Public education should be abolished

[GnRNightrain]

They have more money than private schools and do not do as well! The teachers are paid more and do worse. I might see how people can be pro public schools, but come on, how can anyone be against vouchers?

Im pretty conservative and pro-voucher to some extent.  But there is a reason that private schools do better, its not rocket science.  The privat schools get to pick and choose what students they take, where the public schools are forced to educate all.  Thats why they do so much better.  If they had the same crop of students from the same ghetto neighborhoods then they would probably be pretty close.

Many will argue with vouchers the same thing will happen.  The private schools will keep the same "high level" kids that they are already taking, and the poor "not so bright" kids will be left out to dry because the private school wont let them in.  Then public schools that need more money because they have the problem kids and the kids with the learning disabilities will have less funds because the private school kids that "most" already had the money to pay for private school anyway will get money in their pocket, while that funding will be diverted from public schools.  yes it is a form of social welfare, but a justified one if there is one.

[GnRNightrain]

Frankly, I'm not really sure how to improve public schools...  I would get the parents more involved in their child's education.  I would ensure that the teachers are well-trained and make their class environment productive.  I would remove a lot of the bureaucracy that eats up the federal money.  I would try damn hard to make people understand that learning is fun... I sound like a big fucking nerd, dont I?

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Thats the biggest problem with education today is the parenting.  It is not so much bad teachers, wrong textbooks, funding, etc.  It is parenting.  Take for instance Asian students.  There are many that come over here dirt poor.  They live in bad neighborhoods etc and encounter all of the other problems as anyone else.  But in their culture they see hte importance of education, and parents spend their entire life working hard so they can send their kids to school and get them an education.  That is why they suceed despite the odds and excuses that everyone else uses.
Parents flat out dont spend the time encourage and push their kids anymore.  Usually nowadays either both parents work 12 hour days, or they are in one parent families.  In California and many of the states on the border the numbers are so bad because half of the students are Mexican students whose parents dont speak english and have no clue how to help their kids with various subjects.  SOme of these parents want the most for their children, but they arent able to help them.  
Parenting has been the big thing that has changed.  Parents make excuses for their kids etc and their lack of supervision by blaming teachers etc.  When these kids come home they have no supervision, and instead of doing homework they go and screw off.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Take for instance Asian students.  There are many that come over here dirt poor.  They live in bad neighborhoods etc and encounter all of the other problems as anyone else.  But in their culture they see hte importance of education, and parents spend their entire life working hard so they can send their kids to school and get them an education.  That is why they suceed despite the odds and excuses that everyone else uses.

I'll second that.  You wont believe how much money I earn from tutoring Asian students.  
And I notice that they always work ahead of whatever they're learning in class at the moment.  So when the class learns it for the first time, it appears as if they are geniuses, when in reality they have just been exposed to the material earlier.  It's sneaky but clever.

In California and many of the states on the border the numbers are so bad because half of the students are Mexican students whose parents dont speak english and have no clue how to help their kids with various subjects.  

CA is in a conundrum.  Sometimes I feel we shouldnt educate illegal immigrants because they arent paying for it when everybody else is!  But I realize that if we dont educate them, they are more likely to become criminals and we will pay for them anyway when they are in prison.  

Therefore I think CA and other states with immigrant problems should receive extra federal funding because it's not fair to our education systems.  

Parenting has been the big thing that has changed.  Parents make excuses for their kids etc and their lack of supervision by blaming parents etc.  When these kids come home they have no supervision, and instead of doing homework they go and screw off.

I totally agree.  But this exits the realm of government and enters the realm of culture.  Some Conservatives feel that government should try to regulate popular culture (i.e. Prohibition, FCC regulations, banning gay marriage, etc), but the laws tend to exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it.   Should the government pass laws to encourage parents to be proper parents?  I dont know.  Maybe there should be an IQ test (or something similar) to pass in order to become a parent.

[Cornell]

Maybe there should be an IQ test (or something similar) to pass in order to become a parent.

Great - only the intelligent can procreate.  

[Mal Brossard]

Republicans stand for personal liberty, limited government, and state's rights.

Only in election years.

Personal liberty-- what do you have to say about the FCC again?  Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy here?  Or do you only stand for personal liberty in certain circumstances?  Please define this further for me.

Limited government-- the department of Homeland Security certainly helped limit the government.  Last time I checked, we had a department dedicated to keeping the homeland safe.  It was called the Department of Defense.

State's rights-- the only part I agree that the Republicans stand for.  But once again, how do you justify the FCC, as in the other thread?  You can't have it both ways.

[Acquiesce]

I have very little faith in the public school system. I seen the difference between private and public schools firsthand because I attended both types of schools. I even was sent to an alternative school for a year (a school for kids on probation) and even that was school was better than the public schools.

The difference between public and private (Catholic) school is like night and day. I went to a private school from kindergarden through 6th grade. I had a ton of friends in public schools so I begged to be transferred to one. I thought private school was lame and I detested having to wear a uniform. My parents finally let me transfer, but my happiness didn't last too long.

I transferred at the last minute so the school hadn't received my records yet. They stuck me in the last track classes (the kids who just barely pass each grade), which was only supposed to be temporary, but my homeroom teacher held me there the whole year. The first thing I noticed was that public schools are behind private schools. I was learning things in 7th grade that I had already learned in 5th and 6th grade in private school. The other thing I immediately noticed was the poor reading and comprehension skills public school kids had compared to kids in private school. Many of the last track kids seemed to be on a 4th grade reading level while I was already on a high school level.

The sad part is, no one seemed to care about these kids.  It's not like they were special ed (I hate to see what their classes were like) because all they needed was someone to take the time out to teach them but no one ever did. They spent more time causing trouble or being suspended than they did learning.

That is the other major difference between public and private schools. Public school discipline is a lot more relaxed and inconsistant than private school. The Catholic school I wasn't even that bad. I mean it wasn't the stereotypical school where nuns beat you with rulers. In fact, we hardly had any nuns and the few we had were old enough to be your great-grandmother but that's another story. I've seen public school kids get away with so much shit that private school kids wouldn't even dare to attempt, at least not in the presence of adults.  I've seen kids curse and talk back to teachers, I've seen them threaten them, I've seen them make one cry and treat her like shit, I've seen numerous of physical fights, I knew 2 kids who had sex in the auditorium. I could go on and on.

Oh and another thing, private school has stricter requirements to be passed to the next grade and yet I've seen way more kids in public school fail than I did in private school.

Public schools are just way too large and it's entirely too easy for children to slip through the cracks.

By the way, I did eventually get put in the right classes (the advanced class) and it was a lot better than the last track classes, but there was still much difference between them and private school.

My future children will never attend a public school. I will do whatever it takes to make sure of that.  I am not a religious person in the least, but I would rather my children be stuck in religious school and get the best education possible than be in the horrid public school system.

[Psycho]

I dont like alot of things about the public school system, i dont know what the answer is but something needs to be done.

[axls#2]

Here in America, poor people are poor because they buy lotto tickets, beer, cigs, drugs, and abuse credit cards. They are not poor because they are being taken advantage of. They are a unique type of poor people who are poor because they choose to be poor. Only in America...



Being lazy=being poor. It has nothing to do with being exploited. That's how it is here in America. I say we stick to having libraries, forget schools. Why should someone have a teacher teach him if he is capable of learning himself, in his own way and own pace, in a library? Why should he be slowed down if he is the smartest in his class, and the teacher has to teach slower for the lazy students who don't study? If people taught themselves we would be much better off.

this is totally ridiculous, so rich people don't smoke, drink or do drugs? Only lazy people are poor? That's not entirely true, some of the hardest jobs in the country are jobs that aren't gonna get you rich. Ever heard of blue collar work? And you probably can get rich if you want to, but i think it would be easier if you have very low moral standards, hell pornstars make a ton of cash. Do you think they work harder than a construction worker or someone who works in a mine? Your not gonna get rich just by working hard, a little luck is involved too.

[Walk]

I've looked into being a porn star. It's not as great as it's made out to be. It's simply torture if you're a girl! It's actually hard work, if you can believe it.

And "blue collar" jobs pay damn well. Steel and auto workers can make $30+ an hour in pay and benefits, easily. Construction also pays well. Mining jobs are the exception to the rule of good pay for hard work. Reason being: Irish immigrants worked cheap in the mines in the 19th century, and wages still haven't caught up!   Most industry jobs pay well.

Public schools can crack down on problem students just as hard as private schools can. They are put on Ritalin or sent to alternative schools or special ed classes. They have no excuse for poor performance.

There are so many jobs that do not require the skills taught in school. What's wrong with sending a 7 year old off as an apprentice in a trade? That's how things used to be in the good old days. If I don't want my kids going to school I shouldn't be forced to send them.

As for us Republicans, well, we believe security comes before freedom. We don't need airplanes ramming buildings or commies on the radio trying to poison our childrens' minds. Public school is bad enough! Sometimes, you have to have restrictions on freedom to protect what freedom you have left. I believe people realize this as they get older.

If we had to keep them, my solution to public schools is to only promote important classes. No EC activities. No art or music. Nothing but math, science, American and European history, and grammar.

No literature or plays, that's entertainment and not the business of schools. Students who learn the basics of English can do what they want with it. They shouldn't be forced to read what they don't want. That turns too many students away from reading.

I say blaming the parents just doesn't work. They don't want their kids in the schools, the kids don't want to be in the schools, and even the teachers don't want to teach the disruptive brats! If they don't want to go to school, then they shouldn't have to.

[jarmo]

What's wrong with sending a 7 year old off as an apprentice in a trade? That's how things used to be in the good old days.

I belive they still do it in some countries, it's called child labor.

To me it sounds like you want to go back to the stone age...... Maybe that's what being "conservative" means?  



/jarmo

[Doc Emmett Brown]

I've looked into being a porn star.

As for us Republicans,

Republican smut - oh yeah baby!!!    sorry - I couldnt resist.

Posted by: jarmo  Posted on: Today at 03:15:15am  
I belive they still do it in some countries, it's called child labor.

To me it sounds like you want to go back to the stone age......  

We might go back to the stone age if it ever comes to all out nuclear warfare.  I had a discussion about that with my friends the other day.  Just think, we would return to a pre-Industrial era because our knowledge is not widely spread.  What percentage of people know how a transistor works?  A simple textbook on applied physics would look like a book of Dark Arts & Black Magic.

Therefore, we need to strengthen public education so that the knowledge of the civilized world is not so concentrated in the minds of a few.

Maybe some of you have seen this: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
It's MIT's open courseware site where the highly motivated can teach themselves differential equations!    

[Walk]

Child labor has too much of a negative connotation in the Western world. It helps build character, motivation, and respect for authority. Not all child labor involves 14 hour workdays and dangerous working conditions. Too many revisionists compare it to slavery. This simply isn't true.

These days, traditional values do seem to be part of the "stone age." In many ways, living a conservative lifestyle is much better. Sheiks, for example, do not have to worry about their wives or kids nagging them. They don't have to worry about who will take care of them when they're old. They don't have to worry about what's for dinner, it's already on the table when they get home. Kinda like America in 1954.

So, would you rather live like a shiek, or go home to a soap opera watching bitch, lazy kids, and a frozen tv dinner? I know I would like being the shiek more.  

[Mal Brossard]

Wait a minute.  Security comes before freedom?  And yet, we're making ourselves out to be the defenders of the free world by going out and bombing a bunch of sovereign nations full of brown people, and restricting rights at home.  With "freedom" like this, who needs security?

"Those who give up freedom for a little extra security deserve neither freedom nor security." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Child labor has a negative connotation?  God, you conservatives are just as bad as liberals wanting to change the name of something just because you don't like the way it sounds.  Can't call them cripples anymore, they're differently abled.  Not homosexual, but same-sex oriented.  Can't call the blind blind, they're visually impared.  Can't call Michael Moore fat, he's gravitationally disadvantaged.  No more old people, they're geriontologically advanced.  Soldiers con't get shell shock anymore, they have post-traumatic stress disorder.  Bullshit, no matter what spin you put on it, it's child labor.

And as for your conservative lifestyle, what happens when the wife doesn't have the dinner on the table?  Apparently the solution to your problem is to enslave all the women to be completely subservient to mens' desires.  Last time I checked, women were people too.  Maybe you could try doing everything around the house for a few weeks while still holding a job to help pay for your kids' private schools.  I don't think you'd do it, and frankly I don't blame any woman who won't do it either.

As for respect for authority, this country was founded on fighting back against authority.  You conservatives seem to love talking about the values our country was founded on, yet also love to try to get people to shut up every time they question any form of authority.  Unless that authority is a Middle Eastern guy who you think has chemical weapons.  Like I've said before, you can't have it both ways.

Conservative values just reek of hypocrisy.

So you'd like being a sheik?  You want your woman to be completely subservient to everything you want?  Good, the middle east is waiting for you to come home.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Wait a minute.  Security comes before freedom?  And yet, we're making ourselves out to be the defenders of the free world by going out and bombing a bunch of sovereign nations full of brown people, and restricting rights at home.  With "freedom" like this, who needs security?

Walk's just trying to get a rise out of us - and he's doing a good job at that.

So he wants to be Al Bundy and have a hot daughter to come home to.  That appears to be his idea of 'American sheikh'.

"Those who give up freedom for a little extra security deserve neither freedom nor security." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Now if Benjamin were alive today, what political party would he belong to?  I'm betting on Libertarian  

The true core of the Republican Party is supposed to be akin to Libertarianism(i.e. a small government that places priority on personal freedom, and delegates most of the work to the individual states - such as public education).

But then it got overrun by people who like to mention God, Bush, America, and government all in the same breath.  So much for separation of Church and State.  

[Walk]

Let me just put it this way. It's hard to improve security without making a sacrifice. But sometimes, sacrifices must be made for the good of the country. The national interest comes before personal objections. I can do without a few civil liberties if it means protecting myself from terrorists.

Benjamin Franklin was one of those DEISTS who thought the average American should decide everything. He was also a rich diplomat to FRANCE. He is actually very similar to Kerry. And he never became president. He never understood what the job is all about.

Also, Ben lived in a primitive time when technology was not very advanced. He didn't know about nuclear weapons. He thought it was fine for public militias to have the same weapons as a professional army! Things were different then.

The Constitution is a flexible document that can be changed to reflect changing times. For example, in this time of moral decadence, we need a new amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage. Older amendments can be discarded if it serves the public good. Right now, Americans don't care about the first amendment as much as surviving a day at work!

I'm an average, middle class American and I'm not paid for my opinions. Bush is an Ivy league grad and a professional. Most of all, he's a Christian. He knows what he's doing. I think he can be trusted more than flip flop Kerry. He knows stuff we don't know.

Kerry would be even worse than Bush. Between the two, Bush is the best way to go. So if you hate conservatives so much, have you even thought about how the alternative would be?

[Walk]

Libertarians think drugs should be legalized. I think that says a lot about their agenda. Not to mention prostitution, no immigration or trade regulations, and environmental beliefs that would make Bush look like a Green weenie!  

Ah well, voting Libertarian is the same as voting for Kerry.

[Mal Brossard]

And what, may I ask, is wrong with drug legalization and prostitution legalization?  Keeping it all illegal is just another way for the government to intrude on us, and letting them decide for us what's right.  You are so opposed to the government telling us what to do with our children in terms of education, but you find it alright for them to tell us what we can and can't do behind closed doors?

For the record I'm a libertarian.  I do not use drugs (I don't even drink or smoke), I would never even visit a legal prostitute, I believe people should be permitted to live and visit where they want, and that free trade is best for our economy.  Any impediments to this are just another part of this big government interference you claim conservatives are so opposed to.

If conservatives truly favor the rights of the individual over a big government, why don't they show it?

Also as for the security thing, when did the Department of Defense become something other than for keeping the country safe?  Apparently it did, since we now have this Department of Homeland Security.  Any answer there, chief?

Let me get this straight.  According to the previous post, since Bush is a Christian, he's more qualified than we are to make decisions?  How so?  Are Christian values so much higher than Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist, or moderate Islamic values that we absolutely must have a Christian in charge?

And yes, Franklin was a deist.  Why does that matter?  And yes, he believed that the average American should have rights to make decisions.  What's wrong with that?

And yes, the founding fathers believed that militias deserve the same weapons as the government's military.  So Mr. Good Conservative, are you saying you don't toe the party line and favor a more open second amendment?  How can we truly have control over our government if we can't have the same things as the governors?  Conservatives claim to believe in the Bill of Rights and personal responsibility.  Apparently not on matters of drugs, sex, sexual equality, weapons possession, and the freedom of speech.

Kerry knows stuff we don't?  Again, on what grounds do you claim this?  Doesn't every corrupt politician?  Are you claiming Bush only knows what we know?  If so, why is he in charge of one of the world's most powerful countries?

And frankly, if voting Libertarian is the same as voting Kerry, I will GLADLY punch my ballot for Michael Badnarik.  The only thing the conservatives give us is more control over our money.  Democrats want to give increased freedom over our lives.  Either way, they find a way to control us.  I can live my life much better if I can make my own choices regarding my life rather than my money, if I had to choose between the two.  Though I will always vote Libertarian first, give me a Democrat over a Republican ANY day.

*Edited for typos*

[Walk]

You're definitely wrong on the Homeland Security department. It's actually several agencies working closer together than ever, more efficiently and effectively. It's not so much a new entity but a stronger unity between existing programs. It is better organized and better funded than what we had before.

Secondly, if prostitution and all drugs were legal, AIDS and other diseases would be horribly widespread. Then, medicare and other health care costs would increase. Legalizing vices would end up making government even bigger when everyone gets sick and needs medical care! My belief in keeping it illegal is actually cheaper and saves the middle class more taxpayer dollars.

There is no easy answer to these issues. Tearing down every government program in sight is not going to solve them. Libertarians are too extreme to be taken seriously.

Historically, 3rd parties tend to do well when America is in trouble. Just before the Civil War, 3rd parties like the Whigs and Free Soil and other abolitionist parties did well. In the early 20th century, when Communism was spreading, 3rd parties like the Progressives and Socialists were doing well.

These days, America is strong and more united than ever. Libertarian membership is down since pre 9/11 days. This is a sign things are getting better under the Bush administration: 3rd parties are getting weaker.

And finally, don't lie: you know you would vote Bush if Badnarik wasn't running. What you're doing now is indirectly voting for Kerry.

[Mal Brossard]

Better funded?  Our Defense Department (read: military) is already finded better than that of any other country by a large margin.  Not my fault the government would rather spend that money on offense than defense.

Would AIDS be more widespread?  Only if people all decide to engage in unprotected sex with people with AIDS and share their needles.  and how would it cost the government in health care if we cut government funding of health care, another Libertarian principle?  

So if taking down an ineffective government isn't the way to solve problems, what is?  Give the people more ineffective government?  Keep the same ineffective government?  And who decides what programs get cut if we cut them?

America is strong and more united than ever.

And those presidential polls sure show it  

And even if Badnarik wasn't running, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for anyone named Bush.  George 1, George 2, Jeb, or Neil.  Or even grand-daddy Prescott for that matter.  If it were a two-party-only system, I'd rather live somewhere with a choice.

[Walk]

Well, doctors have to be paid. If they aren't, then they can't treat the sick. It would be embarassing for America to have people dying on the street. Public health care is for improving the national image. It can't really be abused, though, as heavily as European health care. It isn't encouraged.

Our health care system is good. It's not an absolute free market, but it isn't a free for all buffet either. I'm conservative, but I don't think people should just die on the streets. I'm a compassionate conservative.  

When comparing GDP to military spending, America isn't really that militaristic of a country. A lot of military spending goes to research that can lead to private market technology. A lot of this technology saves lives, like aerial reconaissance drones. When military spending is cut, it usually hurts the grunt soldier the most.