern system. You have to realize that throughout history homeschooling was predominant and compulsory schooling at an institution has arisen only recently. |
I don't understand your point, though. Just because something is relatively new doesn't mean it's wrong or insufficient. Frankly, I'm not smart enough to directly influence a child's education, and I would want my children to have as well-rounded of one as possible. Of course I could provide my kid with a private tutor or recommend books and topics I feel would suit his or her personality, but I can't give the diploma myself. It's just more practical and respected these days for achild to learn set curriculum from a recognisable institution.
Plus, a lot of parents are stupid. |
My point is the way that you feel that way is because of the system which has been a norm. The fact is that children without a public school system did just fine for a long, long time.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:44 |
In response to T:
The way it used to work is that public schools existed only for poor children. They weren't forced to attend, but the option was available if the parents chose it. Public schooling used to be in a spirit of charity and not compulsion. I would be very happy if we returned to this stage. I would see it as a great victory.
However, I do not believe that money can be taken from people to fund the schools. So I would like even this minimal system done away with hopefully to be replaced by private schools which are funded by donation. These were again pretty prevelent before the public schooling system took over.
I don't think people are as doomed as we suggest without schools. Frankly, people learn very little in public schools now anyway.
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - September 10 2010 at 13:44
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:44 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Your viewpoint directly reflects your education in the modern system. You have to realize that throughout history homeschooling was predominant and compulsory schooling at an institution has arisen only recently. |
I don't understand your point, though. Just because something is relatively new doesn't mean it's wrong or insufficient. Frankly, I'm not smart enough to directly influence a child's education, and I would want my children to have as well-rounded of one as possible. Of course I could provide my kid with a private tutor or recommend books and topics I feel would suit his or her personality, but I can't give the diploma myself. It's just more practical and respected these days for achild to learn set curriculum from a recognisable institution. Plus, a lot of parents are stupid.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:35 |
|
I see that point. I could agree with that. But too many parents are absolute idiots. Wouldn't we be condemning their children to eternal idiocy by not giving them the chance to just leave their education in better (or less idiotic if you want, or more prepared )hands? I think home-schooling can exist, but the public option should remain available.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:32 |
|
Well the idea is that parents can best judge their children. They can determine how much structure a child needs. It appears llamas parents were spot on in this assesment. The argument isn't for a particular kind of homeschooling, but to take the decision making process out of the hands of the state and leaving it with the parents where it belongs.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:32 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I was laying on my stomach, swining my feet in the air, and giggling while I typed it. |
I'll write a teen-vampire novel about you two... 
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:30 |
What Llama describes might be a two-sided sword... Yes, we encourage the child to follow his interests. But maybe we're also teaching him that he'll always be able to do what he wants (a total falsehood in real life), and maybe, also, the child will not show any interests at all but play and play and have fun. Pure pleasure.
A more structured approach to home-schooling might sound much better... Llama's case might have worked, but I can't say it will work most of the times.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:27 |
|
Your viewpoint directly reflects your education in the modern system. You have to realize that throughout history homeschooling was predominant and compulsory schooling at an institution has arisen only recently.
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - September 10 2010 at 13:28
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:25 |
thellama73 wrote:
My parents are well off now, but they were quite poor when I was young. One common misconception about homeschooling is that the parents have to function as teachers. At least in the variety that I was raised under, I was basically just encouraged to pursue my own interests. If I wanted to learn something, my parents would buy me a book. If I didn't want to learn something, I was not forced to. If I had trouble understanding something they would help to the best of their ability, but they were far from formal instructors.That being said, I have never held the view that everyone should be homeschooled. Many parents do not have the time nor the temperament for it, but I think it's a really great option for those that want to try.
|
What you're describing sounds more like unschooling, something I personally don't agree with. No offense. To answer slarti's question: my family lived comfortably for many years until my parents divorced. After that, it became much harder for my mother to properly provide the schooling I needed. That's a big reason why I went to public high school. Do I recommend schooling at home to others? Honestly, no.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:25 |
I was laying on my stomach, swining my feet in the air, and giggling while I typed it.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:23 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Oh the liberal myth that increases in consumer spending are a good thing. |
Elaborate please. This sounds interesting. I would think that in the society you want you also need strong spending. |
We covered this in my macroeconomics class last night. All else equal, a higher savings rate leads to a faster growing economy, because the money people save gets invested by businesses into new machines (capital) and research (technological development) which raises output in the long run. A higher savings rate necessarily requires a smaller consumption rate.
|
I like when we answer for each other.
I would add that the common confusion is that in good economics times, people tend to spend more, as they are making more money, and thus have a higher disposible income. Classic confusing correlation with causation. Of course, the spending of more money is a sympton of prosperity, but it does not cause it.
America's problem is that it does not save, not that it does not consume. |
Damn! Here I am actually agreeing with all of these. Good points.
On another note, "I like when we answer for each other" sounds cute. 
Edited by The T - September 10 2010 at 13:23
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:21 |
Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Staying off topic:
A question for you home schooled folks. How wealthy are your parents? Because it's nice if your parents can do it and are competent to do so. And do you believe this is even practical for the rest of us? |
People had much less leisure time in the 17th century in America, yet there were few public schools (which existed only for the poor) and no compulsory education laws, except in MA which established both as part of their mini-theocracy. People still got educated back then. |
They probably had about the same amount of leisure time as we do now, (17th century was pre-industrial so work was more seasonal), but with only oil and candle lighting there wasn't a whole lot they could do with it. |
The data would disagree with you.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:20 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Oh the liberal myth that increases in consumer spending are a good thing. |
Elaborate please. This sounds interesting. I would think that in the society you want you also need strong spending. |
We covered this in my macroeconomics class last night. All else equal, a higher savings rate leads to a faster growing economy, because the money people save gets invested by businesses into new machines (capital) and research (technological development) which raises output in the long run. A higher savings rate necessarily requires a smaller consumption rate.
|
I like when we answer for each other.
I would add that the common confusion is that in good economics times, people tend to spend more, as they are making more money, and thus have a higher disposible income. Classic confusing correlation with causation. Of course, the spending of more money is a sympton of prosperity, but it does not cause it.
America's problem is that it does not save, not that it does not consume.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 10 2010 at 11:13 |
I can side with that, certainly.
I was checking the libertarian's party website last night. Many things I can agree with. There are others that I can't (eliminating some welfare for the worst-off, Pat's road-privatization project).
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Obama Presidency
