I just take my chances in every thread that has anything about the education system to plus sell a success story.
The Radical Left's Stranglehold on Public Schools
- Thread starter Granule
- Start date
I just take my chances in every thread that has anything about the education system to plus sell a success story.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
What it all boils down to...
No School Choice---Send your kid to public school like everyone else or pony up the extra bucks yourself and send him/her wherever you want.
School Choice---Everyone gets to "choose", but the wealthier will always have MORE choices.
Lets say a prestigious private school with an excellent record of providing a top flight education for it's students, has openings for 5 new students and the parents of 10 children apply for the openings. Who's more likely to get in? The child of parents barely able to come up with tuition? Or the parents who have the resources available to "augment" their child's tuition with a nice little "honorarium" to the school?
No School Choice---Send your kid to public school like everyone else or pony up the extra bucks yourself and send him/her wherever you want.
School Choice---Everyone gets to "choose", but the wealthier will always have MORE choices.
Lets say a prestigious private school with an excellent record of providing a top flight education for it's students, has openings for 5 new students and the parents of 10 children apply for the openings. Who's more likely to get in? The child of parents barely able to come up with tuition? Or the parents who have the resources available to "augment" their child's tuition with a nice little "honorarium" to the school?
If there weren't examples in Europe where the system is in place you may have a point. However, it is (in every place ever put into effect) far more successful than any government monopoly. The straw man is the "privatize" portion of your argument. Education should be publicly available to everybody, however schools should compete to draw your children. There should be no stagnating government monopoly providing the mediocre and unimaginative.
If we cannot learn from success, then we may as well pack up.
False dilemma. Again, in every example of a nation where this is in effect (Belgium is a great one to pay attention to) it has raised the bar for every student and kicked every single publicly funded school in the US up to and including our "advanced" graduates.
It is time to pay attention and compete so that we do not fall still further behind our European competitors.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
How is it a false dilemma?
Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me the wealthy in this country won't try and influence enrollment?
In case Damo got his info from Ted Stossel
http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/S09_Courses/Stupid_in_america.pdf
Belgium sets the standard and it's schools must comply, where do you get the idea there is no government monopoly? I think you misrepresent their system.
I will tell you that it has nothing to do with whether or not publicly funded education in the US is failing in comparison to even advanced European competitors and can be enhanced by viewing what is successful and adding it to our experience.
In Belgium their publicly funded education students are doing better almost universally when compared to our publicly funded education system. Note that in Belgium the "rich" can still send their kids to private schools. I am comparing apples to apples here.
I think you can read a post in this thread (or the other one on education that was running today) that directly states: "Set standards." as the first two words.
And I don't misrepresent. They have both private entities and public entities competing for the public funding. The money goes with the student, not to an assigned pile of bricks.
They also do not have extra curricular activities. I would gladly trade a foot ball program for a better science lab. There are many issues that are not factored in when comparing our system to theirs.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
1. The only ones who consistently vote to deny real choice are those voting a liberal ticket.
2. . My "so what" was the discussion about phonics not being relevant to your broad brush assertion about what the "right wants".
3. It is not a far right goal (broad brush) and you have done nothing to prove it is- . There are some on the right that believe public funding of education is bad- their arguments are valid and worthy of real debate. I am hardly "far right"- and I am not against public education- only the monopoly of public education. You are a perfect example of idiot think.
4. No, teachers are not required to teach to the test by NLCB. States developed tests (different from state to state) to show improvement via benchmarks. They did so due to federally required improvements in specific subjects, in order to keep getting federal dollars. States could opt out of federal funding or they could work on improving student standards- they (Superintendents of public education) chose to develop tests, instead of finding the best way to instruct to achieve federal requirements for improvement.
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
(Excerpt) ....the only real solution to the education problem is to get the government out of it. And the fastest way to do that is to get the children out of the government schools.
All of those eager young members of the Campaign for Liberty must realize that we have to get the government out of the education business, for one very simple reason: government monopoly education is totally incompatible with the principles of a free society.
The only solution that makes sense is to privatize the entire system. Each public school could easily become a private institution run by a local board of trustees, financed by tuitions and whatever other private means the schools may conceive of. Since the local community would be relieved of paying for the schools, the tuitions of poor children could be covered by a town foundation fund set up for that purpose.
If we are to salvage our freedoms and protect our children, we must end government control of our schools. (End)
A. government monopoly education is totally incompatible with the principles of a free society.
B. tuitions of poor children could be covered by a town foundation fund
C. If we are to salvage our freedoms
Do you notice how Conservative folks always associate money with freedom? There's not one line in that article explaining how the poor would receive an education other than by a welfare type system set up by towns. Foundations are dependent upon donations. It's not even a welfare system. It would be a charity.
That is the Repub/Conservative talking point regarding anything and everything; social security, medical care, education.... Brand it as "freedom". Freedom, a good word. Nobody objects to freedom so by classifying something as "freedom" it automatically implies something is good.
So, let's get the government out of running the education system. Let's have private schools but instead of having a "town foundation fund" the parent sends the tuition bill to the government. That way the children and the parents have all the freedom in the world. Small, private schools. No big union. Competition, which is good. Everything the typical Repub/Con desires. Plus, every child will be able to attend any school they wish. That's freedom with a capital "F".
So, let's see if it's about freedom or money. Let's see if it's about giving a child the best education possible by offering freedom and choice OR if it's about the typical Repub/Con having a selfish, miserly, don't give a damn about anyone's child attitude.
Agreed?
How Un-American of you to say that, Rune.
You are still here? You have been dismissed. You may leave now.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Epic Meltdown. 
1. Really? Would you call Mass a liberal state? Pretty sure you would. I have already shown that we have an abundance of choices here.
2. Not making sense again. What is your actual point? The author uses this lie as the basis for his entire argument, therefore the article is bunk.
3. Thanks for denying then proving my argument. Interesting debate technique, A for originality.
4. Again, thanks for providing additional proofs of my argument. How can states on the brink of bankruptcy opt out of Federal funding? Is that there one of them strawman thingies?
It's about the misuse of sex ed, Darla Dodger. The play was entirely unnecessary as it was demeaning to the opposite sex. Something tells me your better judgement has already screamed this at you, but the irrational, Code Pink, side of you keeps getting in the way.
Nah. I'm gonna stick around for a while you keep you liberals honest.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
How was it demeaning to the opposite sex? It was a play about the human body and people played the various body parts.
Would it have been demeaning if the boy had played a kidney?
Why are you so hateful and angry dude?