NationStates Jolt Archive

Give me your opinions on this.

Remeber kids, no fighting.


-Brian

What about it?
Public Education is one of the best things ever to happen, in my opinion. Ignorance is the worst thing to happen to a society, I think; and as long as publice education isn't teaching ignorant things, then its a brilliant establishment.

in what sense? do you mean public education as per state-funded education as a public service, or public education as per public schools in the UK? (re: old/traditional private schools who belong to the Headmaster's Conference)? :confused:

edit: my own opinions are that state education should be of primary importance to government, and that - seeing how i went to a british "public" school - the latter type aren't all they're cracked up to be.

The "their" is suppose to be "there."

Sorry it took so long for the poll. I mean the Government funded and created education.

What about it?
Public Education is one of the best things ever to happen, in my opinion. Ignorance is the worst thing to happen to a society, I think; and as long as publice education isn't teaching ignorant things, then its a brilliant establishment.


Well said... Our education is in definite need of reform, but on an optimistic side, things are steadily improving. American test scores seem to be improving, and there are other signs of life in our educational system. I have a brother who is a public school teacher here in St. Louis, MO and he seems very optimistic about the future of education (at least in our little area of the world). While Bush's "No Child left behind" was not the most popular thing ever created, it is at least an attempt to improve a laggins school system, which I whole heartedly give his administration respect for their efforts on that matter.

There are rampant problems. It does seem to be a vast improvement over the alternative, though.

Aside from problems of underfunding and inefficacy, I think the structure is too rigid and the objectives too limited.

Free public education should be offered through college, but it should only be compulsory through high school.

I'm going to go to a 4 year college, hopefully Cal-tech. With all that I think no one should be forced to be educated by the government.

Just letting you know what I voted because I started the poll.


-Brian

there should be no public education system period.

there should be no public education system period.
<sigh> because...?:rolleyes:

Ohhh...I just saw the poll.
I think it should be high school. High school gets you enough knowledge to basically get by. Or at least it used to.

I'm going to go to a 4 year college. Hopefully Cal-tech and I think no one should be forced to be educated by the government.

Just letting you know what I voted because I started the poll.


-Brian
its better for everybody to recieve some mandatory level of education.

education is a demerit good - its full value is not realised upon consumption. hence most people would not choose to consume it if they could.

hence it should be the government who steps in and solves the problem, making - in my opinion - education mandatory till 18 (is that the end of highschool? i don't know - end of college/a-level here in the UK) and free but optional university/further education

there should be no public education system period.

I think A public education system is fine to have, I just think no one should be forced to except it.

Elgesh']<sigh> because...?:rolleyes:

same reason i'm against all forms of redistributing wealth (standard cosnervative answer). plus, i've witnessed first hand the inadeqeucies of most state schools, and feel that i could get a better education form the private sector.

One of the major reasons we managed to get out of the dark ages was that the population at large was able to get an education... what? do we want to go back to it?

education of the middle class has been created more by technological innovations in the form of mass media then any public schooling system.

There should be no public education at all

Elgesh']<sigh> because...?:rolleyes:

1. It takes up 12 years of an individuals life without their consent

2. It teaches useless trivia, and doesn't even perform that meagre task well.

3. It instills a prison culture into the young, as well as countless social traumas

4. It is a tremendous drain on the national budget

5. It creates taxes that are discriminatory against non-parents

6. It is used to indoctrinate children with values their parents might not consent with.

7. It harbors massive incompetence in the form of inferior, union-protected teachers (who increasingly learn "how" to teach, rather than actually something to teach)

The whole thing should be scrapped, the entire workforce fired, the buildings and infrastructure auctioned off. Private academies and trade schools can then compete against each other to provide low-cost, practical, ideologically diverse education. Literacy, basic math skills, applied science and the other rudiments of usefulness contained in our monstrously wasteful and inefficent public school system could easily be learned in just a few short years rather than the 12 we use here in the states. It is a discrace and a scandal that we keep children in the system for that long. (the real reason is to keep them out of the workforce, create an additional consumer class, and employ more parasitic school employees.)

edit explanation:made an error trying to quote two people, and I wanted the context to be clear, plus I ranted a bit.

I am not sure about this but back in the middle ages, I believe people wanted education but now that we have it, kids just hate it. They don't hate the school, but they just hate to wake up early. I don't like to wake up early either but what the heck. School, I think is one the main ways teenagers meet. But if they don't want to have an education and a nice paying career, then let them decide after high school.

I think A public education system is fine to have, I just think no one should be forced to except it.

Except = leave it out.
Accept = take it in.

One of the major reasons we managed to get out of the dark ages was that the population at large was able to get an education... what? do we want to go back to it?

Having the system is fine. I think that if someone who does not want to go through it then they shouldn't (Unless their parents make them :p). I have so many friends who would be off on their own making money at the ages of 13 and 14. They are completely capable of it but the state mandates a 12th grade education (which has become what the 10th grade education was 30 years ago, thats for the kids with a "B" average I believe).

I agree with you though, a society needs education, it doesn't need it cramed down its throat though.

Except = leave it out.
Accept = take it in.

Yes, I was going for the second one. Engineers arn't known for being the best spellers. :) Thanks


-Brian

1. It takes up 12 years of an individuals life without their consent.
So what? So they can go into the work-force without their consent?


2. It teaches useless trivia, and doesn't even perform that meagre task well.
Reading, math and problem solving are useless?


3. It instills a prison culture into the young, as well as countless social traumas.
Deal with it.

4. It is a tremendous drain on the national budget.
So would the prison system, once education was scrapped.

5. It creates taxes that are discriminatory against non-parents.
Not really, everyone pays the same taxes. If non-parents have kids, their taxes won't rise. Their choices.

6. It is used to indoctrinate children with values their parents might not consent with.
Like saying God in the Pledge of allegience?

7. It harbors massive incompetence in the form of inferior, union-protected teachers (who increasingly learn "how" to teach, rather than actually something to teach)
A majority of teachers are good teachers, good at teaching their field. "Massive incompetence," is a massive exaggeration.


The whole thing should be scrapped, the entire workforce fired, the buildings and infrastructure auctioned off. Private academies and trade schools can then compete against each other to provide low-cost, practical, ideologically diverse education.
Still, no cost is better than low cost.

Except = leave it out.
Accept = take it in.

And here we see why we should keep a public school system! :)

I'm amazed by some of the opinions on this thread.

Clearly you have no idea what life was like before the state began to see as its duty the education of _all_ its citizenry, regardless of their ability to pay. You shame your teachers.

Well said... Our education is in definite need of reform, but on an optimistic side, things are steadily improving. American test scores seem to be improving, and there are other signs of life in our educational system. I have a brother who is a public school teacher here in St. Louis, MO and he seems very optimistic about the future of education (at least in our little area of the world). While Bush's "No Child left behind" was not the most popular thing ever created, it is at least an attempt to improve a laggins school system, which I whole heartedly give his administration respect for their efforts on that matter.

Very interesting, I am hearing much the same from my daughter who is a brand new teacher on the other side of the state.
Having grown up and observed public education from the first year of the federal take over of our educational system and witnessing the continous decline in the quality of education, I was afraid it was hopeless. While Bush gets the credit for forcing Administrators and Teachers to be qualified to do their jobs, I strongly suspect it was his wife that was the brains behind the solution. Of course this reversal could all be temporary because without a doubt given the oppourtunity, the NEA will derail it in a heart beat.

So what? So they can go into the work-force without their consent?

-Noone enters the workforce without consent, at least not in a free country. The evils of child labor are highly exaggerated. For many it is a safe, profitable learning experience.

Reading, math and problem solving are useless?
- I said those were the few useful things.

So would the prison system, once education was scrapped.
-public education doesn't seem to be doing anything about the crime problem as it is, in fact the schools themselves are riddled with drug use and other crimes.

Not really, everyone pays the same taxes. If non-parents have kids, their taxes won't rise. Their choices.

I don't think you really understand how taxes work; if you didn't own property, would you want to pay property tax/ Same with the use of the schools.

Like saying God in the Pledge of allegience?
-that's a pretty good example right there.

A majority of teachers are good teachers, good at teaching their field. "Massive incompetence," is a massive exaggeration.
-the proof is in the pudding.

Still, no cost is better than low cost.

-again, I don't think you understand how taxes work. It may not be an out of pocket expense, but you are paying for it nonetheless.

What about it?
Public Education is one of the best things ever to happen, in my opinion. Ignorance is the worst thing to happen to a society, I think; and as long as publice education isn't teaching ignorant things, then its a brilliant establishment.


All for public education if it was good. But Private education is much much better. Usually everything is better when its private, if you rely on the government for anything you'll be gettin bread crumbs when you could have the whole loaf

-Noone enters the workforce without consent, at least not in a free country.

True. They have the option of starving.

Similarly, an apologist for slavery could insist that the slave consents to his slavery; after all, the slave could always refuse to work.

wait, so the government stops providing education, and suddenly no one will be educated?

i got atleast 2/3rds of my education informally, through just reading on my own. not to mention the private sector that would thrive in the absence of public institutions

All for public education if it was good. But Private education is much much better. Usually everything is better when its private, if you rely on the government for anything you'll be gettin bread crumbs when you could have the whole loaf

But that's my point; god love us all, I was privately educated and have a _massive_ advantage at my uni over public school educated students.

But my parents are very well off (I hasten to add I'm not! [yet :)]); not everyone can afford to send their kids to a good school. No, the state needs to provide this service to its citizens as it's beyond their ability to pay for it themselves, and private enterprise will _not_ pick up the slack on this one; it's like the military, streetlighting etc., some things can only be provided by the rich subsidising the poor for the good of all through the state.

Honestly, I think that a free public education should be offered to everyone, up to and including college.

If they choose not to accept it, well and good -- but then they'd best get a job and not whine that they need to be on the dole because they have no skills.

If they can't get a job, then the government should offer them one suited to their abilities (or lack thereof). If they choose not to take it, they should be on their own.

True. They have the option of starving.

Similarly, an apologist for slavery could insist that the slave consents to his slavery; after all, the slave could always refuse to work.

Unless you are independently wealthy, you work or starve. That's called REALITY. A kid wouldn't starve as long as his parents were supporting him, which I wager wouldn't be as late into his life as it would be if he'd wasted his teen years in a go-nowhere public institution instead of getting out in the world, learning a trade, and making something of himself.

All for public education if it was good. But Private education is much much better. Usually everything is better when its private, if you rely on the government for anything you'll be gettin bread crumbs when you could have the whole loaf

Yes it is, until such time their lobby becomes so powerful and they are able to bribe enough politicians into creating an industry wide welfare program, thus eliminating the competition such as we are now seeing with insurance, health care, Financial, Energy and well, this could become a very long list.
In any event, the return of eduction to a local level, combined with some much needed competition for results is exactly what is necessary to combat those that would use the system to indoctrinate rather than teach, and collect a check rather than work in a respected profession.

A kid wouldn't starve as long as his parents were supporting him, which I wager wouldn't be as late into his life as it would be if he'd wasted his teen years in a go-nowhere public institution instead of getting out in the world, learning a trade, and making something of himself.

Yes, his parents support him under the current situation as well.

As you point out, under the system you advocate that would end earlier, and thus the teenager would be coerced into working.

Coercing a teenager into working is no less coercive than coercing one into learning.

Honestly, I think that a free public education should be offered to everyone, up to and including college.

If they choose not to accept it, well and good -- but then they'd best get a job and not whine that they need to be on the dole because they have no skills.

If they can't get a job, then the government should offer them one suited to their abilities (or lack thereof). If they choose not to take it, they should be on their own.

You know, it certainly seems to me that with the current state of technology, such as the internet, programs such as this could be easily financed. I wonder how many billions state and private universities would spend to prevent it from happening?

You know, it certainly seems to me that with the current state of technology, such as the internet, programs such as this could be easily financed. I wonder how many billions state and private universities would spend to prevent it from happening?

Internet base4d education doesn't seem to work terribly well with children. If you're talking about young adults, then some of the time you're in with a shout. At best, the internet is a tool to be utilised within education, it doesn't replace it.

Elgesh']Internet base4d education doesn't seem to work terribly well with children. If you're talking about young adults, then some of the time you're in with a shout. At best, the internet is a tool to be utilised within education, it doesn't replace it.

Yes I was referring to adult and young adults for university level programs. I do agree to a point that there could be problems with children because of the lack of contact with others and the fact that not all parents are responsible enough to ensure children participated. That said however, there have been test communities with larger numbers of younger students who have consistantly scored as much as 30% higher on average than their publicly educated counterparts.

Public education needs reforms, and plenty of them, but it should not, under any circumstances, be scrapped.

Without public education, how many of you would be sitting in front of your computers with the ability to read this? And be honest. None of this "My parents would teach me" or "I'd learn to read on my own". Unless your parents are rich enough to pay thousands of dollars a year for private education, you'd probably be slaving away at an underpaid position at McDonald's or Burger King, such as flipping burgers or cooking fries.

Public education needs reforms, and plenty of them, but it should not, under any circumstances, be scrapped.

Without public education, how many of you would be sitting in front of your computers with the ability to read this? And be honest. None of this "My parents would teach me" or "I'd learn to read on my own". Unless your parents are rich enough to pay thousands of dollars a year for private education, you'd probably be slaving away at an underpaid position at McDonald's or Burger King, such as flipping burgers or cooking fries.

I would be able to read this. I started going to school last year. I'm going to send in my resume to JPL for an acedemic-part-time job (APT) later this month. They are going to pay for my College, hopefully at Cal-Tech (If it is then I won't have to think about a place to live). In addition to this I'll be making like $30,000 a year for working only 20 hours a week.

I belive public education is one of the greatest things civilization has to offer. Not only because it gives people an education, but it forces people to mix.

I have friends that are from all walks of life. One of my friends is an Asian Christian conservative and she always argues with my liberal athiest boyfriend while two of my friend who are moderate christians (one of which is actually a Quaker) laugh at how horribly radical they are.

I have gay friends, straight friends, friends that have immigrated from Croatia, friends that have immigrated from Mexico, El Salvador, Brazil, friends that have immigrated from Africa. I have horrendously rich friends that live on borderline mansions while I have a friend who is the main breadwinner in his family. I have friends that don't know where Oregon is while I have friends who can name all 43 president.

None of these people I would of met if I went to private school. If there was no public shool system, I would probaly only be going to school with people in my tax bracket.

Yes I was referring to adult and young adults for university level programs. I do agree to a point that there could be problems with children because of the lack of contact with others and the fact that not all parents are responsible enough to ensure children participated. That said however, there have been test communities with larger numbers of younger students who have consistantly scored as much as 30% higher on average than their publicly educated counterparts.

Ah, that's different! I'm more open to that as a widespread possibility.

However, I'd be wary of the initial 'test communities' results - for _any_ social sciences 'experiment'. The first few tests of xyz often show considerable potential that bleeds away over the following decade or so of trials; this is explained by the simple fact that you're taking the participant out of their normal routine and getting them to do something 'special', something 'important' - no wonder they do well, you'll making them feel special, important, and most participants want to do 'well', to please the experimenter. Humans like approval :) This is _particularly_ the case where you're dealing with children, and even more so in an educational environment where 'results', it has been ingrained into them, matter.

But no, using this as a sort of Open University scheme has real potential :) (I still think it's unrealistic to want it to replace universities; we're not automata, we have needs that can't be met be pure education, and universities provide a lot of vital 'intangible' functions). But altogether, a useful tool that needs looking at :D

Give me your opinions on this.

Remeber kids, no fighting.


-Brian

You will not get a good job without an education. How far you go beyond High School is your choice, but HS should be mandantory.

So what? So they can go into the work-force without their consent?

-Noone enters the workforce without consent, at least not in a free country. The evils of child labor are highly exaggerated. For many it is a safe, profitable learning experience.

Reading, math and problem solving are useless?
- I said those were the few useful things.

So would the prison system, once education was scrapped.
-public education doesn't seem to be doing anything about the crime problem as it is, in fact the schools themselves are riddled with drug use and other crimes.

Not really, everyone pays the same taxes. If non-parents have kids, their taxes won't rise. Their choices.

I don't think you really understand how taxes work; if you didn't own property, would you want to pay property tax/ Same with the use of the schools.

Like saying God in the Pledge of allegience?
-that's a pretty good example right there.

A majority of teachers are good teachers, good at teaching their field. "Massive incompetence," is a massive exaggeration.
-the proof is in the pudding.

Still, no cost is better than low cost.

-again, I don't think you understand how taxes work. It may not be an out of pocket expense, but you are paying for it nonetheless.

I completely understand how taxes work. I also understand that society works because people help each other if some didn't pick up the slack where others left off, it wouldn't work. Its not fair, but its life.

I can tell you, from going to a public school, that public schools are not currently "Riddled with drug use and other crimes." You can't tell me that things have changed since then, because then is now.

Saying "God," in the pledge falls under my "Deal with it," category. I don't care about it, almost no one does. In fact, only that asshole in Southern California does.

By saying "The proof is in the pudding," (however generalized that may be,) I'm assuming you're talking about the outcome of public education students in life.

A strong majority of people in the USA have been publicly educated, with most of them doing alright. Sure, they may not go to Yale, Stanford, or Harvard, but it doesn't make that much of a difference.

As far as the child labor thing, making kids work generally doesn't work. Kids need to develop properly, given time to mature before they can take on responsibility. Can you imagine an accountant yelling at a 6 year old "Get these papers done now or you're fired!" What someone over the age of 12 really do effectively and safely?





I would be able to read this. I started going to school last year. I'm going to send in my resume to JPL for an acedemic-part-time job (APT) later this month. They are going to pay for my College, hopefully at Cal-Tech (If it is then I won't have to think about a place to live). In addition to this I'll be making like $30,000 a year for working only 20 hours a week.

I would have to say that you are an exception to the general population. Although I'd be able to read this too, most people don't make 30 grand a year on a 20 hour work-week.

As long as I have the right to homeschool, I really could care less. I think public school is good for some people, but it's not great for everyone, I am glad I have an alternative option.

hence it should be the government who steps in and solves the problem, making - in my opinion - education mandatory till 18 (is that the end of highschool? i don't know - end of college/a-level here in the UK) and free but optional university/further education

I think sixteen remains the best option for this. Many people I know dropped out at sixteen and got a trade. And they're doing fine (better thatn me, in fact)

I belive public education is one of the greatest things civilization has to offer. Not only because it gives people an education, but it forces people to mix.

I have friends that are from all walks of life. One of my friends is an Asian Christian conservative and she always argues with my liberal athiest boyfriend while two of my friend who are moderate christians (one of which is actually a Quaker) laugh at how horribly radical they are.

I have gay friends, straight friends, friends that have immigrated from Croatia, friends that have immigrated from Mexico, El Salvador, Brazil, friends that have immigrated from Africa. I have horrendously rich friends that live on borderline mansions while I have a friend who is the main breadwinner in his family. I have friends that don't know where Oregon is while I have friends who can name all 43 president.

None of these people I would of met if I went to private school. If there was no public shool system, I would probaly only be going to school with people in my tax bracket.

I think that is a good reason for school. Though if you really want to, you will meet diffrent people. I have friends who are from eastern european, mormons, scientologists; my first girlfriend drew up in brazil, is korean by race and english is her 4th language. The income of the families of my friends range from "on the dole" to having stickers that say "my other car is also a porsche." Less then 5% of these people I know from school.


-Brian

public education is vital.

Basic math, reading, and problem solving are needed to exist in the modern world.

To have a shot at success, reading comprehension (not just reading, but understanding what you read), higher math skills, and higher logic/problem solving are needed.

As such, an education through grade 12 (US) is invaluable.

The question doesn't ask private vs. public vs. home. The US requires education through age 16 (with parental concent for dropping out). the means of this education are the parents choice.

As for the debate about public vs. private, the public system would be much better off if these "education specialists" were ignored, and teachers were listened to. Changing a purple pen for a red pen does nothing to fix the problem behind the bad grades. Standardized testing doesn't help students who take the tests...some is important to know what is and isn't being taught properly, but too many means teachers are forced to teach to the test in order to pass.

Getting rid of mandatory education is a bad idea because why would you send a child (read: potential income) to get educated (read: expense)? Unless you are very well off, chances are paying for an education isn't viable.

As for taxes, guess what? That is life. Deal with it. I don't want huge portions of my money going to defense (note: I'm not saying no money should, but I don't think it should be as high as it is). I still pay my taxes and vote for the people who might enact a change that I would like. Thus is the nature of living in a modern nation.

As for taxes, guess what? That is life. Deal with it. I don't want huge portions of my money going to defense (note: I'm not saying no money should, but I don't think it should be as high as it is). I still pay my taxes and vote for the people who might enact a change that I would like. Thus is the nature of living in a modern nation.

I couldn't agree more. I think I just made a new friend.

I think that is a good reason for school. Though if you really want to, you will meet diffrent people. I have friends who are from eastern european, mormons, scientologists; my first girlfriend drew up in brazil, is korean by race and english is her 4th language. The income of the families of my friends range from "on the dole" to having stickers that say "my other car is also a porsche." Less then 5% of these people I know from school.


-Brian

What you say is true but,for many children, most of thier friends come from school. Plus, school literally forces people from different backgrounds to work together. It shouldn't be a matter if you want to or not. People don't have to like each other, but they need to know how to deal with each other. How else are we going to make the world a better place?

As long as I have the right to homeschool, I really could care less. I think public school is good for some people, but it's not great for everyone, I am glad I have an alternative option.

Well even though people are bailing from the public eductational system at a 7 to 15% rate, keep in mind that your children are the meal ticket for government breaucrats and social service parasites everywhere. Home schoolers are harrassed, threatened, dragged into court, denied benefits and intimidated on a consistant basis in almost every state in the U.S.
It is a very tough row to hoe if your local school board is having trouble filling enough chairs to keep their income level rising.

Highschool

While I love education ... and think it is an awsome I also prize liberty

Finding the balance is hard. I think school untill a person is of the age of majority should be required (most kids DONT know what is best for them sometimes) at that point it is them

We should make further schooling avaliable but not manditory

Well even though people are bailing from the public eductational system at a 7 to 15% rate, keep in mind that your children are the meal ticket for government breaucrats and social service parasites everywhere. Home schoolers are harrassed, threatened, dragged into court, denied benefits and intimidated on a consistant basis in almost every state in the U.S.
It is a very tough row to hoe if your local school board is having trouble filling enough chairs to keep their income level rising.
yeah they have already started giving me crap when I pulled my kid out of school, they sent home this letter where they wanted my "lesson plans" for the rest of the year written out, so they could "make sure I was teaching her something" I pointed out to them that the law doesn't require me to, and that my lawyer says it's none of their business, I think I pissed them off, because now I have a whole new group of idiots annoying me. :p

Education should always be 100% voluntary. Nor should there be public education. People should educate their own kids.

yeah they have already started giving me crap when I pulled my kid out of school, they sent home this letter where they wanted my "lesson plans" for the rest of the year written out, so they could "make sure I was teaching her something" I pointed out to them that the law doesn't require me to, and that my lawyer says it's none of their business, I think I pissed them off, because now I have a whole new group of idiots annoying me. :p

A lot of very good people behind this group that are more than happy to help you. http://www.hslda.org/

Education should always be 100% voluntary. Nor should there be public education. People should educate their own kids.
nice in theory, but without a standardized curriculum, there is no way to ensure kids are getting basic knowledge. Not to mention, with both parents working, who is going to be able to teach their kid enough to get them into a university?

yeah they have already started giving me crap when I pulled my kid out of school, they sent home this letter where they wanted my "lesson plans" for the rest of the year written out, so they could "make sure I was teaching her something" I pointed out to them that the law doesn't require me to, and that my lawyer says it's none of their business, I think I pissed them off, because now I have a whole new group of idiots annoying me. :p
best of luck with that...and just tell the school board to piss off.

best of luck with that...and just tell the school board to piss off.
meh, I figure if they are bothering me then at least they are leaving someone else alone. I know the law, and I think that is what scares them most. It's funny to me to hear the type of intimidation they try to use. If they ever call child services on me though, then I will get mad, then they will hear from my lawyer, then they will see the type of lawsuit that they only have nightmares about, but until then, I will let them do what they feel they need to do, and you know what? I am going to be super nice just to annoy them ;)

meh, I figure if they are bothering me then at least they are leaving someone else alone. I know the law, and I think that is what scares them most. It's funny to me to hear the type of intimidation they try to use. If they ever call child services on me though, then I will get mad, then they will hear from my lawyer, then they will see the type of lawsuit that they only have nightmares about, but until then, I will let them do what they feel they need to do, and you know what? I am going to be super nice just to annoy them ;)
ahh...passive agressiveism at its finest ;)

I wonder why your district has such an issue with this...my town has a good 6 kids whom I know are home schooled, all without problem

ahh...passive agressiveism at its finest ;)

I wonder why your district has such an issue with this...my town has a good 6 kids whom I know are home schooled, all without problem
they probably would be leaving us alone, but she started the school year in school (she wanted to try it, so I let her) and I had to pull her out, it turns out that she is 4 but has the vocab. of an 11 year old, she was bored, and her teacher was an idiot (I mean really an idiot) I think there big problem is that they are depending on funding from the govt. and it goes by how many kids they have, I figured out that they were having a funding problem when they put her on free lunch even though we didn't qualify, they tried to explain to me that if they get a certain percentage of kids on free lunch then they get more money because it makes them look like a "poor school".

they probably would be leaving us alone, but she started the school year in school (she wanted to try it, so I let her) and I had to pull her out, it turns out that she is 4 but has the vocab. of an 11 year old, she was bored, and her teacher was an idiot (I mean really an idiot) I think there big problem is that they are depending on funding from the govt. and it goes by how many kids they have, I figured out that they were having a funding problem when they put her on free lunch even though we didn't qualify, they tried to explain to me that if they get a certain percentage of kids on free lunch then they get more money because it makes them look like a "poor school".

Yep, that is exactly the way they operate. Next you will see them try and declare all the schools in your area "alternative schools" because they get even more money for those.

Yep, that is exactly the way they operate. Next you will see them try and declare all the schools in your area "alternative schools" because they get even more money for those.
Its really sad that our schools have to resort to such stupid things to get funding
I am not saying someone is not playing the game a bit TOO enthusiastically at that school ,but the fact that to an extent schools have to play these games to try to get enough money to educate their students properly, is sad.

Give me your opinions on this.

Remeber kids, no fighting.


-Brian

Public Schools suck. Their a waste of time for kids, money for taxpayers, and opportunity for all of society. There are absolutely no market forces driving education except for the instances where expensive private schools are so much better then public schools that parents pay tons of money to send their kids their instead of paying nothing. I'm fine if you want everyone to have an education, but don't use the government to run it! Use vouchers for private schools so that competition can bring costs of education down and quality of education way, way up. I see absolutely no reason to have schooling run by the government.

All for public education if it was good. But Private education is much much better. Usually everything is better when its private, if you rely on the government for anything you'll be gettin bread crumbs when you could have the whole loaf

Private education is also vastly more expensive... But also, there have been many studies which show new private education institutions are actually equal to or worse then current public institutions. Of course there are thousands of superior private schools, but you pay for that superiority.

What we should really be talking about is how you can totally overhall the education system. The reality is that education in the hands of the individual states does not work. Often State education becomes the victim of budgeting woes as the educational budget is the first to be slashed while transportation pork takes front seat (building new roads is what gets people elected, not teacher pay raises). Also, atleast in my state, divided school districting and subsequent taxation builds an inequality across states so richer counties get better facilities while poorer ones continue to suffer.

If you want to address the real differences between rich and poor and those types of wage gaps.. instead of trying to give hand outs to the impoverished through welfare, medicare etc.. you should address education first. This (atleast the United States) is meant to be a country of equal OPPROTUNITY, and no better way are opprotunities given then through education.

Public Schools suck. Their a waste of time for kids, money for taxpayers, and opportunity for all of society. There are absolutely no market forces driving education except for the instances where expensive private schools are so much better then public schools that parents pay tons of money to send their kids their instead of paying nothing. I'm fine if you want everyone to have an education, but don't use the government to run it! Use vouchers for private schools so that competition can bring costs of education down and quality of education way, way up. I see absolutely no reason to have schooling run by the government.
You make the assumption that all private schools are better then public, where do you get that idea from?

Public Schools suck. Their a waste of time for kids, money for taxpayers, and opportunity for all of society. There are absolutely no market forces driving education except for the instances where expensive private schools are so much better then public schools that parents pay tons of money to send their kids their instead of paying nothing. I'm fine if you want everyone to have an education, but don't use the government to run it! Use vouchers for private schools so that competition can bring costs of education down and quality of education way, way up. I see absolutely no reason to have schooling run by the government.

No market forces driving education ? Two words, global economy.... You want to stay compeditive and not be outsourced.. you have to make yourself more valuable to companies, to justify the added cost. Education 100% of the time is what will get you there. Less you want to be training your chinese replacement in a years time. Education is the 2nd most important thing the Government needs to be addressing down from Defense!! Education is the corner stone of society, and will determine if in 30 years we are a world power, or a thrid world nation.

Also, Studies are showing a great MANY new private for profit schools are equal to or WORSE then current public school situations. This is one major point AGAINST for profit schools!

Elgesh']But that's my point; god love us all, I was privately educated and have a _massive_ advantage at my uni over public school educated students.

But my parents are very well off (I hasten to add I'm not! [yet :)]); not everyone can afford to send their kids to a good school. No, the state needs to provide this service to its citizens as it's beyond their ability to pay for it themselves, and private enterprise will _not_ pick up the slack on this one; it's like the military, streetlighting etc., some things can only be provided by the rich subsidising the poor for the good of all through the state.

The only reason private schools are so expensive now is because they have to be that much better than public schools that parents are willing to choose them over something that's free. The free market shall provide.

You make the assumption that all private schools are better then public, where do you get that idea from?

The simple fact that the private sector does everything better than the public sector. Except for wasting money and killing people.

The simple fact that the private sector does everything better than the public sector. Except for wasting money and killing people.
Simple fact huh ... I would most love to see the information you use to derive this. A nice statistical comparison I am guessing?

The simple fact that the private sector does everything better than the public sector. Except for wasting money and killing people.

... tell that to the employees of Enron. >.>

Oh yeah, and those "online college degrees" which arn't worth the pixels they are displayed on

The only reason private schools are so expensive now is because they have to be that much better than public schools that parents are willing to choose them over something that's free. The free market shall provide.
So you assume but everything I have seen is a variable added last regression

I have not seen any hard stats to support the fact that quality of education can be maintained with out the already existent public schools. All our current data really is a model of private schools performance given the existence of a fairly large public system.

The only reason private schools are so expensive now is because they have to be that much better than public schools that parents are willing to choose them over something that's free. The free market shall provide.

Uh-huh.

That's like saying paying $20 for a plain white tee shirt at Banana Republic makes it superior to the identical one they sell at Old Navy for $12.50 or 2 for twenty -- because you pay more.


(Old Navy and Banana Republic are the same company btw -- the tees really ARE identical)

Like Banana Republic, sometimes what you pay for with the private schools is -- the name of the school.

Uh-huh.

That's like saying paying $20 for a plain white tee shirt at Banana Republic makes it superior to the identical one they sell at Old Navy for $12.50 or 2 for twenty -- because you pay more.


(Old Navy and Banana Republic are the same company btw -- the tees really ARE identical)

Like Banana Republic, sometimes what you pay for with the private schools is -- the name of the school.
Agreed, and some times people just pay because of the private viewpoint they espouse (their image) such as catholic school.

The quality of the education is not always what you are paying for.

Public Schools suck. Their a waste of time for kids, money for taxpayers, and opportunity for all of society. There are absolutely no market forces driving education except for the instances where expensive private schools are so much better then public schools that parents pay tons of money to send their kids their instead of paying nothing. I'm fine if you want everyone to have an education, but don't use the government to run it! Use vouchers for private schools so that competition can bring costs of education down and quality of education way, way up. I see absolutely no reason to have schooling run by the government.
I have texts (they're print, but I could probably find them online somewhere if I had to) that display that vouchers destroy both public and private schools.

Additionally, there is NO evidence that says a private school is better than public. It depends on the school.

The government has done a decent job running it since the dark ages (when there were no public or private schools aside from those for the super rich). Why go back to a system that failed so badly?

Uh-huh.

That's like saying paying $20 for a plain white tee shirt at Banana Republic makes it superior to the identical one they sell at Old Navy for $12.50 or 2 for twenty -- because you pay more.


(Old Navy and Banana Republic are the same company btw -- the tees really ARE identical)

Like Banana Republic, sometimes what you pay for with the private schools is -- the name of the school.
Wait, do you mean to imply that teachers from private schools are educated at the same institutions as public schools? *gasp!* WHAT WILL WE DO TO SAVE OURSELVES?! [/sarcasm]

iirc, private schools don't even have to require that a teacher is certified, whereas public schools do. Oddly, this would lead one to believe that public teachers are held to higher standards.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I can't condone compulsory state education. The state's responsibilities are only to provide security from force and fraud. Additionally, no-one should be *required* to do anything by the state, other than abide by simple rules outlawing force and fraud.

However, society does have a responsibility to provide education. (Note: society =/= the state.)

I would like to see a thoughly mixed system that allows for a range of everything, including autodidactic home schooling, apprenticeships, private schools, and free schools sponsored by charities, buisness, the military, and private individuals. For practical purposes, this would likely have to include state sponsored schools, at least until an acceptable replacement is available.

A key to this would have to be a rating system - something like this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05306/599058.stm

UpwardThrust, you are correct in stating that there a good hard look at how a completely privatised school system would stack up. People on both sides of this debate are throwing around "X is better than Y" without any evidence at all. I can't think of anywhere this has been carried out, at least in the industrial world. (Somalia has no public schools, for example, but it wouldn't be a reasonable comparison... ;))

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I can't condone compulsory state education. The state's responsibilities are only to provide security from force and fraud. Additionally, no-one should be *required* to do anything by the state, other than abide by simple rules outlawing force and fraud.

However, society does have a responsibility to provide education. (Note: society =/= the state.)

I would like to see a thoughly mixed system that allows for a range of everything, including autodidactic home schooling, apprenticeships, private schools, and free schools sponsored by charities, buisness, the military, and private individuals. For practical purposes, this would likely have to include state sponsored schools, at least until an acceptable replacement is available.

A key to this would have to be a rating system - something like this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05306/599058.stm

UpwardThrust, you are correct in stating that there a good hard look at how a completely privatised school system would stack up. People on both sides of this debate are throwing around "X is better than Y" without any evidence at all. I can't think of anywhere this has been carried out, at least in the industrial world. (Somalia has no public schools, for example, but it wouldn't be a reasonable comparison... ;))

Ideally I would like your proposition

It just stuck in my craw boldly proclaiming one better then the other with no study and no hard stats to get us on solid footing to compare.

While I think education is important enough to overrule my normal distaste for government running things. I think it defiantly would not be a bad idea to make alternative choices a strong option ... let people have the ability to choose what they think best for their children while creating a safety net to make sure at some point people ARE educated one way or another to an acceptable standard

(my only real qualm would be true military sponsored education) its not that I don't absolutely respect what the military does for us, but they don't belong in education any more then the IRS does) Thats not to say that military like boarding schools and academy schools are not acceptable just actual military sponsored schools

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I can't condone compulsory state education. The state's responsibilities are only to provide security from force and fraud. Additionally, no-one should be *required* to do anything by the state, other than abide by simple rules outlawing force and fraud.

However, society does have a responsibility to provide education. (Note: society =/= the state.)

I would like to see a thoughly mixed system that allows for a range of everything, including autodidactic home schooling, apprenticeships, private schools, and free schools sponsored by charities, buisness, the military, and private individuals. For practical purposes, this would likely have to include state sponsored schools, at least until an acceptable replacement is available.

A key to this would have to be a rating system - something like this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05306/599058.stm

UpwardThrust, you are correct in stating that there a good hard look at how a completely privatised school system would stack up. People on both sides of this debate are throwing around "X is better than Y" without any evidence at all. I can't think of anywhere this has been carried out, at least in the industrial world. (Somalia has no public schools, for example, but it wouldn't be a reasonable comparison... ;))

good distinction with the state vs. society. In the case of education, as with police and fire protection, I think that the state is the best means for society to provide this. But I do agree. It is society which must educate its people. It is just in this case that I think the state can best carry out the causes of society.

Its really sad that our schools have to resort to such stupid things to get funding
I am not saying someone is not playing the game a bit TOO enthusiastically at that school ,but the fact that to an extent schools have to play these games to try to get enough money to educate their students properly, is sad.

That is the problem with breaucratic control over education. They have absolutely no reason to apply the funding in a responsible manner, which is why I am so much in favor of giving them a taste of competition through vouchers and the Charter schools. Private schools run circles around government schools at a fraction of the cost, while school administrators and board members are busy spending their record increases jetting here and there "making contacts" and enhancing their social status. In the U.S. states are paying between 6,000 and 10,000 dollars per student anually and they only thing we are being shown for it is more whining and crying because now they have to be qualified to teach the subject they teach. Heaven forbid they have to have a certificate proving they can do the job they are hired to do.
I belive they are getting the money they need, it is unfortunately being intercepted before it gets to it's intended destination.

That is the problem with breaucratic control over education. They have absolutely no reason to apply the funding in a responsible manner, which is why I am so much in favor of giving them a taste of competition through vouchers and the Charter schools. Private schools run circles around government schools at a fraction of the cost, while school administrators and board members are busy spending their record increases jetting here and there "making contacts" and enhancing their social status. In the U.S. states are paying between 6,000 and 10,000 dollars per student anually and they only thing we are being shown for it is more whining and crying because now they have to be qualified to teach the subject they teach. Heaven forbid they have to have a certificate proving they can do the job they are hired to do.
I belive they are getting the money they need, it is unfortunately being intercepted before it gets to it's intended destination.
While I think private schools absolutely are an option I wonder if they could truly be as effective if they took over primary education status rather then a secondary position ... I would love to see some data on it, this is not a change we want to make if it endangers our children's education

The government has done a decent job running it since the dark ages (when there were no public or private schools aside from those for the super rich).

Untrue! The national state school system didn't appear in most of Europe (Scotland being an exception) until the latter part of the industrial revolution (1800s). (And even then the Scottish schools were not cumpulsory until 1871.)

The middle ages saw the establishment of a variety of schools operated by charities, guilds, the church etc.


Why go back to a system that failed so badly?

Strawman. (And note, it would probably be better to apply this to moder state education, at least in the US - why continue a system that has failed so badly?)

Untrue! The national state school system didn't appear in most of Europe (Scotland being an exception) until the latter part of the industrial revolution (1800s). (And even then the Scottish schools were not cumpulsory until 1871.)

The middle ages saw the establishment of a variety of schools operated by charities, guilds, the church etc.




Strawman. (And note, it would probably be better to apply this to moder state education, at least in the US - why continue a system that has failed so badly?)
Though the private schools then were dealing with a whole different world ... not only massively different standards of the education itself but a wholly different situation of what use you make of that education.

Just because they WERE private schools does not mean that they are comparable

That is the problem with breaucratic control over education. They have absolutely no reason to apply the funding in a responsible manner, which is why I am so much in favor of giving them a taste of competition through vouchers and the Charter schools. Private schools run circles around government schools at a fraction of the cost, while school administrators and board members are busy spending their record increases jetting here and there "making contacts" and enhancing their social status. In the U.S. states are paying between 6,000 and 10,000 dollars per student anually and they only thing we are being shown for it is more whining and crying because now they have to be qualified to teach the subject they teach. Heaven forbid they have to have a certificate proving they can do the job they are hired to do.
I belive they are getting the money they need, it is unfortunately being intercepted before it gets to it's intended destination.
First, ROAR to averages. I hate them.
See, the thing with averages is that there are school districts like Westin CT, which pays hugely for education, and in return has one of the top school systems in the world. Then there are places that pay shit for education and wonder why they are doing shitty. Average means the school systems that pay alot get the reputation of not doing alot.

Also, I can't speak for every state (perhaps Kat can say more about this) but it is illegal to major in education in the states of MA and CT for the very reason that you have to have a degree in what you teach. CT laws currently state that you may teach 1 course outside of your degree(s). CT and MA also have two of the hardest exams to pass to become a teacher. Private schools do not need to have certified teachers at all.

I agree that there is corruption in our schools, as there is everywhere. However, they have tried vouchers in some areas, as well as charter schools. Neither adress the issue properly. The thing is, people have the image of a school like Miss Porters or Chote in their mind when they think "private school". Sad fact is, this isn't accurate to what all private schools are like. To go to a top private school, top dollar must be paid. To go to a school comporable to local public schools, the price is similar to the price of the public school per child.

Fact:
Public Education and Private Education generally both adhere to the same lesson plan.
The quality of the education depends mainly on the student himself/herself. A lazy bastard without interests will not profit much, regardless of how great a school he goes to.

Fact:
The rest of society profits greatly from having educated people around, therefore some sort of tax money to go into education in one form or another is justified.

Debate:
Public vs Private Schools...probably a mix is best.
As I said, Private Schools are no guarantee of a better outcome for the individual, but maybe the smaller number of students or higher wages/qualifications of teachers in high-society schools are something parents would value. Not that there is a basis to it.
But poorer people need to be provided with the funds to get education. The voucher system isn't bad, but currently not very well implemented.

And very importantly:
If we are going to go with private education, we'll have to drop this "My school, I teach what I want!"-Idea. You should not be allowed to teach kids that the earth is flat and Negroes eat Jewish children, regardless of who owns the establishment.
Yes, the free market will eventually take care of it, but in this case the damage done justifies stopping the problem before it occurs. Plus, you need to have something to cancel out the influence of parents who actually wanted their kids to learn that the earth is flat. Which is why I'm against Home Schooling.

Fact:
Public Education and Private Education generally both adhere to the same lesson plan.
The quality of the education depends mainly on the student himself/herself. A lazy bastard without interests will not profit much, regardless of how great a school he goes to.

Fact:
The rest of society profits greatly from having educated people around, therefore some sort of tax money to go into education in one form or another is justified.
*claps*

ah screw it.
*bows down and kisses feet*

Ideally I would like your proposition

It just stuck in my craw boldly proclaiming one better then the other with no study and no hard stats to get us on solid footing to compare.

While I think education is important enough to overrule my normal distaste for government running things. I think it defiantly would not be a bad idea to make alternative choices a strong option ... let people have the ability to choose what they think best for their children while creating a safety net to make sure at some point people ARE educated one way or another to an acceptable standard

(my only real qualm would be true military sponsored education) its not that I don't absolutely respect what the military does for us, but they don't belong in education any more then the IRS does) Thats not to say that military like boarding schools and academy schools are not acceptable just actual military sponsored schools

With military sponsorship, I'm thinking more along the lines of what the US military does currently by offering financial aid for school.

While I think private schools absolutely are an option I wonder if they could truly be as effective if they took over primary education status rather then a secondary position ... I would love to see some data on it, this is not a change we want to make if it endangers our children's education

I believe they are a benefit only as long as they are a viable, and accessable option to the local public system. If we enable parents to pull their children from failing public schools and enroll them in a local private alternative, we will have solved the problem of administrations that have no compelling reason to provide the quality of education our children deserve. Private schools should not be a replacement, they are half the solution. The competition between public and private education will reap benefits beyond anything our nation has ever seen. I have absolutely no doubt about the potiential it serves.

I believe they are a benefit only as long as they are a viable, and accessable option to the local public system. If we enable parents to pull their children from failing public schools and enroll them in a local private alternative, we will have solved the problem of administrations that have no compelling reason to provide the quality of education our children deserve. Private schools should not be a replacement, they are half the solution. The competition between public and private education will reap benefits beyond anything our nation has ever seen. I have absolutely no doubt about the potiential it serves.
Defiantly can see that.
Though for now I would like to see a first step of ensuring better education by more comprehensive funding.

Work on the other good ideas while Our kids are getting at least a solidly funded public school system.

With military sponsorship, I'm thinking more along the lines of what the US military does currently by offering financial aid for school.
Ahhh I see ... now I understand :p

Though the private schools then were dealing with a whole different world ... not only massively different standards of the education itself but a wholly different situation of what use you make of that education.

Just because they WERE private schools does not mean that they are comparable

I was taking issue with the idea that state schools appeared in the aftermath of the dark ages.

Most than the issue between public/private schools is the students themselves.

How does a teacher motivate their students to learn? By sheer fact that parents pay for the school, it is pretty safe to assume most kids in private schools care about their education. How do you get a student to care? Answer that, and I think you will solve the education crisis throughout the world.

I was taking issue with the idea that state schools appeared in the aftermath of the dark ages.
Another mistake on my part I apologize ... me thinks its bedtime --- lack of sleep and a hangover is killing me

Most than the issue between public/private schools is the students themselves.

How does a teacher motivate their students to learn? By sheer fact that parents pay for the school, it is pretty safe to assume most kids in private schools care about their education. How do you get a student to care? Answer that, and I think you will solve the education crisis throughout the world.
Continue that thought

... because their parents pay for it. So their parents have another vested and personal reason to ensure their student getting good grades and learning, so they tend to motivate their student more.

Parents if they took an active hand in their childs education can do such good

Continue that thought

... because their parents pay for it. So their parents have another vested and personal reason to ensure their student getting good grades and learning, so they tend to motivate their student more.

Parents if they took an active hand in their childs education can do such good
sorry, I cut myself short on that. Parents are vital to the system...but there is another part to families that pay for the education. These families value education. Without putting direct pressure on the student, these families instill the idea that education is not a right, it is a privilege.

Oddly, there is a unique paradox between parents and teachers. High SES parents are usually paid more, and some have higher degrees. therefore, these parents have a tendency to look down at teachers, although they appear to be "involved". Low SES parents, who often appear to be "uninvolved", often stay out of the process because they don't have the education level of the teacher, and feel that they will get in the way. There was an interesting article about it in either Time or Newsweek about a year ago.

Continue that thought

... because their parents pay for it. So their parents have another vested and personal reason to ensure their student getting good grades and learning, so they tend to motivate their student more.

Parents if they took an active hand in their childs education can do such good
Yeah, try to find the 15-year old who'll work harder because his parents tell him to.
Ultimately the kid either motivates itself, or isn't motivated at all. The nicest school with the nicest tennis court, the best teachers and the greatest motivators for parents don't make a rebel care.

Especially in a family where money is not an issue. This might just be a stereotype reinforced by personal experience, but poor families seem to work together a lot more than wealthy ones.

The problem on a micro level with private schools in Australia at this point is that the parents actually buy good results. It is almost impossible to get bad final results at graduation at a prestigious school because the system is rigged.
I'd personally value a great result gotten on a public school a lot more than a good result gotten at a private school.

Fact:
Public Education and Private Education generally both adhere to the same lesson plan.
The quality of the education depends mainly on the student himself/herself. A lazy bastard without interests will not profit much, regardless of how great a school he goes to.

And very importantly:
If we are going to go with private education, we'll have to drop this "My school, I teach what I want!"-Idea. You should not be allowed to teach kids that the earth is flat and Negroes eat Jewish children, regardless of who owns the establishment.
Yes, the free market will eventually take care of it, but in this case the damage done justifies stopping the problem before it occurs. Plus, you need to have something to cancel out the influence of parents who actually wanted their kids to learn that the earth is flat. Which is why I'm against Home Schooling.

Bingo! And in a way, this is the crux - how much can the state in fact influance culture? And how much is intereferance in culture is desirable from the state?

Clearly incompetent private education would constitute fraud, and possibly violate the childs rights, depending on exactly what is considered incompetent. But the problem is in establishing what competent education means. The examples you gave would be seen as clear cut by most people, but where do you draw the line?

The problem on a micro level with private schools in Australia at this point is that the parents actually buy good results. It is almost impossible to get bad final results at graduation at a prestigious school because the system is rigged.
I'd personally value a great result gotten on a public school a lot more than a good result gotten at a private school.
good point. The argument is used here (A la Chote [if you don't know chote, that is the school most private schools strive to be]) that if you pay that much for an education, the student damned well get an A, one way or the other. Result? Grade inflation. It is seen in private universities and private schools alike.

Bingo! And in a way, this is the crux - how much can the state in fact influance culture? And how much is intereferance in culture is desirable from the state?
Yeah, that is the question. Not one I could answer reliably, because I've got my own biases (ie, I wouldn't want to see ID anywhere near a school and the like).
This is probably something the democratic process has to sort out, and whatever the majority agrees upon will hopefully be close to perfect.

Bingo! And in a way, this is the crux - how much can the state in fact influance culture? And how much is intereferance in culture is desirable from the state?

Clearly incompetent private education would constitute fraud, and possibly violate the childs rights, depending on exactly what is considered incompetent. But the problem is in establishing what competent education means. The examples you gave would be seen as clear cut by most people, but where do you draw the line?
I take one issue. You lable it "interfereance" for the state to impact culture...but is the state not a part of the culture, and therefore not only exerting its influence, but also influenced by said culture?

as for what is competent education, most people don't have a clear idea of what education is, and therefore, can't tell what is incompetent. I debated for a full 3 hour lecture what "education" is, and this was only among future teachers, who have a certain consistant background, and was only 100 people. When we know what education is, and what we expect from the system (good grades aren't all that schools do) then we will have a bettter idea of where we need to take the education system.

The problem on a micro level with private schools in Australia at this point is that the parents actually buy good results. It is almost impossible to get bad final results at graduation at a prestigious school because the system is rigged.
I'd personally value a great result gotten on a public school a lot more than a good result gotten at a private school.

This also a failing of the Japanese education system in general. And it's systemic in everything. Once you've passed the entrance exams, as long as your tuition is paid, you will generally graduate, unless you screw up really big.

I once taught at an accredited technical school where I failed the majority of students in a class that they were supposedly required to pass to graduate. The class was a 20 page "thesis" in English. Only two students actually turned in the full required (by the school, not me) 20 pages, 7 or 8 turned in something, and the remainder turned in nothing. All 15 students graduated less than a week after turining in or failing to turn in their "work".

This also a failing of the Japanese education system in general. And it's systemic in everything. Once you've passed the entrance exams, as long as your tuition is paid, you will generally graduate, unless you screw up really big.

I once taught at an accredited technical school where I failed the majority of students in a class that they were supposedly required to pass to graduate. The class was a 20 page "thesis" in English. Only two students actually turned in the full required (by the school, not me) 20 pages, 7 or 8 turned in something, and the remainder turned in nothing. All 15 students graduated less than a week after turining in or failing to turn in their "work".
There is a policy in my home school system that students getting below a 60 are required to have their grade bumped up to a 59. While they still fail, a kid who turns in nothing the entire year will be given the same 59 as the student who may have actually tried to do decently well and failed the tests. I wish I could say policies like these are isolated to CT or the US, but it seems as if they arent.

If you look at the history of public education, it was begun during the industrial revolution. It appears as if the purpose was to create a literate workforce that could perform increasingly complicated tasks. So along with the question of whether we should have a public education system, is the question of purpose and intent? What are we trying to teach young people? Should six year olds sit in a desk, inactive, for five hours a day? Before a mandatory education in the three R's, during the medieval ages, you had the apprentice system. Adolescents would be sent to live with a realative or family friend to learn their trade. Because,little academic learning is done between the ages of 12 and 15 it seems pointless to keep teens in school all day. What did you learn in eighth grade social studies? Perhaps a combination of theese systems, academics half the day and life skills the other half would be better.

Through Middle School (8th grade)

Yep, that is exactly the way they operate. Next you will see them try and declare all the schools in your area "alternative schools" because they get even more money for those.
Well, they already declared her school a 'magnet school' which is why she was there, they were supposed to focus on math and science and let her work ahead if she wanted, but I think once they figured out that she might just be done with elementary school by the time she was 8 that they tried to slow her down, I was thinking last night about "no child left behind" and wondering if they need her for her test scores.

If you look at the history of public education, it was begun during the industrial revolution. It appears as if the purpose was to create a literate workforce that could perform increasingly complicated tasks. So along with the question of whether we should have a public education system, is the question of purpose and intent? What are we trying to teach young people? Should six year olds sit in a desk, inactive, for five hours a day? Before a mandatory education in the three R's, during the medieval ages, you had the apprentice system. Adolescents would be sent to live with a realative or family friend to learn their trade. Because,little academic learning is done between the ages of 12 and 15 it seems pointless to keep teens in school all day. What did you learn in eighth grade social studies? Perhaps a combination of theese systems, academics half the day and life skills the other half would be better.
What about between 15 and 18? The 12-15 'gap' in learning is preparing the students to learn what high school teaches them. Education from grade 9 and above (By the US and Canadian systems, grade 9 being age 14 or so) is where the serious reading comprehension, higher math, and higher logic start being taught. Yes, there may be blips in the system thanks to underqualified teachers or what have you, but school through high school is essential to living, and understanding life, in today's society.

Give me your opinions on this.

Remeber kids, no fighting.


-Brian
No. There shouldn't be mandatory education. Or only on paper. We must find our way back to the paradise like society of Oliver Twist. Now those were good times.

If you look at the history of public education, it was begun during the industrial revolution. It appears as if the purpose was to create a literate workforce that could perform increasingly complicated tasks. So along with the question of whether we should have a public education system, is the question of purpose and intent? What are we trying to teach young people? Should six year olds sit in a desk, inactive, for five hours a day? Before a mandatory education in the three R's, during the medieval ages, you had the apprentice system. Adolescents would be sent to live with a realative or family friend to learn their trade. Because,little academic learning is done between the ages of 12 and 15 it seems pointless to keep teens in school all day. What did you learn in eighth grade social studies? Perhaps a combination of theese systems, academics half the day and life skills the other half would be better.
actually, public education started before the IR. New England colonies had manditory schooling based on the towns population since shortly after their founding. The modern system of schooling (bells, passes, and all that) started with the IR as a way to prepare students for a life in the factories.
Also, the requirements for students to know social studies, geography, science, math, English, and physical education/health goes back to J.S. Mill's theory of "educate the whole child". Knowlege in one area can be applied to all areas. Overwhelmingly, studies of this prove true. Students who are educated in all disciplines are far more successful than students who skip sections.
Additionally, 6 year olds are rarely left inactive. High school and middle schools are rows of desks (except for some English classrooms). Elementary students are often moving around, activly participating in activities and games.

Well, they already declared her school a 'magnet school' which is why she was there, they were supposed to focus on math and science and let her work ahead if she wanted, but I think once they figured out that she might just be done with elementary school by the time she was 8 that they tried to slow her down, I was thinking last night about "no child left behind" and wondering if they need her for her test scores.
short answer? yes.
It all leads back to funding. A poor school with high scores will get huge funding and become an "example". Therefore, schools actually strive to hold smarter students back and make their students apply for programs that make the families appear to be poor. It is a sad state of affairs. Mark that as a reason I hate NCLB.

Congratulations on having such a smart daughter tho. She'll go far (and if she lines up with my friends around here who were home schooled, will be in the Ivy League in no time;) )