Forums | MacLife

NAG wrote:

freecat wrote:

The subsidy for economically "disadvantaged" students would take care of that problem, wouldn't it?

How is this not government oversight?

Well, now that brat's resurrected the thread...

Subsidizing students' education would, I suppose, entail some government decisions as to what sorts of education qualify.  That could be private or home schooling.  But it wouldn't entail the complete fusion of government and schools that exists today.

Some people seem to think that means there's less "accountability."  Yet somehow the vast majority of our economy works without such fusion--that's why we're more capitalist than socialist.  Having direct parental control, the freedom to make educational choices, provides far more accountability than getting to vote every so often for your school board.

charon wrote:

So it seems to me that the answer is, "no," that public education does breach the wall and is quite likely unconstitutional for this reason (yes, I'm quite aware that the Supreme Court disagrees, although I do think it's what logically follows from much of the case law on the Religion Clauses).  Whether that's a price worth paying is another question.

Public education should be totally handled by the private sector, in a nation based upon individual rights.

Once public education is privatized, the issue of whether prayer should be allowed in the schools goes away.

The New Guy wrote:

If you don't want publicly funded education, don't complain when the idiot behind the counter at McDonalds can't do math or read.

And that's precisely why I'm "complaining."

Contrary  to those who learned to rape minds and attempt to attack emotions rather than properly answering commentary, I comment upon issues, just like anyone else does, so please refrain from ever saying that I'm complaining about such issues ever again, got it?

Do you really think that publicly funded education is doing a better job at educating our students than private education?

What about the many programs in American public education, for example, that have served to stifle, rather than nurture, the developing minds in our country?

For example:

Whole Language approach to reading, where "the child is told to treat the "whole word" as a primary, and to draw his conclusions without the necessity of learning the underlying facts."  http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4151

Or the Whole Math approach to teaching math, with its emphasis on estimating.  That's probably how the idiot you speak of at McDonald's learned his math.  It's far more likely that he learned this in a public school than a private one.

And, then there's revisionist history.  Where the Indians, er, uh, Native Americans, are viewed as the oppressed, and great presidents like Thomas Jefferson are vilified because he happened to own slaves.

Public education today is government-sponsored brainwash.

I've never encountered those things either, and I was in public school from K through 12, and I went to a public university.

The New Guy wrote:

If you don't want publicly funded education, don't complain when the idiot behind the counter at McDonalds can't do math or read.

No one's said we shouldn't have publicly funded education.  I've just suggested that government shouldn't be the teacher.

The New Guy wrote:

Schools should teach the most important lessons in life: A healthy disrespect for authority, and a need to find out on your own.

And Education Majors are just the people!!!!!!!!!!

The New Guy wrote:

Let's just face it: School is glorified day care for most, college prep for some. I learned more on my own and more from teachers outside of curriculum than I ever learned in "class." Hell, senior year I was smarter than the damn physics teacher.

We can't trust the government to teach kids, and we can't trust people in the private sector to teach our kids because they'll both pick some arbitrary measurement called a "standardized test" and twist the results to show how well they're doing. The private sector just takes your money after you earn it, and the public sector takes it before you earn it.

The only people we can trust to teach our children is ourselves. My kids are going to learn from day one that school isn't about learning anything: it's about showing how well you handle submitting to an ignorant and unworthy authority so that, in the future, other ignorant and unworthy authorities (called "bosses" or "management") will want to buy your life from you. They'll learn to cherish those precious few teachers not jaded by the system, and they'll learn how to teach themselves.

Well, I went to private school for the most part and got a lot out of the experience.  I agree with your point insofar as it means that parents need to take responsibility for providing a decent education to their children.  That doesn't mean that they have to do it themselves, but they need to exercise some discretion in the matter.  That's my biggest qualm with the public school system--it coerces a lot of parents into sending their kids to the local public school without any choice in the matter, effectively stealing the kids and infantilizing the parents.  Choice gives parents the means to find what's best for their kids and it gives schools the incentive to shape up.

Last edited by charon (2005-02-28 9:11 pm)

The New Guy wrote:

But then you have the parents who are already infantile.

True.  But these those same infantile people can vote and get elected to office and make schooling decisions for everyone else.  Irrationality is found everywhere.  So the question is whether a few strangers should be making decisions for everyone else's kids and stripping parents of a vital role.

Last edited by charon (2005-03-03 7:02 pm)

more or less wrote:

charon wrote:

Irrationality is found everywhere.

now you're thinking!


remember that when you are trumpeting personal responsibility and the wonders of the free market.  please.

I certainly try to.  And I hope you will remember that any time you advocate government intervention.