Those who are not catholic or "priveleged" could form their own schools. Educational requirements would be developed on a school by school basis where markets determine what children must know. Since the market would conclude that people who have broad-ranging knowledge make the best employees, not much would be different from current school systems. Except, children would be better educated and standards would be more difficult.
You would expect a community that is "underpriveleged" (let's face it, underpriveleged is simply a polite way to say "broke as fuck") to form their own schools?! Sounds to me like Social Darwinism at its absolute most hideous.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
And....if you are not catholic or privledged where are you supposed to go to get educated?
Just because you are catholic doesn't mean you automatically get to go to a Catholic school. Many parents, such as mine when I was growing up, just have to prioritize things in their life and give up a lot of stuff to send their kids to a Catholic school.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
Try telling that to the multitude of doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc. that have emerged from the public school system. i won't argue that there isn't a need for some tweaking of how public education is administered, but to say there should be no public education is to endorse a despicable policy of Social Darwinism that should make anyone ashamed.
if cities want to build schools, they can levy taxes to do so. if it is important, the community will band together to demand it. otherwise, the fact that certain areas are underprivileged has not meant they dont get a walmart. there will still be schools. but they can succeed and fail on their own merits, instead of being manipulated and kept afloat by federal funds completely out of touch with the schools they support.
but to an extent, yes, it's social darwinism. and im not ashamed of that. i know id be in the living half. fuck the people that don't care enough to take advantage of the education handed them for free. you know what the graduation and truancy rates are for inner city chicago schools? it's fucking miserable. maybe these neighborhoods would end up with 1 great school for the kids that actually want it and appreciate it, instead of 5 shitty obligatory schools that the kids and their parents couldn't care less about draining money and producing graduates who can't read and need an entire remedial curriculum if they ever try to go to community college.
I have not read much of this thread, but in response to the title:
I was home schooled until 10th grade, and then I quit and started working. I am glad I was home schooled, because each specific subject received special attention. I was really good in spelling, math, grammar and history. I sucked in science, even though I loved reading about it. My education was good, and I learned a lot. Something I have noticed about younger kids these days is that they are kind of stupid where education is concerned. They can't spell right, they stink with math and the English language has been chopped down so horribly it makes me cringe. I think every body should know how to read, write properly and have basic mathematical training. The problem with public schools is that there are so many kids, and so few teachers. On top of the lack of teachers and personal attention, the teachers have had a lot of rights taken away, and they cannot do what they need to to teach these kids. It is my belief that children would be much better educated in their own homes either by a tutor, or a parent.
^ That was just a small part of the education, but now we have the social problems.
Kids in schools are mean, we know that. They tease, mock, abuse, do drugs and sleep around. Going to a public school is not necessary for social education. I NEVER went to a public school, yet I have very good social skills, I have confidence and I believe I can do whatever I want. I was still teased when I was a kid, but it was considerably lessened because I was not surrounded by hundreds of other kids.
I think it would be a lot better for the kids, mentally, to be home schooled. Heck, I have three nephews who are home schooled and they are the friendliest kids I have ever seen, but they are not mean. They wave to strangers and say "Hi" all of the time, they are not the least bit shy. It's a big load of horse crap that public schools are necessary for social education.
Both of my parents worked A LOT, and I still received a very good education. For the parents, it is a matter of sacrificing themselves to better their children.
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
As a public school teacher, I have to cast my "no" vote. Teachers' unions are much too powerful. Public schools are accountable to no one other than a school board, and are run like any unaccountable business would be. Without public schools, we would have better and cheaper private schools available. Teachers could be paid for their performance rather than their length of employment.
"All governments are murderers and liars."
-Bill Hicks
It is my belief that children would be much better educated in their own homes either by a tutor, or a parent.
problem is most parents dont care enough to do this. that's why the kids do shitty in school to begin with. they cant be bothered to even see if the kid is attending school or doing homework, and most of them weren't bright enough to finish high school themselves. you cant teach what you dont know yourself.
As a public school teacher, I have to cast my "no" vote. Teachers' unions are much too powerful. Public schools are accountable to no one other than a school board, and are run like any unaccountable business would be. Without public schools, we would have better and cheaper private schools available. Teachers could be paid for their performance rather than their length of employment.
this is a huge problem. nothing protects mediocrity like unions.
I haven't read through the posts so if I am repeating..I apologize.
I do not see public schools as "socialism" per say...but rather a necessity to further society. These children, regardless of lot, are our future. It is each and everyones responsibility to give these kids a chance. We don't know which ones will turn out to be the next generation of leaders. Our future depends on their education.
I do think however, that more rules need to be adopted to demand better performance from the kids. Uniforms should be accross the board for all. It levels the social pressure considerably. Punishments should be stronger for failure to comply to rules, work or attitude. The kids who need the most discipline don't get it because their lax parents are the ones who are the first to say they wont stand by while their child is held responsible.
OK then fine...punish the parents when the kids act up. Children are a product of what they see. If they are raised properly, they won't misbehave.
If the older kids dont' want to tow the line in school...then let them drop out. But then don't let them access public assistance...make them get jobs and pay taxes to support the kids who DO want an education.
Our society humiliatingly doles out far too many handouts. We need more stringent laws with regards to govt. aid. Poverty doesn't have to breed ignorance. But unless the cycle stops, and this mentality of "gimme" is erraticated, the schools are going to continue to suffer.
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
problem is most parents dont care enough to do this. that's why the kids do shitty in school to begin with. they cant be bothered to even see if the kid is attending school or doing homework, and most of them weren't bright enough to finish high school themselves. you cant teach what you dont know yourself.
are you episcopalian perchance?
Nope, why?
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
Damn. I did not think of someone bringing this up. I would rather not have this debate. I suppose better wording would have been "should education be publicly funded."
Yes it should be publicly funded for the same reason cigarrets should be taxed. The state should do the bare minimum to encourage good behavior within personal choice.
Depriving public schools of money is not the answer (vouchers and no child left behind). If the average family were to exercise a voucher option they would still have a hefty tuition bill to pay afterwards anyways so it's not even an economical solution.
Americans are in deep deep denial of the looming education crisis and that stems from the inbred notion in children that they "don't need to know that much". It's vaccant parenting that is driving this problem, thus classroom performance and creating ambivalence in teachers.
Public schools are not the problem.
Confucious Says: He who buries a man's wife alive, should not expect to sit at that man's dinner table without the subject coming up.
Comments
You would expect a community that is "underpriveleged" (let's face it, underpriveleged is simply a polite way to say "broke as fuck") to form their own schools?! Sounds to me like Social Darwinism at its absolute most hideous.
Just because you are catholic doesn't mean you automatically get to go to a Catholic school. Many parents, such as mine when I was growing up, just have to prioritize things in their life and give up a lot of stuff to send their kids to a Catholic school.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
if cities want to build schools, they can levy taxes to do so. if it is important, the community will band together to demand it. otherwise, the fact that certain areas are underprivileged has not meant they dont get a walmart. there will still be schools. but they can succeed and fail on their own merits, instead of being manipulated and kept afloat by federal funds completely out of touch with the schools they support.
but to an extent, yes, it's social darwinism. and im not ashamed of that. i know id be in the living half. fuck the people that don't care enough to take advantage of the education handed them for free. you know what the graduation and truancy rates are for inner city chicago schools? it's fucking miserable. maybe these neighborhoods would end up with 1 great school for the kids that actually want it and appreciate it, instead of 5 shitty obligatory schools that the kids and their parents couldn't care less about draining money and producing graduates who can't read and need an entire remedial curriculum if they ever try to go to community college.
I was home schooled until 10th grade, and then I quit and started working. I am glad I was home schooled, because each specific subject received special attention. I was really good in spelling, math, grammar and history. I sucked in science, even though I loved reading about it. My education was good, and I learned a lot. Something I have noticed about younger kids these days is that they are kind of stupid where education is concerned. They can't spell right, they stink with math and the English language has been chopped down so horribly it makes me cringe. I think every body should know how to read, write properly and have basic mathematical training. The problem with public schools is that there are so many kids, and so few teachers. On top of the lack of teachers and personal attention, the teachers have had a lot of rights taken away, and they cannot do what they need to to teach these kids. It is my belief that children would be much better educated in their own homes either by a tutor, or a parent.
^ That was just a small part of the education, but now we have the social problems.
Kids in schools are mean, we know that. They tease, mock, abuse, do drugs and sleep around. Going to a public school is not necessary for social education. I NEVER went to a public school, yet I have very good social skills, I have confidence and I believe I can do whatever I want. I was still teased when I was a kid, but it was considerably lessened because I was not surrounded by hundreds of other kids.
I think it would be a lot better for the kids, mentally, to be home schooled. Heck, I have three nephews who are home schooled and they are the friendliest kids I have ever seen, but they are not mean. They wave to strangers and say "Hi" all of the time, they are not the least bit shy. It's a big load of horse crap that public schools are necessary for social education.
Both of my parents worked A LOT, and I still received a very good education. For the parents, it is a matter of sacrificing themselves to better their children.
-Bill Hicks
problem is most parents dont care enough to do this. that's why the kids do shitty in school to begin with. they cant be bothered to even see if the kid is attending school or doing homework, and most of them weren't bright enough to finish high school themselves. you cant teach what you dont know yourself.
are you episcopalian perchance?
this is a huge problem. nothing protects mediocrity like unions.
I do not see public schools as "socialism" per say...but rather a necessity to further society. These children, regardless of lot, are our future. It is each and everyones responsibility to give these kids a chance. We don't know which ones will turn out to be the next generation of leaders. Our future depends on their education.
I do think however, that more rules need to be adopted to demand better performance from the kids. Uniforms should be accross the board for all. It levels the social pressure considerably. Punishments should be stronger for failure to comply to rules, work or attitude. The kids who need the most discipline don't get it because their lax parents are the ones who are the first to say they wont stand by while their child is held responsible.
OK then fine...punish the parents when the kids act up. Children are a product of what they see. If they are raised properly, they won't misbehave.
If the older kids dont' want to tow the line in school...then let them drop out. But then don't let them access public assistance...make them get jobs and pay taxes to support the kids who DO want an education.
Our society humiliatingly doles out far too many handouts. We need more stringent laws with regards to govt. aid. Poverty doesn't have to breed ignorance. But unless the cycle stops, and this mentality of "gimme" is erraticated, the schools are going to continue to suffer.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
-Bill Hicks
you seem to be very naive and sheltered at times. like some people ive met before.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes it should be publicly funded for the same reason cigarrets should be taxed. The state should do the bare minimum to encourage good behavior within personal choice.
Depriving public schools of money is not the answer (vouchers and no child left behind). If the average family were to exercise a voucher option they would still have a hefty tuition bill to pay afterwards anyways so it's not even an economical solution.
Americans are in deep deep denial of the looming education crisis and that stems from the inbred notion in children that they "don't need to know that much". It's vaccant parenting that is driving this problem, thus classroom performance and creating ambivalence in teachers.
Public schools are not the problem.