A World Without Public Education...

[Ongie]

*******

 

[Man-Thing]

Great post Ongie.

I agree wholeheartedly. The department of education needs to be abolished.

Not to mention the FACT that it is unconstitutional.

 

[Ongie]

***redacted***

 

[SLVRSR4]

Easier said than done

 

[The Amazing Lee]

Ongie you are my hero.

A fellow punk/ska lover and you seriously know what you're talking about. Keep up the good work.

 

[Manic]

That's all fine and dandy, but let me ask you this: If public schools aren't run by the government, who's going to pay for them?

Typically, you pay taxes to the government, and part of those taxes go toward public schools. If you eliminate the government from public schools, you've basically got tuitioned private schools. If that's the case, then we've already got the alternative you're looking for.

 

[Man-Thing]

That's all fine and dandy, but let me ask you this: If public schools aren't run by the government, who's going to pay for them?

Typically, you pay taxes to the government, and part of those taxes go toward public schools. If you eliminate the government from public schools, you've basically got tuitioned private schools. If that's the case, then we've already got the alternative you're looking for.

It's fine and dandy that the schools be ran by the Government, but not the federal government. It should be local and state governments because...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Lackey]

good stuff, Ongie

 

[Man-Thing]

This should be applied to roads, the arts, and a whole bunch of other stuff as well.

 

[Lackey]

That's all fine and dandy, but let me ask you this: If public schools aren't run by the government, who's going to pay for them?

no one, shut them all down.

Typically, you pay taxes to the government, and part of those taxes go toward public schools. If you eliminate the government from public schools, you've basically got tuitioned private schools. If that's the case, then we've already got the alternative you're looking for.

Except that the biggest expenditure for a state budget, and therefore the largest chunk of your taxes, is going towards education... if there were no public schools, taxes could be greatly reduced and the money families are dishing out in taxes could be put towards tuition.

 

[The Amazing Lee]

good stuff, Ongie

You are also my hero.

Just say this for me...if you do.


I love ska and punk.

 

[Lackey]

You are also my hero.

Just say this for me...if you do.


I love ska and punk.

I love ska and punk and I love to skank

 

[The Amazing Lee]

I love ska and punk and I love to skank

You are my hero.

 

[Manic]

no one, shut them all down.




Except that the biggest expenditure for a state budget, and therefore the largest chunk of your taxes, is going towards education... if there were no public schools, taxes could be greatly reduced and the money families are dishing out in taxes could be put towards tuition.

Uh huh. And what about the poorer families? Even with taxes reduced, I can guarantee you there would be families out there that wouldn't be able to afford to send all of their children to school. You'll create a generation of under-educated children. Who will provide education to the poor?

 

[Man-Thing]

no one, shut them all down.




Except that the biggest expenditure for a state budget, and therefore the largest chunk of your taxes, is going towards education... if there were no public schools, taxes could be greatly reduced and the money families are dishing out in taxes could be put towards tuition.

With todays climate neither of them would actually become revoked, but I honestly do not have any problem with state governments regulating public schools. Of course, people that have no children, and those that send them to private schools/home school should receive vouchers so they don't have to pay any taxes on education.

 

[November Rain]

it's in any government's best interest to provide some sort of education for their youngsters as who wants to be rearing up a age demographic which has nothing to offer back.

potentially what goverments are trying to do is invest of the youth of today in order for their skills to then benefit the area which will in the long run thus help build up the economy.

turnover in private schools are far shorter, they just want to feed you through their short system, just like your checkout till analogy where as long as you start at one end and pass through the other, get want you want and pay a certain amount, they don't really care. Nor do they care about the surrounding areas or the local economy etc. they are their own business and only look out for themselves and as long as they are getting sufficient money coming in (max capacity) and their reputations are intact, then they don't care what happens afterwards....


I think for a govermnent to not provide any basis of schooling is somewhat kinda ******ed because raising a large demographic of people that potentially will not be educated (because parents simply wouldn't be able to pay the fees of private schooling/tutoring) is just bad news in the long run because you end up with a society of poorly skilled individuals and then an influx of foriegners would be required to take on these skills and job vacancies (and at a high price), which then makes the situation worse and worse.


besides, having gone to privates primary and secondary schooling, I don't consider myself that much better for it, especially at the prices, nor did my examination results prove significantly anything great, i possibly got one of the worst A level results of those people who did Aerospace with me. however unlike most people who go to private schooling i'm not completely sheltered from the 'real' aspects of life, nor is everything sugarcoated as a lot of my friends seem to think.

all in all, the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side.

 

[Iceman]

Very interesting essay Ongie. The main counter argument I can think of is that education taken out of the hands of government is unlikely to cater as well for those on low incomes. This group are more likely to suffer from underprovision of appropriate services and may be less willing to pay for education (even with more money in their pockets from reduced taxation). Without government control, many may slip out of the education system altogether. Having said that, I appreciate the arguments that you have put forward and agree that many of your points have validity.

 

[redmarvel]

Except that the biggest expenditure for a state budget, and therefore the largest chunk of your taxes, is going towards education... if there were no public schools, taxes could be greatly reduced and the money families are dishing out in taxes could be put towards tuition.

Except for the people too poor to even be able to pay taxes... then their kids wouldn't get any schooling at all.

How many folks attend the school board meetings where curriculum is often decided? How many folks have even made an effort to get to know their kid's teacher(s) by inviting them to dinner? How many folks have volunteered to go on school trips with the kids? If we want better schooling we have to GET INVOLVED. Volunteer, ask questions, make donations, etc.

 

[AndThePickles]

Very interesting Ongie. The main problem is that most people would rather just "put up with things" and still get the education or service from the DMV than say something. Or, like some other people have mentioned, the parents are barely even home much less caring about their child's treatment at school.

And yes, the DMV has some of the meanest, rudest employees I've ever encountered

 

[jaguarr]

The thing I want to avoid is privatization. I think that Corporate America has more than proven that they will gleefully abuse any chance to make a profit that they can, especially if that means having to only give the bare minimum to their customers that the government will allow so they can maximize profits. And, our federal government has given ample evidence that they're more than willing to be bought out by Corporate America in the form of "campaign contributions" and other niceties (both financial and otherwise), allowing Corporate America to steer legislation that allows them to give even less and less to their customers, realize big tax breaks, and generally create a business environment that is advantageous to them and them alone. This would be a disaster for our public education system.

State and local governments, working in conjunction to provide a semblance of uniformity in cirriculum would be a better answer. The Fed's have done nothing but screw things up. The "No Child Left Behind" program has to be one of the single most damaging federal education programs ever conceived. It fixates on test scores and encourages "learn the things that will be on the test and regurgitate it" type teaching, which doesn't really help our kids develop cognitive skills and usually results in them missing a great deal of information that would be very useful to them over the course of their lives. The Feds should be removed from the equation, really.

ajg

 

[SLVRSR4]

The guys at my DMV are nicer than the faculty at school I wouldn't mind smaller states like Wisconsin having a state run education system.

 

[Ongie]

***redacted***

 

[Joker]

the problem with totally privatizing schools is you'll end up with schools ran by religious whack jobs that refuse to teach evolution and science...the problem with giving states more control over them is it ends up like a certain southern state that no longer teaches fractions because of apparently religous reasons...the problem here is religion

 

[November Rain]

These are interesting responses, indeed...

My answer to the argument regarding privatization of public schools being too costly for those with smaller income would be to take a good, hard look at other private economic systems (such as supermarkets/retail stores/what have you).
You'll almost always find that the best product is made available at the cheapest price when healthy competition is in play.
Sure, those with extra money will always be more likely to get a better education... But why do you suppose most of them spend their money on private schooling? It's a better education.
Privatizing public education would make this available to every consumer, not just the elite... So in effect, you would be giving more people lower in the tax bracket that chance.

Also... In regards to who would pay for all this...

Who pays for private universities, where the best learning in the world is done? The consumer. The consumer will pay for a good product... Shopping for a school is just that, shopping.... If a school charges too much, then they'll get undercut by another school willing to teach for less.
Ahhh, I love the free market economy.

actually the government pays for a large proportion of university fairs in the uk, with only the 'consumer putting forward around about an eight of the price'

not many people know that foriegn people and uk residents actually end up paying the university the same amount of money, it's just that the government forks out the rest/majority



but that's in the uk though.

heck even PhD funding is completely paid via the EPSRC in this case which is a government fund, tuition and living fees.

unies also get funding from a lot of outside companies, especially individual departments etc so it's not just simply a 'consumer issue'

at least not in the UK

 

[redmarvel]

I know I could not have afforded to go to College without government grants and loans. As it was I was in debt for a long time afterward. If all schooling is privatized there will be many folks in the same boat.

If the "free market economy" is such a good idea then why are big corporations like Chapters and Wall-Mart able to kill the smaller competition and force you to pay their prices? (They undercut for a while until all the competition dies and then raise their prices to whatever they feel like charging).