Socialized Education

  • Thread starter Thread starter DL82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I suggest reading a 4th grade English textbook circa 1890 something, (days of the 1 room school house, no “free” public education) and compare it to a 4 th grade of today, and then come back and tell us how successful public education has been for America the last 100 years.

Such a text book is on display in a one room school house in Fruita, Colorado, near Captial Reef National Park. Fascinating reading.

But you don’t even have to do that, read a newspaper from that era and then read a modern version. Public education dumbs down about every 10 years, but thats just MY opinion.

Everybody back then seemed to be a good “writer,” their command of the lanquage was impecable, and none of them received a public education.

But we’re stuck with what we have, so I’d be for tweaking it with the voucher system.
I’ll add an amen to that.

As for home schooling, everyone I’ve ever known who has been home schooled has been about 3 grades ahead of their peers. I spent some time once with a homeschooling relative, and it didn’t even seem to be that difficult. When the children finished high school homeschool, they simultaneously tested out of their first year of college. Quite a saving.
 
No, I ought to elaborate. When I say the parents are responsible for their children’s education, I mean exactly that: if the parents cannot afford formal education, they ought to educate the children themselves. This may seem like a foreign notion to our “enlightened” modern society, but this was the model for many hundreds of years.
And if the parents are uneducated? If both need to work? What about the resources needed, for eg. text books, access to computers etc. One hundred years ago kids were still working in factories. For hundreds of years most grew up illiterate. As late as the 1840’s 1/3 of adults in Britain couldn’t write. The golden age…
 
Much of Europe has a much better primary education policy than the US. From what I’ve heard, many of them allow PARENTS to choose which school to enroll their kids in (often subject to entrance testing) and the state provides a fixed funding level.

Sounds perilously close to ‘vouchers’ doesn’t it? 😉

I think that is the way to go. Society at large benefits from a more educated populace. A voucher system that retained the authority of parents to choose how their kids are educated would be superior to the current sytem of one size fits all public schooling.
What we have in the UK is similar to this. There is a national inspectorate (actually, two, one for Scotland, one for England and Wales) and they produce a league table which shows how well kids at different schools perform in terms of literacy, numeracy, science, and the qualifications they have at age 16. It’s simplistic and can be manipulated, but it’s better than nothing. Parents are then given the right to prioritise which schools they want their children to go to in the local area, but each school only has a limited number of places, and are not allowed to select by ability, which leaves the system far from perfect, but better than it was before. All the schools in this system (including Catholic and other faith schools) are free for pupils.

The only problem is that the schools at the bottom of the league table get the worst students, or the students whose parents don’t care enough to complete the school choice form. With that situation, it’s almost impossible for those schools to improve, which leaves big problems in the system.

The government always has some new initiative to bring private finance into education, some more successful than others.

I’m a doctoral student in education policy, and I can say that the main difference I’ve observed between the kind of research done in Europe and the UK, compared with research in the US, is who it is aimed at. American educational research is large-scale, quantitative, and aimed at policy-makers, while Anglo-European (and especially Australian for some odd reason) educational research is qualitative, classroom-based and aimed at the teachers and school leaders. Teaching has become much more of a respected, research-led profession in the UK, and that change has happened quite quickly over the past 10 years, while the US system seems to see teachers as technicians, production-line workers delivering whatever their policy makers and textbook publishers decide is ‘good for them’.

That’s got nothing to do with public vs private. Here in the UK, we’ve moved away from big, old, inefficient centrally-directed models without losing the public, free entitlement to universal education.
 
And if the parents are uneducated? If both need to work? What about the resources needed, for eg. text books, access to computers etc. One hundred years ago kids were still working in factories. For hundreds of years most grew up illiterate. As late as the 1840’s 1/3 of adults in Britain couldn’t write. The golden age…
This doesn’t mean the government is the solution to the problem, cynic. Far from it. We live in a broken world, full of broken people. But charity is the answer to brokenness, not government. There is a pervasive mentality these days that people are incapable of thinking for themselves, or pulling themselves out of hard times, without the overbearing, parental hand of government to take care of them. This is wrong and demeaning to the common man. People have found a way to survive for thousands of years, not because government took care of them, but because it is within their nature to do so. There will always be those who fall by the wayside, and our current welfare system is living proof that not even government can solve that problem.

There used to be a theory that if only we gave people free food, free shelter, free clothing, free education, and free healthcare … if only … then they would take the initiative and pull themselves out of the gutter by their own bootstraps. Now that theory has been put into practice – oh, has it! – and what we see is exactly opposite of what we hoped to see. People lose all motivation when things are handed to them on a platter. This happened in past socialist and communist societies, and it’s now happening before our very eyes in the good ol’ USA.
 
Surepure tried to enlighten the cynic with this truth-
This doesn’t mean the government is the solution to the problem, cynic. Far from it. We live in a broken world, full of broken people. But charity is the answer to brokenness, not government. There is a pervasive mentality these days that people are incapable of thinking for themselves, or pulling themselves out of hard times, without the overbearing, parental hand of government to take care of them. This is wrong and demeaning to the common man. People have found a way to survive for thousands of years, not because government took care of them, but because it is within their nature to do so. There will always be those who fall by the wayside, and our current welfare system is living proof that not even government can solve that problem.
There used to be a theory that if only we gave people free food, free shelter, free clothing, free education, and free healthcare … if only … then they would take the initiative and pull themselves out of the gutter by their own bootstraps. Now that theory has been put into practice – oh, has it! – and what we see is exactly opposite of what we hoped to see. People lose all motivation when things are handed to them on a platter. This happened in past socialist and communist societies, and it’s now happening before our very eyes in the good ol’ USA.

I’m right there with ya, but you’re never gonna convince a small circle of people in this country that it’s true. They’re just not gonna buy that premise.

They view govt as the answer to everything, and if you don’t support every govt program shoved at ya, you don’t care about the less fortunate.
 
And if the parents are uneducated? If both need to work? What about the resources needed, for eg. text books, access to computers etc. One hundred years ago kids were still working in factories. For hundreds of years most grew up illiterate. As late as the 1840’s 1/3 of adults in Britain couldn’t write. The golden age…
The literacy rate in Massachussetts the year before the first mandatory public school law took effect was higher than it is today.
I’m sorry I can’t find the reference, but I remember reading about a longitudinal study inthe 60’s and early 70’s of mentally delayed, rural, low-income teenage single mothers. Some had given their children up for adoption, some had put them in school, and for some reason some were allowed to keep them at home. The homeschooled/unschooled ones performed about the same as those adopted by middle-income families and much better than those in rural, poor schools. The children with freedom to use their time as their instincts guided them actually taught themselves allt he information gleanable from their homes by the time they were old enough to go out alone, and then began studying many subjects independently with no prompting or guidance in libraries, shops, bookstores, museums and historic sites. My own experience and that of some unschooling friends bears out the pattern. Kids learn until someone stops them, even if it’s on the way home from a factory.
As for child labor, it is of course a separate issue, but remember that adult labor has improved with greater efficiency too. And almost all children now have parents or foster parents. It’s not likely an idle child will end up slaving away in a sweatshop in a country where most adults don’t work in sweatshops. Instead, people I know who allow their children to work find the kids learning to cook, fix bikes, sort recyclables, enter data, answer phones and post ads, all on a part-time basis, all at reasonable wages, all in a relaxed atmosphere. Then they have a walk in the park with friends, go home and talk to their parents’ guests, read a good book, play on the Xbox or whatever, and go to sleep.
 
LOL…the only people pushing vouchers are the unholy alliance we have grown to be so ashamed of, Right wing Catholics and Right wing Evangelicals. I’d say that was quite telling.
Only? How about the converse, then. The only people who want to keep all children strapped into a forced public education harness are on the Left. Shocking!!

There was a time when “only” certain people were opposed to slavery (generally thought of as nut-jobs in that era). “Only” certain folks believed in giving women the vote. And so on, and so forth. “Only” simply means that a particular group disagrees from other groups. There is no logical connection between a group being the “only” group and being the “wrong” group.

Who is “we,” anyway? Some unseen vast majority out there in space?
 
SpiritMeadow said this-
LOL…the only people pushing vouchers are the unholy alliance we have grown to be so ashamed of, Right wing Catholics and Right wing Evangelicals. I’d say that was quite telling.
Funny how ya never hear of “Left Wing Eval.” LOL.

If voting pro life, anti gay marriage, prayer in school, Nativiity Scenes at City Hall, not for handing out condoms to high school kids, not teaching America is bad, and if you’re able to work, hold a job, and after doing all that makes me a right wing Catholic, then I guess I’ll wear the lable. And I was thinking all this time I was trying to be Faithful Catholic? 😦

The way I look at it, the Evals vote with US. And if we hold true to OUR convictions, they just might start sayin, “You know I’ll say this about the Catholics, they vote what they believe.”
 
It is key that the parents have free choice in terms of educating their children.

Competition among different education systems promotes better learning.
 
Surepure tried to enlighten the cynic with this truth-

I’m right there with ya, but you’re never gonna convince a small circle of people in this country that it’s true. They’re just not gonna buy that premise.

They view govt as the answer to everything, and if you don’t support every govt program shoved at ya, you don’t care about the less fortunate.
You do realize that he/she is advocating privatizing education here. Not vouchers, complete privatization. If the parents can’t afford private tuition costs they don’t get to go to school. If both work or are unable to teach their kids, the go without any education at all. This is all about money, ie*. *I don’t want to help fund education for other people’s children. What works is irrelevant. Stay away from my income. Libertarian ideology dressed up with some faux nostalgia for a past the never existed. Anyone who disagrees is a socialist. Let’s se how many engineers or doctors we start producing when half the population can’t afford to adequately educate their kids, when money becomes the limiting factor.
 
It is key that the parents have free choice in terms of educating their children.

Competition among different education systems promotes better learning.
that is a seperate issue from where the funding comes from.
 
The Cynic made this point-
You do realize that he/she is advocating privatizing education here. Not vouchers, complete privatization. If the parents can’t afford private tuition costs they don’t get to go to school. If both work or are unable to teach their kids, the go without any education at all. This is all about money, ie. I don’t want to help fund education for other people’s children. What works is irrelevant. Stay away from my income. Libertarian ideology dressed up with some faux nostalgia for a past the never existed. Anyone who disagrees is a socialist. Let’s se how many engineers or doctors we start producing when half the population can’t afford to adequately educate their kids, when money becomes the limiting factor.
But he forgot this-

You gotta look at like this, think of how much private schooling you could buy if the govt let you KEEP the money you earned? My local districts spends about 2,000 per year per pupil. A student around here can go to pretty good private school for that kind of money.
 
LOL…the only people pushing vouchers are the unholy alliance we have grown to be so ashamed of, Right wing Catholics and Right wing Evangelicals. I’d say that was quite telling.
Indeed, so that would make you part of the Left wing Catholic and Left wing Atheist alliance which you are so proud of. :rolleyes:
 
that is a seperate issue from where the funding comes from.
All funding comes from the people. The gummint funds the “public schools” by real estate taxes … about 90% of the funding … and about 10% from income taxes at the state and Federal level.

Hey … here’s a fun thing to do. We just had our school board and school budget election. The people voted for the higher taxes and for the new fuzzy math, by the way.

Anyway, the budget on the ballot was $72 million or thereabouts, but the actual budget was $86 million. The $86 million figure was buried in a newspaper article … in one of the more aggressive suburban shopper newspapers.

If I can find the data, I want to find out the number of students in our village school system and divide the budget by the number of students to come up with the cost per student.

A few years ago I did that exercise and found that you could send your kid to the finest private school for that price. (Although not a boarding school.)
 
The Cynic made this point-

But he forgot this-

You gotta look at like this, think of how much private schooling you could buy if the govt let you KEEP the money you earned? My local districts spends about 2,000 per year per pupil. A student around here can go to pretty good private school for that kind of money.
Around here it’s up somewhere around $10K per student.

I gotta get those numbers.

It’s not something that they publicize. You really gotta dig out that information.
 
The state of Arkansas spends about $9,000 per pupil – but that only counts single-stream funding. There are many sources of funding for schools, including private foundations, government grants, and so on. Some studies indicate that single-stream funding makes up only about a third of the total. Whatever the actual amount, we can be sure it’s higher than the “official” figure.

At the same time, a recent study found that the 50 largest cities have a combined high school dropout rate of about 50%.

Clearly, socialized education has failed.

What is needed is a system that both funds education and allows parental choice and competition. The concept is simple enough – let any organization that is willing to meet the basic standareds open a school, and pay them about 90% of the per-pupil funding for every pupil they attract. Then hold them accountable for the results.

Let good schools flourish and let bad ones die.
 
You do realize that he/she is advocating privatizing education here. Not vouchers, complete privatization. If the parents can’t afford private tuition costs they don’t get to go to school. If both work or are unable to teach their kids, the go without any education at all. This is all about money, ie*. *I don’t want to help fund education for other people’s children. What works is irrelevant. Stay away from my income. Libertarian ideology dressed up with some faux nostalgia for a past the never existed. Anyone who disagrees is a socialist. Let’s se how many engineers or doctors we start producing when half the population can’t afford to adequately educate their kids, when money becomes the limiting factor.
You have interpolated some information which was not in my post. In fact, as you may recall, I said clearly that charity is the answer to our broken society, not government. Do not assume that I do not fully support a charitable system in which all people may freely give as they choose to support the needy who cannot afford schooling, even so much as to educate their own children at home. Charity is the cornerstone of our faith, and I could not call myself a Catholic without also giving myself willfully and happily to the cause of the least among us.

But we are not discussing charity in this forum. We are discussing government-run, socialized education. In liberal ideology, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is identical to the rich giving it of their own free will. In reality, though, there is a vast difference. It is one thing if I offer a good portion of my income to help educate needy children. It is an altogether different thing if a group of elitists decides to garnish my wages and give it out on my behalf as they see fit. One is free giving, the other is extortion.

Our annual property tax here is between $3,500 and $4,000. A large portion of that goes to our school district. That is, therefore, thousands of dollars which 1) I cannot invest in my own child’s education, which I deem to be much more important than to leave in the hands of the atheist-minded, politically correct, government run schoolboard, and 2) I cannot give to the charity – be it education, food, clothing, housing, medical, etc. – that I think needs it most in my area. Furthermore, I deeply resent a know-it-all, patronizing, elitist government telling me they know better than I do how to educate my own child, and how to spend my money in charity (much of which gets wasted, incidentally).

By the way, the Ivy League schools have recently begun recruiting homeschooled students becasue of their outstanding academics. I daresay many of these youngsters will become the great scientists, doctors, engineers, and literary minds of the future. It is a fatal mistake to underestimate the ability of a people-- rich or poor, educated or uneducated – to learn, grow, and rise to exceptional heights. Humans must be given much greater credit than this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top