Public education should be abolished

[Mal Brossard]

Doctors would still be paid, and people wouldnt all die on the street.  Like you say earlier in this thread, with no taxes from nothing to spend money on, people would have more money, and would be able to afford hospital bills on their own.  Well, unless they were too busy paying for education to care about the price of their health.  

For those who still couldn't afford health care, I'm certain someone out there would start a charity to help out the less fortunate.  If you want to argue that some people wouldn't be able to afford health care and die in the streets, then you would have to agree that not everyone would be able to afford private education, and would be forced to go without schooling.

The NATO average for military spending in terms of GDP is 2%.  In 2003, the US was at 3.7%, almost double the NATO average.  Even in 2000 before the war on terror, we were spending 3%, or 1.5 times the NATO average.  And as I previously stated, most of this was spent on offense (weaponry, and pointless weaponry, I might add... what really did the MOAB's accomplish in a country trhat already consists of a lot of rubble?  Still no sign of bin Laden...) rather than defense.

[Mal Brossard]

Forgot to add that in 2003, military spending was 49% of the US's discretionary spending.

[Walk]

The difference is, going without public education is a good thing! You can't get shot or beat up or brainwashed if you stay away from those liberal concentration camps.

Offence is greater than defence, this is a no duh statement. "National Defence" is such a stupid statement because offence is preferable to defence. It's more expensive, of course, but it's better. NATO actually wastes money on their military because they don't use it! We, however, have liberated 2 countries in a single presidential term.

[Mal Brossard]

You can't get shot or beat up or brainwashed if you stay away from those liberal concentration camps.

OK, so eliminating public education will also eliminate mind control (which is more a conservative phenomenon than liberal; find the declassified documents on MK-ULTRA from the CIA) and violence?  How so?

So it's better to be going out and attacking random third-world countries full of brown people who might have something against us (and also happen to have a lot of oil) than to be paying attention to defending outselves?  Unprovoked attacks like this are no different than a terrorist attacking a target.

[Informer4.0]

Offence is greater than defence, this is a no duh statement. "National Defence" is such a stupid statement because offence is preferable to defence. It's more expensive, of course, but it's better. NATO actually wastes money on their military because they don't use it! We, however, have liberated 2 countries in a single presidential term.

What in the hell does this have to do with public education? Other than your spelling?

[KeVoRkIaN]

Publicly funded education is probably the best use of your tax dollars. ?If you were to look at some of the other things you are paying for you'd be more disappointed. ?I think I'd pass on an elitist system where only the rich could get an education - I think we moved away from that a very very long time ago for good reason. ?As a teacher, I chose to work in the underfunded schools in the public system as opposed to working in the private sector. ?I believe in the public system and it would be catastrophic to society if it were to be abolished. ?Then again I guess I have been brainwashing kids with the "liberal" evils of Mathematics, Physical Education and AIDS Awareness for all these years.........

[Queen of Everything]

I think it is a BAD idea... Some families cannot afford private schools!!  I know I go to a private school.  But lots of friends of mine go to public schools because they cannot afford a private education as it is quiet expensive to say the least.

[Carlos_f_Rose]

Public Education should NOT be abolished, but what needs to be changed, is the Government behavior concerned with the manegement of Taxes -- Money --   Remember, not everybody can afford education, it has to have a price even if its a small one, to create some kind of conciensce and in the students so they care more about the study, now it costs something and they give them the apropiate value.... 
lets give everybody a chance, even if it goes, against  Nietzsche thoughts about life...

[Axl_owns_dexter]

In reality, the money the US spends on public education has little to do with performance.  The US spends in the top 3 I believe in the world in terms of GDP percentage on Education.  Yet we are somwhere in the middle of the pack in terms of performance.  However, some schools here (like where I live in Wisconsin) do really well, while some (like in Washington DC) do absolutely horrible.  While the schools in DC receive some of the highest funding per student in the world.

It all really comes down to parenting and having 2 parents in the household.  That is our biggest problem.  Parents are not reinforcing the knowledge that kids are getting in school.   Asian Americans have proven time and time again in this country that being poor doesn't have to be a hindrance in terms of academic performance.

[SLCPUNK]

  Asian Americans have proven time and time again in this country that being poor doesn't have to be a hindrance in terms of academic performance.

True dhat.

While family, discipline and integrity have everything to do with it.

[pilferk]

In reality, the money the US spends on public education has little to do with performance.? The US spends in the top 3 I believe in the world in terms of GDP percentage on Education.? Yet we are somwhere in the middle of the pack in terms of performance.? However, some schools here (like where I live in Wisconsin) do really well, while some (like in Washington DC) do absolutely horrible.? While the schools in DC receive some of the highest funding per student in the world.

It all really comes down to parenting and having 2 parents in the household.? That is our biggest problem.? Parents are not reinforcing the knowledge that kids are getting in school.? ?Asian Americans have proven time and time again in this country that being poor doesn't have to be a hindrance in terms of academic performance.

I've always said that we need to stop using schools, especially past grammer school, as "prisons" and/or "free day care".? Unfortunately, that's exactly what we do, and mostly by govt mandate.

The kids who don't want to learn aren't going to be forced to.? And they just provide a distraction to those that do. REQUIRING a child to be in school, or be home schooled, to a certain age is actually counterproductive to the education process, IMHO.? Offering the opportunity is enough, I think.

The opportunity for education should be a right, but it should come with more than a bit of personal (and parental) responsibility.  The current system ducks all of that by not making it a right, but a requirement.....and the over-regulation of it dilutes it's effectiveness.

[Surfrider]

In reality, the money the US spends on public education has little to do with performance.? The US spends in the top 3 I believe in the world in terms of GDP percentage on Education.? Yet we are somwhere in the middle of the pack in terms of performance.? However, some schools here (like where I live in Wisconsin) do really well, while some (like in Washington DC) do absolutely horrible.? While the schools in DC receive some of the highest funding per student in the world.

It all really comes down to parenting and having 2 parents in the household.? That is our biggest problem.? Parents are not reinforcing the knowledge that kids are getting in school.? ?Asian Americans have proven time and time again in this country that being poor doesn't have to be a hindrance in terms of academic performance.

I've always said that we need to stop using schools, especially past grammer school, as "prisons" and/or "free day care".? Unfortunately, that's exactly what we do, and mostly by govt mandate.

The kids who don't want to learn aren't going to be forced to.? And they just provide a distraction to those that do.

I definately agree; that is why my kids are going to attend private schools.? For the most part, parents that are willing to pay the money care more about their child's education.? I agree that 95% of them will never go anywhere.? That is why it is so important to separate within each grade level those kids that need to be pushed more and those kids that need more help.? Placing them all together in the same classroom only hinders the kids that need to be pushed harder.? The teacher's time is directed at babysitting those kids that can't sit still in their seats.

REQUIRING a child to be in school, or be home schooled, to a certain age is actually counterproductive to the education process, IMHO.? Offering the opportunity is enough, I think.

This I am not so sure of.? I understand that you can't force anyone into learning; however, I do believe that some of these children would be absolutely lost without school.? If it wasn't required certain parents would care less if their children attended school, many of which would not provide their children with the opportunity to attend school.? I think there are too many parents that don't care, which would lead to a greater gap between those that have and those that have nothing.? Call it paternalism, but I actually think it is necessary.? Without education there is no hope for these kids.? Of course, once they reach high school I would probably agree.? Of course, I would probably require that kids show proof that they are working during the day in order not to attend school.? I don't think it is to any city's advantage to have youth between 14 and 18 running wild during the day.

[pilferk]

In reality, the money the US spends on public education has little to do with performance.? The US spends in the top 3 I believe in the world in terms of GDP percentage on Education.? Yet we are somwhere in the middle of the pack in terms of performance.? However, some schools here (like where I live in Wisconsin) do really well, while some (like in Washington DC) do absolutely horrible.? While the schools in DC receive some of the highest funding per student in the world.

It all really comes down to parenting and having 2 parents in the household.? That is our biggest problem.? Parents are not reinforcing the knowledge that kids are getting in school.? ?Asian Americans have proven time and time again in this country that being poor doesn't have to be a hindrance in terms of academic performance.

I've always said that we need to stop using schools, especially past grammer school, as "prisons" and/or "free day care".? Unfortunately, that's exactly what we do, and mostly by govt mandate.

The kids who don't want to learn aren't going to be forced to.? And they just provide a distraction to those that do.

I definately agree; that is why my kids are going to attend private schools.? For the most part, parents that are willing to pay the money care more about their child's education.? I agree that 95% of them will never go anywhere.? That is why it is so important to separate within each grade level those kids that need to be pushed more and those kids that need more help.? Placing them all together in the same classroom only hinders the kids that need to be pushed harder.? The teacher's time is directed at babysitting those kids that can't sit still in their seats.

I actually started out in a private school..and was one of those kids who couldn't sit still....because I was bored to tears.  We had homogonized classes (this was in the early to mid 80's, remember).  I was usually the first one done and would then get in trouble for talking to fellow classmates or things of that nature.  I remember my frustration at not having anything to do and at the fact the teacher didn't move fast enough.  So I can see where you're coming from....

REQUIRING a child to be in school, or be home schooled, to a certain age is actually counterproductive to the education process, IMHO.? Offering the opportunity is enough, I think.

This I am not so sure of.? I understand that you can't force anyone into learning; however, I do believe that some of these children would be absolutely lost without school.? If it wasn't required certain parents would care less if their children attended school, many of which would not provide their children with the opportunity to attend school.? I think there are too many parents that don't care, which would lead to a greater gap between those that have and those that have nothing.? Call it paternalism, but I actually think it is necessary.? Without education there is no hope for these kids.? Of course, once they reach high school I would probably agree.? Of course, I would probably require that kids show proof that they are working during the day in order not to attend school.? I don't think it is to any city's advantage to have youth between 14 and 18 running wild during the day.

Actually, you don't disagree, really.? When I noted "especially after grammer school", I meant that to qualify the following opinion.? Sorry, I know I wasn't clear.

For our neck of the woods, grammer school ends at grade 6.? That means, most kids are between 11 and 12 before heading into 7th grade.? At this point, our "disagreement" is tantamount to just a couple of years.

7th grade, from the studies I've read, is where the real "break point" starts to set in.? Part of it, I'm sure, is puberty setting in in earnest and all the hormones raging.? But a good part of it is, by that point, the child is more or less capable of a conscious decision on just how involved they want to be in the educational process.? I think, for those that make the choice that the educational process isn't for them, there could be other alternatives provided.....which would be less expensive, and less burdensome on the taxpayer.? In turn, those that DO choose education would choose benefit from smaller class sizes, increased focus by the teachers, and a reduction in the "distractions" from other students who are only there because "they have to be".
That would not only benefit those that excel, but it would benefit those who need extra help or have "special needs", as well (provided they chose to stay within the system).?

I'm sure there will be some arguments that this sets up a "have/have not" caste system, and, to some extent, I agree.? But, then again, we already do.?

Again, all JMHO.

[Axl_owns_dexter]

Adopting the German idea of splitting up the "thinkers" and "doers" would be the best thing to happen to public education in this country.  Why have a kid who is going into the trades be bogged down with stuff he doesn't need (for the most part) in high school.

[pilferk]

Adopting the German idea of splitting up the "thinkers" and "doers" would be the best thing to happen to public education in this country.? Why have a kid who is going into the trades be bogged down with stuff he doesn't need (for the most part) in high school.

We actually have a Technical School near us that is offered as an option to all the high school bound (or age, for that matter)surrounding students.? They do just that.? 50% Academics and 50% Trade training.? ?The acedemics aren't "dumbed down", either.? But they leave some of the more "college bound" classes (Trig, different lit classes, etc) out of the curriculum.? It works wonders for those inclined toward that area.

[Prometheus]

Adopting the German idea of splitting up the "thinkers" and "doers" would be the best thing to happen to public education in this country.? Why have a kid who is going into the trades be bogged down with stuff he doesn't need (for the most part) in high school.

We actually have a Technical School near us that is offered as an option to all the high school bound (or age, for that matter)surrounding students.? They do just that.? 50% Academics and 50% Trade training.? ?The acedemics aren't "dumbed down", either.? But they leave some of the more "college bound" classes (Trig, different lit classes, etc) out of the curriculum.? It works wonders for those inclined toward that area.

they leave out trig?


intresting, wonder how you would find the displacement between 2 points in a vector quanity....

[pilferk]

Adopting the German idea of splitting up the "thinkers" and "doers" would be the best thing to happen to public education in this country.? Why have a kid who is going into the trades be bogged down with stuff he doesn't need (for the most part) in high school.

We actually have a Technical School near us that is offered as an option to all the high school bound (or age, for that matter)surrounding students.? They do just that.? 50% Academics and 50% Trade training.? ?The acedemics aren't "dumbed down", either.? But they leave some of the more "college bound" classes (Trig, different lit classes, etc) out of the curriculum.? It works wonders for those inclined toward that area.

they leave out trig?


intresting, wonder how you would find the displacement between 2 points in a vector quanity....

I think they teach trig within the math curriculum, but don't have a whole "class" devoted to it.  I'll ask my cousin (who attended).

[Prometheus]

cool cause im in a tech school myself.... leaning heavily on the eng. side ..... heavy course load..... but really good, and we dont have a course fully devoted to trig, however that being said, we do use trig in physics and math rather heavily (can do it in my sleep). It jsut so happens we were discussing some different cirrclium approaches today from the US and canada vs newfoundland wehre im to, and one place we were looking at was indinia and how they have somewhat of the same thing that you are talking about aswell as a degree granting tech school.

[pilferk]

cool cause im in a tech school myself.... leaning heavily on the eng. side ..... heavy course load..... but really good, and we dont have a course fully devoted to trig, however that being said, we do use trig in physics and math rather heavily (can do it in my sleep). It jsut so happens we were discussing some different cirrclium approaches today from the US and canada vs newfoundland wehre im to, and one place we were looking at was indinia and how they have somewhat of the same thing that you are talking about aswell as a degree granting tech school.

I talked to him last night and he said pretty much what I assumed.  They cover trig in math class, but they do not do a full year course on it.  The trig they cover is more "practical application" type stuff...no proofs and such.

[jarmo]

This is sort of related:

Leading by example

The Swedish government is proposing to start pupils at school according to their ability - not age. Is this a policy that we could soon see being introduced in British schools? Gwladys Fouch? reports

Wednesday October 5, 2005

 
While British youngsters start school at around five years old, their Scandinavian cousins tend to begin at seven
 
Pupils should start school according to ability, not age. This is what the Swedish government is proposing, in an attempt to make the system adapt better to children's needs.
While British youngsters take the plunge at around five years old, their Scandinavian cousins tend to begin at seven. The Swedish schools minister, Ibrahim Baylan, now wants to allow parents the option to send little Sven and Lena either at six, seven or eight.

"Children develop at different rates," explained Mr Baylan. "We want the system to have more flexibility so that it fits individual kids better."

In August, 92,000 Swedish youngsters went to class for the first time. Most attended one year of preschool before that. The vast majority - 95% - were seven, with the remainder either starting at six or eight years old. Parents currently need permission from their local authority if they want their child to start at eight. Under the new rules, they would no longer have to ask.

Mr Baylan says it should be up to families to decide when is the most appropriate time to start school, because parents are the ones who know their children best. "This would benefit those born late in the year and kids who have recently come to Sweden with their families," he says.

The proposal has broadly been welcomed for adding a degree of flexibility to a bureaucratic system. The head of the Swedish parents' association, Bo Sundb?ck, said: "It is generally a good idea. Kids develop differently, so some seven-year-olds have the maturity of 10-year-olds, and vice-versa."

However, he and other education professionals warn of potential pitfalls, not least the risk of parents pushing their precious one too early, in order for them to become the next Einstein. "There could be more pressure on the parents to make the kids start earlier, even if they are not ready," Mr Sundb?ck explained.

"Parents want the best for their children, they want them to be the cleverest, the most mature," agreed Lena Nyberg, the children's ombudsman, whose job involves promoting the interests of youngsters in public debate. "So many of them would probably want an early school start as a sign of status, when it could be too early for them to leave the playground."

Another thorny issue is the question of what happens on the other side of the system. "School is compulsory until 16. So what happens when a kid finishes at 15?" asked Metta Fjelkner, the president of the National Union of Teachers. "Both ends need to be considered."

On the other hand, many believe that there should be even more flexibility in the system, with intakes happening in spring as well as in the beginning of the school year. "Even a half-year is an ocean of time in the life of a six-year-old," argued commentator PJ Anders Linder in the conservative daily newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. "To begin a year early is a big decision. But half a year is a little less dramatic and it also applies to an even higher degree if you choose to wait [with going to school]."

Others even suggest that intakes could be done on a monthly basis. "Children could start in August, September, October or any other month in the year," believes the head of the Swedish Teachers' Union, Eva-Lis Priesz. "We need to look at the strengths, weaknesses and needs of each child and see what would be best."

In a similar move, one British secondary school is for the first time this year teaching mixed-age classes. At Bridgemary community school in Gosport, Hampshire, some 12-year-olds are currently learning GCSE courses alongside pupils a couple of years older, at level two. The argument, like in the Nordic country, is that kids have different levels of development and the school system should reflect this. Or as Bridgemary's headmaster, Cheryl Heron, puts it: "Why hold a child back if he or she is clearly ready for something more challenging?"

Many other education professionals favour this flexible approach. "The Swedish initiative is a good idea," reckons Alan Smithers, the director of Buckingham's Centre for Education and Employment Research. "We rush ahead to teach kids writing and arithmetic when some of them have not yet the skills to hold a pen. Some children end up left behind."

Professor Smithers is pushing for a system in which children aged between three and six will attend a 'foundation' course, and the age at which they start will depend on how mature or advanced they are. "If a child is behind because of, say, an illness, he or she will be able to catch up. If a child is gifted, then he or she could be moved up earlier."

Then, from six till 14, pupils would attend a 'compulsory' phase, with all the general subjects on the curriculum. Specialisation would only come from age 14.

So, will we see more age-flexible policies across Britain's schools?

"Colleges commonly have mixed-age classes and I think more and more schools will be experimenting with mixed-age classes," said John Dunford, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, earlier this month.

"Our education system is too age-related," he added, "and this is reflected in the way the league tables are about the performance of 16-year-olds and fail to reflect good results by pupils a year later. Moving away from an age-related system can have benefits."


Seems like the school system is becoming more and more flexible compared to when I went to school. We had classes and that was it. It wasn't until 7th grade that we could choose if we wanted to study German, French or something else and also if we wanted to take the regular maths course or the more advanced one.



/jarmo