Obama Presidency

The whole thing for me is, should the quality of your education be dependent on the wealth of your parents?  A quality public education available to kids from any background is important and in the best interests of society at large, unless you get wealthy off of wage slaves, well, we're not talking about society at large but rather selfish interests of the elites.


Edited by Slartibartfast - September 11 2010 at 06:10

The T wrote: In the past everything was simpler. There was less competition, less people. A less technological, more manufacturing-based society. If home schooling worked in the past that's not evidence of it working today. At least this is not an economic law inmutable in time; this is purely sociologic and these things change with time. Pat, are you libertarian because you oppose taxes or do you oppose them because you are libertarian?

Does anyone know, off hand, what the cost per student per year is for a public education?  Couldn't this money be given to the parents to school their children in whatever way they choose?  (Unfortunately, about half the country would go buy a new SUV, f**k the kids.)  But the cost per student is bloated by administrative overhead.  The teachers union would scream of course.  But what if the deal was, we'll pay you teachers more to come teach our five children here at home, outside of the educational system. 

jammun wrote: Does anyone know, off hand, what the cost per student per year is for a public education?  Couldn't this money be given to the parents to school their children in whatever way they choose?  (Unfortunately, about half the country would go buy a new SUV, f**k the kids.)  But the cost per student is bloated by administrative overhead.  The teachers union would scream of course.  But what if the deal was, we'll pay you teachers more to come teach our five children here at home, outside of the educational system.    There's a young girl next door.  She plays the clarinet and practices out on her front porch.  She was playing crappy "school band" music...that's what I call it and that's what it is.  I fired up the copier and gave her sheet music to My Favorite Things, ready made for clarinet in B-flat.  I hummed out the melody for her.  She jumped all over it.  It was so different for her.  It was not learning by the school's "here is what you are expected to be capable of doing".  I do not pretend to be a clarinet teacher, but it's remarkable what a kid with basic skills can do if you just set it in front of them.    By the way, my fee for giving her this was $0.  My payment comes in the form of hearing her practice that song out on her porch.   If I had the $ I'd buy her a sax and she'd be the next John Coltrane.

That's a great story. And if every adult in the world felt the same way you do about education, we'd be all set, and I'd say to kill the school system tomorrow. But you're case is very specific and based on circumstance. You cannot expect every child to be as willing to learn on her own as that girl was, and you can't expect every grown up to be as well-learned or organized as you were about presenting the material. That takes teachers. And teachers, like doctors, want their paycheck, too. These are people who have professions aimed at helping others, and yet still have to eat. If you want someone qualified to help you, it isn't always going to be free, and nor should it be. Someone has to pay these people, whether it be the government or some private financier. Preferably, I'd rather it not be the government. But then that means someone would have to be willing to provide his or her own money for the sole purpose of publicly educating others. Not an easy thing to propose, I wouldn't think. Especially in today's society, where private education usually costs the parents and students a ton of money. 

I don't see why a person's political stance should even have anything to do with this. Any sane person, regardless of politics, should be able to see how broken our public school system is. But any sane person would also have to admit that, at least for right now, public schools are the main source of education for most kids. If we want to change that, let's change it, and be realistic about it. But to sit around and complain about how it doesn't work means nothing without some sort of plan to follow it up with. Let's take action, shall we? Anybody can complain. But who has the solution? Give everybody enough money to fund a proper education for their child? Wouldn't that be hand-outs? Wouldn't that also go against a libertarians feelings on government involvement?

All I'm saying is that the issue is not as black and white as I've seen people portraying it in here. It's very complicated and worth discussing, but if we really expect anything to be done about it, things have to gop beyond discussion at some point. So, does anybody here have a practical solution? And don't just say 'let 'em go, and be done with it'. The world already sucks plenty because of the uneducated nutcases out there. Let's not propose we create more of them. 

Edited by JLocke - September 11 2010 at 14:48

Do not underestimate the public schools.  Yes, there is administrative bloat.  Get rid of it.  Yes, there are crappy teachers.  Get rid of 'em.  And yes, there are teachers who change one's life.  It's a crap shoot which one you get.  My son was a complete slacker, if there ever was one, but there were a handful of teachers over the years who changed his life.  Anyone here ever look at owl puke?  His second grade teacher sent him home with same one day.  Hell, I was amazed!  Who knew?  Who knew!  A caring teacher.  There are actually public school employees...teachers, whatever...who actually care.

My kids went to a high school where there were armed police hanging about.  This is more a reflection of our society or culture than our schools.  Educationally speaking the kids have done ok (son, M.A., daughter, B.A.).

JLocke wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: The whole thing for me is, should the quality of your education be dependent on the wealth of your parents?  A quality public education available to kids from any background is important and in the best interests of society at large, unless you get wealthy off of wage slaves, well, we're not talking about society at large but rather selfish interests of the elites. Your argument then is one for wholesale egalitarianism, i.e. the most terrifying of utopian socialism. Should the quality of your clothes, your food, your medical care, your toys, your first car, your anything, be dependent on the wealth of your parents? They all are. Should your athletic ability be dependent on your genes? Should your education be dependent on your genes? Should your education be dependent on how hard you work? Education is a function of many variable. It will differ from person to person. This does not make people slaves to others. It does not make people inferior to others. It makes them different from others.  Also, your argument focuses purely on outcome while neglecting two important points: (1) The means (2) The assumption that the ends are obtained. Public schooling has been drastically ineffective. Like it has for nearly every service, the state has shown itself inept as a manager. To support public schooling you seem to ignore that it is provided for by force by people who may not want it or will not use it.  Again, Pat, I find myself at least partially agreeing with you, here. I understand completely where you are coming from when you talk about the ineffectiveness of public education and such. But please do not ignore this: public education is only ineffective to those who choose not to use it. Anybody who works hard in a public school can graduate with high marks and be eligible for very good colleges and vocational schools. It is in these places that the student can reach his or her full potential in their education, and they would be doing it by choice. But had the public school system not been in place at all, they may have never even gotten that far. Can you honestly say that public schools haven't done any good, either? I realize the system is broken in many ways, and believe me, my short stint in high school showed me just how far behind everyone was in comparison to my private education leading up to that point. But to say that it is ineffective isn't completely true, either. It serves as a stepping stone for those who choose to go the distance and pursue a more specialized, private education later on. Without it, many more people would be failing to live up to their potential. Sure, you can always teach yourself by picking up a book on your own time, but most specialized jobs and careers don't recognize your actual knowledge of something; they recognize that piece of paper called a diploma that says you're qualified.  Am I not making any sense at all, here? Don't worry, I won't be surprised if I'm not.  I suck at getting my points across.

When libertarians say taxes are bad because that money could work better in each person's hands and that will move the economy, I can see a point. That can start a conversation. People might be ready to agree given good arguments. 

Equality 7-2521 wrote:   It's irrelevant if they've done good.

Oh, of course. A fellow human being making something of herself isn't worth celebrating at all.

We have to also take account of its failures, cost, and how good the success stories would have been without it. Would the success stories have been successful without a public school?

In some cases, absolutely not. Some kids make their way strictly on what they learn from their public education. Of course, it's not every case, and if anything a more efficient system would offer even more success stories, not less. But all I'm saying is that unless a better system can be realistically proposed, I'm not going to condemn public schools. Nothing is ready to take its place just yet. When and if that day comes, I'll be on your side completely. On this issue, at least. 

How much money are these successes worth? What about the failures? How many kids could have been more successful in a different environment?

Well, I think my previous paragraph addresses tis question, as well. I'm not denying how much better it could potentially be, but nobody has convinced me such a perfect alternative exists, yet. Present that to me first, then we'll be having a discussion.

Part of this system of accreditation over skills is directly related to the public schooling system. To use the outgrowth of a government funded schooling system as a justification of its existence seems stupid.

I wasn't justifying it, I was merely pointing out that it exists. I'm not going to suggest a parent school his child without accredited assistance in a society like today's. Like it or not, you have to play by their rules if you want to make a living at a legitimate career. Do I think a piece of paper is more important than actually being able to prove your credentials legitimately? No. Just like I don't think a piece of paper should dictate whether or not you and your spouse get joint benefits.

But I don't aspire to be anything that a fancy university would necessitate. I don't aspire to get married. But plenty of people wish to do both, and just because I find the concept behind such things a little backwards from my personal perspective, I'm not going to push for it all to be wiped off the face of the earth with no superior alternatives already on the table.

Edited by JLocke - September 11 2010 at 19:17

JLocke wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JLocke wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JLocke wrote:   Of course people were able to educate their children without schools in the past. And they are still able to do the same today, provided they would truly put the time and effort into it. But so many people don't want to do that these days. What part of that is so outrageous? Young parents especially have all too often shown just how uninterested they can potentially be in their child's education. You're telling me the amount of parents who could be competent teachers for their kids hasn't shrunk considerably in the past 50 to 100 years? I sure think it has. So while I know for a fact that schooling outside of government bounds is not impossible (I was home-schooled, and I think I turned out okay. Though, you may disagree), it's also not guaranteed to work for everyone in every situation.  I guess I'm ultimately saying that I think there is room for variety in the manner in which we educate our young. And what works for one person may not work for another. So how can I with a sound conscience recommend home-schooling as the preferred method to other people? That's all I ever said: I cannot recommend it. Other people will have to make that call for themselves.  I'm a libertarian as well, but I'm also a humanitarian, and I care very much about others. Education is a very important part of a person reaching his or her full potential, and until a better solution can be offered, I won't be voting to toss out public schools anytime soon. Even if it IS yet another government screw-up in many ways.  Public schooling is not guaranteed to work for everyone in every situation. What's the point of mentioning that? People are uninterested in their child's schooling now mostly because the state has claimed the rights to it. Parents don't really have a choice in the matter, so why would they take a great interest? Ultimately anyway, a child's education are most dependent on two things: the parents and the children. This will happen regardless of whether they attend a school or not. I've never recommended home schooling over anything else.  I don't know how you reconcile your stance as a libertarian with positions you've expressed in here. I also care about people. Caring about people, and recognizing that a service should be provided is not the same as advocating that the government provide it. Need doesn't justify force. I recognize the need for education. I often tutor struggling people for a greatly reduced price or even for free. I do not however support government theft to prop up schools for people.  First of all, I consider myself a libertarian. I couldn't care less what you or anybody else would rather consider me as. Frankly, I think you're a bit of a jerk, but then again, I've been called the same by others. So it's all in perception. If you want to think of me as a pseudo-libertarian or as an idiot who doesn't really know what a libertarian is, go ahead and think it.  Secondly, and most importantly . . . when did I ever say that I was advocating for the government's side of this at all? What I was trying to say is that it's an option available to people, and for many these days, it's the only option. I'm not anti-government. I'm small government. But the fact that government-funded schools are the norm right now simply means that we should all push to change that somehow. But while these schools remain the most practical option for people, I'm not going to start recommending one format of education over the other, because it wouldn't be realistic. If ever there was a time the government was justified in stepping in and providing, public education for all is certainly it. I'm not saying it's the way I would prefer things to go, but I certainly understand the reasoning behind the public school system and why it is so invaluable to many people, especially with very little money.  I do understand a good deal of what you are saying. I just don't agree with all of it. But feel free to keep explaining your position to me. It's very possible I'm just not smart enough to understand it all at once. Give me a practical alternative to public education, and I'm more than willing to listen. I'm not tickled pink at the fact that the government is the only means of education for many people, but I have yet to hear you propose something more effective, just as inexpensive, and practical for the busy parent. Not saying it doesn't exist, all I'm saying is I would like for our conversation to move in that direction, if you feel so inclined to elaborate.  You can consider yourself whatever you want, but you and I clearly have philosophically opposed beliefs.  I'm not advocating any particular kind of schooling; I'm advocating for the removal of government provided schools. Why is the government justified in stepping into education? We always here how a well educated populace is essential to a Republic. We allow the state to force this education upon us, and we don't see any conflict of interest.  I don't see much for me to elaborate. The alternative option would be one were parents chose what is most appropriate for their children. Hopefully, and probably, schools would start to be established for low income people as a means of charity. The market would be free to operate with regards to education. People could choose if education is appropriate for their child. The government could stop brainwashing kids, teaching them that they must go and unload a fortune on a college education. What do you want in terms of elaboration? Well, what you just described (as vague as it may have been) will suffice, I suppose. I guess I'm more concerned with what the alternative would be than anything else. If we can establish an affordable alternative to government schools, believe me, I'll be all for it. But it would have to be something practical;something most citizens could agree and vote on, and not just a system where only anti-tax libertarians are happy about it. There would be nothing democratic or fair about that scenario, either. As cool as it would be for a more responsible system to be in place, ''hopefully and probably'' isn't good enough for a country as concerned with equal opportunities as ours. There would have to be a ''definitely'' before I would completely take your stance on this.