Why the Government wants us to be dumb

[PatrickHenry]

And of course, many high school students in the US don't learn trig. Some public schools are teaching well, no doubt.

But ALL public schools teach us to be good little citizens, when what we need is a spirit and intellect bold and insightful enough to continually ask authority the essential question: WHY?

And if the answer is inadequate, we don't need good citizens that go along anyway. We need honorable men and women who will oppose the advance of tyranny with all of their being.

[SteveA]

OK, let me begin by saying I believe that most people get the education they seek in public schools. I may be shot by most people posting on this topic but I think education was probably better 100 years ago, but only because 100 years ago more people believed in a well rounded education.

I agree entirely.

The key to a good education isn't specifically the tools as much as it is the motivation. There are plenty of resources for people who desire to learn.

What we need to understand is the motivation, or lack of it.

...How many of us had more classes that leaned towards the infamous scan-tron testing than testing that challenged your ability to make a point and then support it.

Good point. Much of the education kids receive is mere memorization and repetition, instead of reasoning and what I think of as model building.

It's easier to run cards through a machine though ... a lot tougher to handle 30 kids with individual thoughts discussing things.

As I see it, the problem is not at what level of government education is funded and controlled.

If we had an education system that was working better this would be true, but it becomes an issue when people want to reform it.

Just like noone would complain if Microsoft owned the entire computer and software industry, as long as most everyone felt it was providing services at a good and competive value.

The issue only pops up when things are not going smoothly and people want alternatives but are removed of any way to seek alternative solutions.

People want a short cut to the money, and they want to be able to point to a chart that says their school system churns out the "best educated kids" and both of those things have nothing to do with whether or not the money came from the local or the federal level.

I don't know if parents intentionally think of it as greed - it's just a "free" service that they use, without directly seeing the costs.

Each funding approach contains it's own evils. Local controll gives us huge disparities in educational levels ...

Who cares if a local community wants to try to improve their education? I say all the more power to them. What is the value of equality if it just means everyone is held to an equally failing standard?

Education isn't something that can be manufactured really. It's a journey of discovery that you can only support but not easily direct. If some group of people feel they want to move ahead without national supervision, I don't see why they shouldn't have the freedom to do this. We take their money from them, then give less of it back and with strings attached to it as well.

because despite the fantasies of certain people, tax base determines to a large degree the quality of school your child attends and poor people can't move to rich neighborhoods to follow the quality.

Then why is it that people in poorer countries receive a better education in many ways than the U.S.?

Motivation is the #1 factor, IMO. What motivation is there in equality? Why should someone get a good education and afford being able to live in a nice area so they can afford to give their children ... an average/equal education?

Equality applies to legal protections, not living standards.

Local control gives you segragated schools. Local control gives you local bias and stagnation. Federal control gives you the lowest common denominator education because then the pressures are different. Some combination of the two is probably best, but until people begin to cherish education for the sake of how it enriches you mentally and not economically, the situation will never improve. Or, at least, that is how I see it.

I agree we shouldn't need to be as worried about economic issues in education as we are, but you know what helps most removing these as a concern? When we don't have any economic worries. Ultimately the system does have to stay afloat economically, or we'll join countries where 12 year old are working. The way to remove economic concerns from education is to make economic concerns relatively unimportant.

[livvie]

ahhh well what can you do about it?

[tivodan1116]

Steve, I don't understand the logic of your argument. You fill a post with statistics pointing to other countries whose education system is better than ours. All of the countries you mention have federally funded public schools and many of them are more socialist overall then us. Then you turn around and say that NO federal funding of schools is the answer. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have options when it comes to schools. In fact, there already are. It's called private schools. I agree with a voucher system but I also think that free public schools should exist in some form. The reason? The reality that full privitization proponents don't understand is that many parents (especially a disproportionate number of low income parents) would neither be saavy enough nor motivated enough to take advantage of such a system.

Right now in the City School District of Rochester, there is something of a school choice program. Parents can have their child automatically sent to the closest school that contains that grade level to their house, or they can apply to have their child sent elsewhere in the district (The district contains two top 100 high schools in the nation, including #17 Wilson Magnet, as rated by US News). How successful is the program? Less than 15% of parents utilize it.

The tired old argument that people who don't have children in the public schools don't get any benefit from them is ridiculous. This is tantamount to someone with sprinklers in their house saying they don't get any benefit from the fire company or someone without a car saying they don't get any benefit from roads. Look, I'm a libertarian, but even I can admit that there are some services that everyone receives benefits from. Like my wife always reminds me, without teachers no other profession would be possible. Everyone can agree that we need a criminal justice system. An educated populace leads to a gainful lifestyle which does reduce the strain on the criminal justice system. Only a shortsighted anarchist wouldn't be able to understand that connection.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Steve, I don't understand the logic of your argument. You fill a post with statistics pointing to other countries whose education system is better than ours.

I didn't say they had a better education system. I was trying to show we don't have a very well educated population in comparison. This is likely due to more than just our education system but culture/social attitudes regarding the value of it.

All of the countries you mention have federally funded public schools and many of them are more socialist overall then us.

I hadn't realized they all had a federal system of government.

It would be interesting to compare the change in education levels versus the amount of central planning of it, and the level of socialized programs, over time. We had a literacy rate close to 100% before public education. Admittedly there were no televisions or gameboys but considering the amount of manual labor people had to provide, it was a rather impressive achievement. It could very well be they're following us and we just got a head start.

Then you turn around and say that NO federal funding of schools is the answer. You can't have it both ways.

There's a difference between no federally funded education and no educational funding. Just like changing the ruling on Roe vs. Wade doesn't mean abortion is illegal everywhere in the U.S. It just leaves these to non-federal institutions to address.

Does that clear things up?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have options when it comes to schools. In fact, there already are. It's called private schools. I agree with a voucher system but I also think that free public schools should exist in some form. The reason? The reality that full privitization proponents don't understand is that many parents (especially a disproportionate number of low income parents) would neither be saavy enough nor motivated enough to take advantage of such a system.

Sounds fine to me. At least it would be a step forward from my point of view.

Right now in the City School District of Rochester, there is something of a school choice program. Parents can have their child automatically sent to the closest school that contains that grade level to their house, or they can apply to have their child sent elsewhere in the district (The district contains two top 100 high schools in the nation, including #17 Wilson Magnet, as rated by US News). How successful is the program? Less than 15% of parents utilize it.

I don't think that's really correct. 15% is just the number of children that qualify and have parents that take advantage of it. I'm certain the number of parents that would use it, if their child qualified would be higher (at least most all my kids qualify for the programs and I take advantage of them and I'd just assume at least close to half the parents would as well).

So what I'm saying is that most parents do see a value to the system and would use them, if their child qualified. It's not that a large number of parents ignore available options.

And either way, 15% is better than 0%. Not having the option would be even worse.

The tired old argument that people who don't have children in the public schools don't get any benefit from them is ridiculous.

Sending money to Iraq helps us indirectly too. Why not send more?

This is tantamount to someone with sprinklers in their house saying they don't get any benefit from the fire company or someone without a car saying they don't get any benefit from roads.

I'm not against education. I think it's very important. I'm saying it's so important that it's silly to keep leaving things up to politicians and teachers unions to run the show.

And, yes, I do believe rightly that you can't justly take things from one person (who may want a child and not even be able to afford having one) to pay for someone elses childs education. Sure it could indirectly benefit the person, but that still doesn't justify it. Ask politely, with a smile and see if people will offer to help send someone elses child to school instead. If they say "No", I don't see the IRS as required to be involved.

Look, I'm a libertarian, but even I can admit that there are some services that everyone receives benefits from. Like my wife always reminds me, without teachers no other profession would be possible.

Agreed, but teachers aren't just public employees. My parents, libraries and (used) bookstores taught me more useful information than the public schools ever did. I know mileage will vary but there are many ways to learn. Sitting 30 kids down to listen to a public employee is only one way of doing it.

Everyone can agree that we need a criminal justice system. An educated populace leads to a gainful lifestyle which does reduce the strain on the criminal justice system.

That's another issue. Many people don't feel schools adequately address moral issues either. It's better than nothing but we're missing something when our children seem to be increasingly prone to gangs and violence.

Decentralize - increase the options people have.

Only a shortsighted anarchist wouldn't be able to understand that connection.

No comment.