NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, education should be about knowledge and enriching your life, but primary and secondary education should also help prepare you for college or the work environment. Unfortunately, it doesn't do a very good job at any of the above.

Ideally, education is about personal betterment and learning. That was the ethos the Victorian era gave us. In reality, education is not about learning but about preperaring you for a job - and not well, I might add - not about enriching the students. All you can hope for is a good, caring teacher.

[cheap nazi joke]
Only fascists believe people shouldn't be educated, Hitler
[/cheap nazi joke]

I'm not sure, as I've never studied it. The wikipedia article just doesn't give me enough information for a "yes" or "no" answer.
Social Darwinism is the idea that social inequality is BENEFICIAL to society in the same way that fascists..er, ahem, I mean conservatives say that competition is beneficial to our society today. People who advocated social darwinism didn't believe in ANY social services (like healthcare or education), because they thought that it just made the poor dependent upon them and slumped the economy.

The people who advocated Social Darwinism were typically rich, upperclass, businessmen who exploited the masses and found a way to philosophically justify it. Ironically enough, fascists..er.. I MEAN CONSERVATIVES, today often seem to believe in the same idea, although you'd never hear a Conservative call themselves a Social Darwinist, because that implies that they're against welfare, education, and healthcare completely.

And what's even more ironic is that "Compassionate" Conservatives today seem to have rewritten the Bible. Internationally, the United States gives the least amount of foreign aid as a percentage of the GDP out of ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. And the countries which do recieve tons of foreign aid (mostly Israel) only recieve it because it's in our political interests.

When asked about this, Conservatives cite one African country (can't remember the name) which recieved foreign aid and their poverty rate went up. They don't consider any other factors, but use this as a reason to justify the Social Darwinist idea that foreign aid makes countries DEPENDENT on us.

Christ advocated giving away all the wealth you had, and total vows of poverty, yet Evangelic Conservatives today laud capitalistic ideals as a virtue ("the Protestant Ethic") while claiming CHARITY DOESN'T WORK.

The reason why I asked if you're a Social Darwinist is because that's what it seemed like - Like giving away free education makes us not work hard, and that it would be beneficial to have some winners and some losers.

What the hell brought you to that?
Because if education should be OPTIONAL, then it's worthless. If it's something you have to buy and not a basic right, then it really is more of a service you should buy, than something we all deserve.

I figured libertarians and anarcho-communists are the only ones who'd advocate the freedom to be ignorant. Well, fascists too.

Why have you separated physical abuse out? Either parents shoudl be free to bring up their children however they want, or society has a say too.

If society has a say, why not let society have a say in the basic content? Why not ensure that children get the option to learn?

i am glad your cousin's children are doing well, but that is not the case for all home-schooled children, is it?

State schools don't make children educated, but they provide the opportunity for all children.

Of course it is not the case for all home schooled children, but you made a sweeping statement to the effect that home schooling was a poor option. I countered that with a specific example, I never said all.
As far as content of curriculem, hat does that have to do with choosing to go to school or not? And children do gat the option to learn, they choose whether they wish to go to school or not. That would be the system. It is hypothetical but so is most debate.
Yes, state school provide the oportunity for education but mandatory education and state sponsored schools are two different arguements. I have not called for the dismantling of state sponsored schools, merely the choice of whether to attend them or not.

That's not what I said or implied. There are many private colleges and universities that compete very well with public institutions. To privatize the education system does not mean you are turning it into a prison. :headbang:
Private schools already exist. THe reason for public schools are Private schools aren't free.
If Private schools were free people would go to them.

Your solution is not a real solution.

Social Darwinism is the idea that social inequality is BENEFICIAL to society in the same way that fascists..er, ahem, I mean conservatives say that competition is beneficial to our society today. People who advocated social darwinism didn't believe in ANY social services (like healthcare or education), because they thought that it just made the poor dependent upon them and slumped the economy.

The people who advocated Social Darwinism were typically rich, upperclass, businessmen who exploited the masses and found a way to philosophically justify it. Ironically enough, fascists..er.. I MEAN CONSERVATIVES, today often seem to believe in the same idea, although you'd never hear a Conservative call themselves a Social Darwinist, because that implies that they're against welfare, education, and healthcare completely.

And what's even more ironic is that "Compassionate" Conservatives today seem to have rewritten the Bible. Internationally, the United States gives the least amount of foreign aid as a percentage of the GDP out of ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. And the countries which do recieve tons of foreign aid (mostly Israel) only recieve it because it's in our political interests.

When asked about this, Conservatives cite one African country (can't remember the name) which recieved foreign aid and their poverty rate went up. They don't consider any other factors, but use this as a reason to justify the Social Darwinist idea that foreign aid makes countries DEPENDENT on us.

Christ advocated giving away all the wealth you had, and total vows of poverty, yet Evangelic Conservatives today laud capitalistic ideals as a virtue ("the Protestant Ethic") while claiming CHARITY DOESN'T WORK.

The reason why I asked if you're a Social Darwinist is because that's what it seemed like - Like giving away free education makes us not work hard, and that it would be beneficial to have some winners and some losers.


I've gotta say... I'm pretty indifferent.

Private schools already exist. THe reason for public schools are Private schools aren't free.
If Private schools were free people would go to them.

Your solution is not a real solution.
If the public school system was liquidated, the cost of private school would also go way down, so that it MIGHT be affordable... for a while, anyway. Not sure.

Private schools already exist. THe reason for public schools are Private schools aren't free.
If Private schools were free people would go to them.

Your solution is not a real solution.


Damnit man, read the thread! He's talking about corporations taking over school systems completely, though he seems to be a bit foggy on the issue.

I have never stated nor do I believe children should not be educated. They should be given the choice as to the level of education they want when they finish junior high school. A choice. Trust and responsibility. We do a great disservice to children when we deny them these things.

Of course it is not the case for all home schooled children, but you made a sweeping statement to the effect that home schooling was a poor option. I countered that with a specific example, I never said all.
As far as content of curriculem, hat does that have to do with choosing to go to school or not? And children do gat the option to learn, they choose whether they wish to go to school or not. That would be the system. It is hypothetical but so is most debate.
Yes, state school provide the oportunity for education but mandatory education and state sponsored schools are two different arguements. I have not called for the dismantling of state sponsored schools, merely the choice of whether to attend them or not.

The children do not decide. They do what their parents decide. Many high-school aged children will not even decide for themselves. It is naive of you to think children of 5 or 6 will decide to go to school if their parents want to homeschool them.

And as for children 'choosing' not to go to school, again i suspect parents would have more of an impact than the students themselves. Do we want victorian style society with the poor children being sent down the mines to earn some cash?

I've gotta say... I'm pretty indifferent.
You mean apathetic?

How very interesting.

*implodes*

That was grade-A man, grade-A.

Thank you, unfortunately the truth will be lost to class envy and those that CLAIM to desire a meritocracy will only work further to prevent one.

They never realize that no matter the system, the only ones that gain are the ones who figure out how to help themselves.

It is true in capitalist America.
It was true in Commnist USSR
It is still true in (whatever) Russia

I have never stated nor do I believe children should not be educated. They should be given the choice as to the level of education they want when they finish junior high school. A choice. Trust and responsibility. We do a great disservice to children when we deny them these things.
Without a high school diploma, you can't really get a job and you obviously can't get a college degree. Allowing high school to be optional would increase unemployment (due to lowering educational standards), which would in turn raise wages, because there would be less people to take jobs, so employers would need to raise pay and benefits in order to keep their employees.

So, basically, unemployment would go up and the GDP would drop. Or so it seems to me, as I've never taken an economics course.

The children do not decide. They do what their parents decide. Many high-school aged children will not even decide for themselves. It is naive of you to think children of 5 or 6 will decide to go to school if their parents want to homeschool them.

And as for children 'choosing' not to go to school, again i suspect parents would have more of an impact than the students themselves. Do we want victorian style society with the poor children being sent down the mines to earn some cash?

5 or 6? What are you talking about? I said junior high school. That is 14. And 14 years old is old enough to decide.
Again, you argue right past me. I know children don't decide, I understand that is not the case at the present. I will repeat that...I know children do not decide, I know that is not the case at the present. I am saying it should be the case. We as a society should change our thinking. We should allow them to do so.
Of course parents will have an impact, they should have an impact. They should advise,explain their own experiences and tell the child exactly what their options will be if they choose to not go to school. But the child should not be forced to choose school. Nor should they be denied the right to an education.

Without a high school diploma, you can't really get a job and you obviously can't get a college degree. Allowing high school to be optional would increase unemployment (due to lowering educational standards), which would in turn raise wages, because there would be less people to take jobs, so employers would need to raise pay and benefits in order to keep their employees.

So, basically, unemployment would go up and the GDP would drop. Or so it seems to me, as I've never taken an economics course.

Actually, by forcing all people into a high school education and then by making as many people as possible get a college degree we have devalued both.

Actually, by forcing all people into a high school education and then by making as many people as possible get a college degree we have devalued both.
Well at this point, we can't magically revert

Actually, by forcing all people into a high school education and then by making as many people as possible get a college degree we have devalued both.
I see your point, but...

*is dragged into a dark corner*

I see your point, but...

*is dragged into a dark corner*

but this is a round room. . .

5 or 6? What are you talking about? I said junior high school. That is 14. And 14 years old is old enough to decide.
Again, you argue right past me. I know children don't decide, I understand that is not the case at the present. I will repeat that...I know children do not decide, I know that is not the case at the present. I am saying it should be the case. We as a society should change our thinking. We should allow them to do so.
Of course parents will have an impact, they should have an impact. They should advise,explain their own experiences and tell the child exactly what their options will be if they choose to not go to school. But the child should not be forced to choose school. Nor should they be denied the right to an education.

Society will never be like that because there will always be parents who tell there children what to do. you are living in a fantasy world.

Added to which at 14 children aren't necessarily mature enoguh to decide.

If they aren't mature enough, then their parents will decide for them. Those who are mature enough will make the choice on their own.

He's not living in a fantasy world. He's living in Japan, and that's how their system works. And it works very well.

If they aren't mature enough, then their parents will decide for them. Those who are mature enough will make the choice on their own.

He's not living in a fantasy world. He's living in Japan, and that's how their system works. And it works very well.
if only, if only.

What?

Society will never be like that because there will always be parents who tell there children what to do. you are living in a fantasy world.

Added to which at 14 children aren't necessarily mature enoguh to decide.

Of course its a fantasy world. It is a discussion, in discussions people talk about how they think things should be. . .they are not limited by what reality is. I used the phrase "should be" quite often. This implies that I understand what reality is, I simply would like a different reality to exist. It does not belive I think it will or that it does. By your logic we should not discuss anything if it doesn't already exist as a reality.

And yes, some children who are 14 are not mature enough to decide, but some are.

Of course its a fantasy world. It is a discussion, in discussions people talk about how they think things should be. . .they are not limited by what reality is. I used the phrase "should be" quite often. This implies that I understand what reality is, I simply would like a different reality to exist. It does not belive I think it will or that it does. By your logic we should not discuss anything if it doesn't already exist as a reality.

And yes, some children who are 14 are not mature enough to decide, but some are.

But its a discussion based in fanatasy. I might as well say if all children were given the choice, they'd all go to school, all blitz their subjects and be the best people and students ever.

but that doesn't make it so, and claiming it would is foolish.

And if we all know it isn't the case, why bother discussing it?

Of course its a fantasy world. It is a discussion, in discussions people talk about how they think things should be. . .they are not limited by what reality is. I used the phrase "should be" quite often. This implies that I understand what reality is, I simply would like a different reality to exist. It does not belive I think it will or that it does. By your logic we should not discuss anything if it doesn't already exist as a reality.

And yes, some children who are 14 are not mature enough to decide, but some are.

If people knew a big decision was coming for their kids when they turned 14, I think we'd see far more effort to make sure children were mature and sensible.

Are you lame? He's basing his fantasy world on a real system. You're really taking this out of context.

If people knew a big decision was coming for their kids when they turned 14, I think we'd see far more effort to make sure children were mature and sensible.

Exactly. . .

If people knew a big decision was coming for their kids when they turned 14, I think we'd see far more effort to make sure children were mature and sensible.

I think we'd just see more parents deciding for their children

Are you lame? He's basing his fantasy world on a real system. You're really taking this out of context.

No, both my legs work fine :confused:

the point I was trying to illustrate is that it's NOT a real world system. If you allow too much choice then parents decide for their children and some children loose out big time because of it.

But its a discussion based in fanatasy. I might as well say if all children were given the choice, they'd all go to school, all blitz their subjects and be the best people and students ever.

but that doesn't make it so, and claiming it would is foolish.

And if we all know it isn't the case, why bother discussing it?

I made no claims as to whether they would chose school or not. Why do you think I did? I simply said they should be given the choice.
Again, you state we should only discuss things if they are real, here and now. Why do you belive this? It essential means we should never agitate or debate new and alternate systems, just endless talk about what already exists. If we did that we would never try new thing and never learn.

Parents already decide too much for their kids. This would help out, rather than make the situation worse.

And by "lame", I meant it in a different sense.

I made no claims as to whether they would chose school or not. Why do you think I did? I simply said they should be given the choice.
Again, you state we should only discuss things if they are real, here and now. Why do you belive this? It essential means we should never agitate or debate new and alternate systems, just endless talk about what already exists. If we did that we would never try new thing and never learn.

alternative systems are worth discussing, but not ones that work only in a fantasy world.

The best thing for all children, and for society as a whole is for them to be educated. The easiest way to ensure that is to have mandatory education.

If they aren't mature enough, then their parents will decide for them. Those who are mature enough will make the choice on their own.

He's not living in a fantasy world. He's living in Japan, and that's how their system works. And it works very well.
Are you kidding me???? Follow the Japanese system? That is the worst idea I've heard all day. The Japanese have an extremely high child suicide rate, every kid has to go to "examination hell" for at least 4 hours after school or be left in the dust, and the schools don't let their students have any personality at all. Works quite well? Well yah, I suppose putting mind controlling chips in childen's brains would work quite well too.

But it's in use in Japan, and it's working. Kids should be allowed to choose to go to High School.

Why not privatize public education? I THINK - don't get me wrong here - I think it's because education's public. Now, I'm not quite fond of the government's capacity to handle education on its own, but I've racked my head and can't think of a single way in which private education would work.

Private schools are better than public schools almost across the board, but are for the most part ridiculously expensive. In addition, taking a private school's SAT scores and comparing it to only the more motivated students of a public school, and the gap will be considerably less.

So I think the question of whether education should be public or private is still the wrong question. It's ignoring completely the problematic upbringing of many children in this country. Private or public schools do not really make a big difference in someone's life; their upbringing does.

alternative systems are worth discussing, but not ones that work only in a fantasy world.

The best thing for all children, and for society as a whole is for them to be educated. The easiest way to ensure that is to have mandatory education.

Mandatory education in no way assures an education, it only gives an oportunity. Oportunity in no way equals education.
Also to say it is a fantasy world is incorrect. It works in Japan, it works every years and hundred of thousands of 14 year olds chose whether they go to school or not. Do parents pressure and conjole, yes, as they should, but in the end it is the 14 year old who signs on the dotted line and the 14 year old who takes entry tests. Don't tell me it can't work, that it is not possible. I have watched it work here for five years.
Just because it would be difficult, just because there is a good chance it wouldn't work is no reason to dismiss it as impossible.

Mandatory education in no way assures an education, it only gives an oportunity. Oportunity in no way equals education.
Also to say it is a fantasy world is incorrect. It works in Japan, it works every years and hundred of thousands of 14 year olds chose whether they go to school or not. Do parents pressure and conjole, yes, as they should, but in the end it is the 14 year old who signs on the dotted line and the 14 year old who takes entry tests. Don't tell me it can't work, that it is not possible. I have watched it work here for five years.
Just because it would be difficult, just because there is a good chance it wouldn't work is no reason to dismiss it as impossible.

And what happens to the 14 year olds who choose not to?

Like he said, they get jobs.

And what happens to the 14 year olds who choose not to?

They go to technical school, they get part time jobs, many of them work in family businesses and some of them rot their brains in front of a PS2 all day. It is their life and their future. They benifit or pay for it based on what they decide.

They go to technical school, they get part time jobs, many of them work in family businesses and some of them rot their brains in front of a PS2 all day. It is their life and their future. They benifit or pay for it based on what they decide.

tech school is fine, but I don't think that 14 year old children are mature enough to decide that they don't want an education and want to work at burger king instead. There is a very real threat family financial pressures might force them to take a shitty job and give up on education.

Are you kidding me???? Follow the Japanese system? That is the worst idea I've heard all day. The Japanese have an extremely high child suicide rate, every kid has to go to "examination hell" for at least 4 hours after school or be left in the dust, and the schools don't let their students have any personality at all. Works quite well? Well yah, I suppose putting mind controlling chips in childen's brains would work quite well too.

You know, having read this, I would have to say that I agree. This is my main reason against uniforms, too. It fosters uniformity. Last I checked, we didn't like that. All Communist and stuff. Plus, having tests too often is a bad, BAD idea - I've been through the British education system, I know about tests. I could just about handle it, but I know a fair number of kids who couldn't.

You know, having read this, I would have to say that I agree. This is my main reason against uniforms, too. It fosters uniformity. Last I checked, we didn't like that. All Communist and stuff. Plus, having tests too often is a bad, BAD idea - I've been through the British education system, I know about tests. I could just about handle it, but I know a fair number of kids who couldn't.

I'll second that

tech school is fine, but I don't think that 14 year old children are mature enough to decide that they don't want an education and want to work at burger king instead. There is a very real threat family financial pressures might force them to take a shitty job and give up on education.

Yep, that is a real danger, but those parents and that child would live with the consequences of their choices. If the parents forced their child out and the child obeyed them and didn't go even though they wanted to then resentment and anger would be the future of that family. They would live with it. I just don't feel the state should go so far as to protect them from bad choices. That is not the states job.

Yep, that is a real danger, but those parents and that child would live with the consequences of their choices. If the parents forced their child out and the child obeyed them and didn't go even though they wanted to then resentment and anger would be the future of that family. They would live with it. I just don't feel the state should go so far as to protect them from bad choices. That is not the states job.

Protecting children is not the states job?

What the hell is?

Are you kidding me???? Follow the Japanese system? That is the worst idea I've heard all day. The Japanese have an extremely high child suicide rate, every kid has to go to "examination hell" for at least 4 hours after school or be left in the dust, and the schools don't let their students have any personality at all. Works quite well? Well yah, I suppose putting mind controlling chips in childen's brains would work quite well too.
We should follow a part of the Japanese system, not all. Yes, a lot of the rest of their system is terrible. Students are not allowed to question teachers and are told to shut up if they do. Tests are thrown at them constantly. The pressure is enormous. They memorize tons of facts but have little idea what these facts really mean or how the world works.

Protecting children is not the states job?

What the hell is?

Umm, building roads and water systems. Providing power sources, international trade, traffic laws and law enforcement, zoning, building schools in the first place. Any many others. Protecting people from the choices should only be done when what they do is a criminal offense such as murder or drunk driving or beating your kid.

Well damn, gotta go clean house. My wife is stamping her foot cause I have been on the computer too long.
Been great debating with ya, interesting. Hope no hard feeling Enlightened Humanity. Ja matta!

Umm, building roads and water systems. Providing power sources, international trade, traffic laws and law enforcement, zoning, building schools in the first place. Any many others. Protecting people from the choices should only be done when what they do is a criminal offense such as murder or drunk driving or beating your kid.

Protecting people form other peoples choices. The whole point of having children defined in the law differently (like not being able to consent to sex) is to protect them. Protecting them from abuse by being packed off to work is just as important.

Roads, water, power are all private ventures

I'm certainly not a fan of privatizing schools. As has been amply argued here, there are many potential pitfalls to this system. I have no experience with the US public school system, but certainly something needs to be done if any of these comments can be viewed as accurate.
My solution to this problem (somewhat facetiously uttered, I'll admit) is:
Eliminate schooling altogether! No private schools, no public schools - none!
This does away with the vague concern that the wealthy get a better education, although, not entirely, since the wealthy are more likely to both own and access resources which can be used to promote learning. Sadly, in my experience the wealthy and children of the wealthy are far more likely to experience things which have some hope of increasing worthwhile knowledge as opposed to suppressing it (opera vs. baseball, public lectures vs. rodeo, theater vs. nascar, etc.)
However having attended school for the usual number of years I can firmly say that very little of either interest or value was imparted by my 'education.' I learned far more in my personal studies than I ever did in school, whether that was a public school or a university.
We also have these great institutions called libraries where a person can sit down, and learn whatever they choose to about history, literature, biology, philosophy, religion, physics, well pretty much whatever you like.
On a final note, in my experience schools also tend to create a situation (possibly remedied by 'treating people like adults') wherein one party exercises control or domination over another. This leads to inevitable power struggles which can harm a child's education. I fully understand the position of 'i won't learn anything until you stop trying to make me!' However, I'm fiercely independent and oppositional. Education (or at least knowledge) is something that most people readily pursue, when given the basic tools. Our society must instill curiosity in it's members. And for the record, I'm abysmally poor, and I intend to stay that way until it's banned - wealth and consumerism are hideous to my eye.

Protecting people form other peoples choices. The whole point of having children defined in the law differently (like not being able to consent to sex) is to protect them. Protecting them from abuse by being packed off to work is just as important.

Roads, water, power are all private ventures
Is there truly a role for the state then?

some of them rot their brains in front of a PS2 all day.

Funny, I heard the same thing when I was a kid about playing Video Games...

Guess who got the last laugh when they started working for Nintendo and has spent 15 years PLAYING/MAKING Video Games for a Living!?!?

:D

Regards,
Gaar

That does kick a reasonable amount of ass.

Is there truly a role for the state then?

Read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith...

And then we can talk.

Regards,
Gaar

Funny, I heard the same thing when I was a kid about playing Video Games...

Guess who got the last laugh when they started working for Nintendo and has spent 15 years PLAYING/MAKING Video Games for a Living!?!?

:D

Regards,
Gaar
The ultimate, "Ha, in your face!"
I am reading the Wealth of Nations currently.

WTF? Let's NOT privatise public education.


And, at least in Australia, public schools are doing pretty bloody well. In fact, in NSW, where I went to school, the vast majority of high achieving schools are public. They leave private schools for dead.

Education should be the property of the entire community. Privatising it will just lead to schools being run like businesses. Sorry, that is just reprehensible.

Hmm.. I'm very double sided on this. I think there's no win win solution to Privatizing or publicisizing education. :(

You do not understand. Privatizing public schools would mean that the government would contract private companies to run and administer the K-12 schools in the district. Companies would bid and the company that won the bid would hire the teachers, etc, etc. The companies would be required under the contract to provide the education for all students. Individuals would not have to pay anything out of pocket as the system would be funded just like the present system. The district would still set the minimum educational standards and could even include a bonus for exceeding those standards.

It would work the same way the government builds roads. Companies bid and the govt. pays out of tax dollars. Some prisons are now run this way.

This is pointless. All it does is create a corporate middle-man, which would probably end up being just as expensive as the current system. Also, it would give the government less oversight.

Maybe we're from way different areas, because my PUBLIC high school is a great institution, its main drawbacks being a lack of funds for some supplies and repair. And here, most of the better colleges are also public.

I, for one, would not trust a corporation to teach my kids, and so I hope this privatization idea for schools never happens.

This is pointless. All it does is create a corporate middle-man, which would probably end up being just as expensive as the current system. Also, it would give the government less oversight.

Maybe we're from way different areas, because my PUBLIC high school is a great institution, its main drawbacks being a lack of funds for some supplies and repair. And here, most of the better colleges are also public.

I, for one, would not trust a corporation to teach my kids, and so I hope this privatization idea for schools never happens.


Good, another person who's against corporate take-overs. The last thing we need is a public school system run by a multi-national conglomerate.

WTF? Let's NOT privatise public education.


And, at least in Australia, public schools are doing pretty bloody well. In fact, in NSW, where I went to school, the vast majority of high achieving schools are public. They leave private schools for dead.

Education should be the property of the entire community. Privatising it will just lead to schools being run like businesses. Sorry, that is just reprehensible.


So, you and I seem to agree on many things.

Well, I basically don't trust corporations to do anything right, so why the hell would I trust them with my children?

Well, I basically don't trust corporations to do anything right, so why the hell would I trust them with my children?


FINALLY. Another person who thinks the same way about corporations.

They can't be trusted to keep the environment safe, they can't be trusted to treat their employees properly, and they can't be trusted to stay within the limits of the law. So why should they be trusted with our schools?

I really have no idea. People forget that meat wouldn't be even remotely safe to eat and most medicine highly dangerous if the government hadn't stepped in to regulate the two industries. Those are just two examples.

If the government does this in the future, and I end up having kids, I really will move to, I don't know, Sweden or something.

FINALLY. Another person who thinks the same way about corporations.

They can't be trusted to keep the environment safe, they can't be trusted to treat their employees properly, and they can't be trusted to stay within the limits of the law. So why should they be trusted with our schools?
I mean, their sole aim is to deliver a profit. I would NEVER trust them to educate our young people.

Although the educaion minister in Australia has stated that he wished universities to be run like businesses. :( Bastard.

Are you people crazy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :headbang: no way!! Children should not be beaten! It will make them scared to learn, to share their opinion, the kids will be just like their teachers. We should all be individuals! Not clones because they do exactly what everyone thinks they should do! :rolleyes:

I mean, their sole aim is to deliver a profit. I would NEVER trust them to educate our young people.

Although the educaion minister in Australia has stated that he wished universities to be run like businesses. :( Bastard.


Wow, he is a bastard.

Are you people crazy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :headbang: no way!! Children should not be beaten! It will make them scared to learn, to share their opinion, the kids will be just like their teachers. We should all be individuals! Not clones because they do exactly what everyone thinks they should do! :rolleyes:


Now that's the spirit!

Are you people crazy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :headbang: no way!! Children should not be beaten! It will make them scared to learn, to share their opinion, the kids will be just like their teachers. We should all be individuals! Not clones because they do exactly what everyone thinks they should do! :rolleyes:

Absolutly. I had teachers that used corporal punishment for just about anything. All I learned up until the equivilant of 4th grade was that you shouldn't bother answering questions, even if you think you know the answer. Apologetic ignorance is far less severly punished than insufficient effort.

Especially don't answer "do you want me to send you home right now?" That one's always a trick.

Are you people crazy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :headbang: no way!! Children should not be beaten! It will make them scared to learn, to share their opinion, the kids will be just like their teachers. We should all be individuals! Not clones because they do exactly what everyone thinks they should do! :rolleyes:

and yet look at kids today, they have so much power they could care less what the teachers say, they disrupt class at will and prey to be put in INS (in school suspension) as it gets them out of class.. Kids have little to no repsect.. those who do are all in AP classes (not surprising)... and every other kid is left in remdial classes to roll their eyes every time someone needs to act out.. god for bid the teacher defend themselves or do the appropriate thing and try to remove the child who will just scream abuse and have a lawsuit filed. Its not like parents care either, they all think its just a phase and would love to have that first lawsuit filed to fill their bank accounts because their child was grabbed by the arm. I pray schools are privitized, as priviate schools force parents to be more engaged in thier childs education, and leaves fewer rights in the hands of children and their parents implacing meaninful disiplinary critiera.. the first step in any proper upbringing is structure... Most parents today working 2 jobs have no time for give structure, and expect the schools to educate their children in every way, even though they give the shcools no power to do so.

Its just a combination of poor parenting and no authority which have led to the rament child domination in our public school systems.. someone needs to act, and if parents wont i hope schools will (finally)

and yet look at kids today, they have so much power they could care less what the teachers say, they disrupt class at will and prey to be put in INS (in school suspension) as it gets them out of class.. Kids have little to no repsect.. those who do are all in AP classes (not surprising)... and every other kid is left in remdial classes to roll their eyes every time someone needs to act out.. god for bid the teacher defend themselves or do the appropriate thing and try to remove the child who will just scream abuse and have a lawsuit filed. Its not like parents care either, they all think its just a phase and would love to have that first lawsuit filed to fill their bank accounts because their child was grabbed by the arm. I pray schools are privitized, as priviate schools force parents to be more engaged in thier childs education, and leaves fewer rights in the hands of children and their parents implacing meaninful disiplinary critiera.. the first step in any proper upbringing is structure... Most parents today working 2 jobs have no time for give structure, and expect the schools to educate their children in every way, even though they give the shcools no power to do so.

Its just a combination of poor parenting and no authority which have led to the rament child domination in our public school systems.. someone needs to act, and if parents wont i hope schools will (finally)


It's poor parenting and social issues. It's got nothing to do with authority.

Absolutly. I had teachers that used corporal punishment for just about anything. All I learned up until the equivilant of 4th grade was that you shouldn't bother answering questions, even if you think you know the answer. Apologetic ignorance is far less severly punished than insufficient effort.

Especially don't answer "do you want me to send you home right now?" That one's always a trick.

... obviosuly that was the abuse of power.. but the exact opposite is happening today.. Teachers have zero power, they can't even remove children from the class rooms themselves, they need to call security so they arn't liable. Its obsered how Children now run the class room insead of the instructor.. We come far too far in so called "civil rights" as children think they have the authority

Having taught in both Public and Private education systems, I am very happy that I'm moving back soon into the Public school system for several reasons(aside from the holidays of course :p ).

My experiences of Private learning centres is that the over-riding concern is on making money. Everything else - including education - is secondary.
What this means is that the focus is on long-term financial returns, which is done by having only short-term educational gains.
By this I mean the emphasis is on keeping the students enrolled to maximise the company's return, by making them happy so the parents keep sending their kids there.
In order to do this, more weight is given to entertaining the students (in the guise of 'making education fun') than what I consider genuine teaching and learning.
The education focus centers around learning in very little short-term blocks. What the businesses want is that the students walk out of there happy because they've played some fun games and having learnt at least one new thing they can show their parents, which keeps their parents happy and fools them into thinking the centre's doing a good job.

My view is that proper education and learning takes a lot longer than one hour. You need to build the foundations first, and sometimes it takes a long time for everything to sink into place. By focussing only on short-term teaching like this, you aren't helping the students at all. They'll learn something but won't be able to apply it to new situations.
And I found that all the time. As an example (recently, like yesterday), one class I took was doing a prepared grammar exercise (fill in the blanks). One question they all got right was (italics was the blank bit):
"When I get home my dog will be sitting on the porch waiting for me"
Yet when I asked them to change the sentence to past tense, not one of them could do it. They had been taught this sentence so they could show their parents they had learnt something in class that particular day. They hadn't been taught the grammar rule at all.

In Public schools, I have the luxury of being able to design a curriculum plan that might take 10 weeks to finish, not just learning one new thing a week which has little to do with what was learnt the previous week. And I don't need to constantly worry about making sure each and every lesson is keeping the students happy - because sometimes learning is boring but necessary (especially grammar rules).

I can't see how privatising public education would end up any other way than the way these private learning centres here operate.

No one said beat them for thinking. I went to school when the cane was legal in the UK. It was used to deal with persistant offenders who disruppted classes, would not respect anyone else and made education impossible. What option exists now to deal with these, and do not say they do not exist, because you know full well that they do.

I would prefer not to have such "barbaric" methods, but they are the methods that "barbaric" children respond to.

how much beating is too much? if the child persists could you just continue beating the child until s/he submits?

are children are who we make them. if we use violence as a solution to problems, this is the lesson we are setting to future generations. look at the roots for why children are disruptive. create postitve outputs for these childrens emotions. thus more money & resources should be put into our public education system.