If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by 3D Peruna on November 12, 2007, 10:21 am
Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
> I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what we would
> have if we had NO public education system. Again I say look to countries
> that do not offer public education and ask if that is what we want for this
> country.
Why do you insist on missing the point? I've not said to get rid of it.
I've simply said that public education is not the solution to the
problem. The problem isn't "education". It's that we're actually not
"educating" in the public schools to a degree that makes any difference.
It's not for lack of teachers or money or anything like that. The
problem is that parents do not know what is being taught, nor do they
really care.
Parents, by and large, claim to have their children's best interest at
heart, but rather than back up a teacher who disciplines a child, they
sue the school. Rather than expect their kid to read--and read stuff
worth reading, they're happy to have their kids be able to pass some
stupid standardized test. Rather than let kids be kids--have some
ability to get outside and run around, or have chores, they fill their
homes and cars with videos and video games. They feed their kids
preprepared junk and wonder why they're fat, lazy and mentally unstable.
I know these parents. They're the majority. They're their kids
worst enemy and they don't know it.
These aren't problems solved by the government (it'll try and destroy
our liberty in doing so). They are solved by individuals making good
choices. The current educational system is not helping. Couple that
with the abysmally poor examples provided by their parents and other
"adults" and things, for the most part, don't look good.
I'm also now saying that if we're hoping for it to be the answer for
1-2% of the population, it's a bad economic choice. Paraphrasing
Einstein: We can't think that we'll solve a problem with the same
thinking that got us into the problem. I'll restate: Public education
works when it is an augmentation to learning that occurs at home.
Otherwise, it is warehousing children at best and creating dependents at
worst.
|
|
Posted by Amy Blankenship on November 12, 2007, 10:51 am
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>>
>> I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what we would
>> have if we had NO public education system. Again I say look to countries
>> that do not offer public education and ask if that is what we want for
>> this country.
>
> Why do you insist on missing the point? I've not said to get rid of it.
That has seemed to be your suggestion throughout the thread. If that was
not your intention, then I guess we're at cross purposes ;-).
> I've simply said that public education is not the solution to the
> problem. The problem isn't "education". It's that we're actually not
> "educating" in the public schools to a degree that makes any difference.
I disagree there. At least the majority of people who go through school can
read, write, and do basic math. Additionally, they have at least a hazy
idea of history and geography.
> It's not for lack of teachers or money or anything like that. The
> problem is that parents do not know what is being taught, nor do they
> really care.
So we have exactly the system the vast majority of people want.
> Parents, by and large, claim to have their children's best interest at
> heart, but rather than back up a teacher who disciplines a child, they sue
> the school. Rather than expect their kid to read--and read stuff worth
> reading, they're happy to have their kids be able to pass some stupid
> standardized test. Rather than let kids be kids--have some ability to get
> outside and run around, or have chores, they fill their homes and cars
> with videos and video games. They feed their kids preprepared junk and
> wonder why they're fat, lazy and mentally unstable. I know these parents.
> They're the majority. They're their kids worst enemy and they don't know
> it.
But they were raised that way themselves, and they're managing to get along
in life, often quite well (well, obviously, otherwise they'd _need_ their
kids to do chores and couldn't afford the games and players).
> These aren't problems solved by the government (it'll try and destroy our
> liberty in doing so). They are solved by individuals making good choices.
> The current educational system is not helping. Couple that with the
> abysmally poor examples provided by their parents and other "adults" and
> things, for the most part, don't look good.
So what is your solution to try and change adults into decent role models?
I think the schools can only do what they can do, which is to lay the
standard fare in front of the children and hope it takes.
> I'm also now saying that if we're hoping for it to be the answer for 1-2%
> of the population, it's a bad economic choice.
The vast majority of people who go through the public school system come out
of it employable. That is what public schools are designed to do. As you
so rightly say, the minority that excel and the minority who fail are most
often influenced by excellent or terrible parenting.
> Paraphrasing Einstein: We can't think that we'll solve a problem with the
> same thinking that got us into the problem. I'll restate: Public
> education works when it is an augmentation to learning that occurs at
> home. Otherwise, it is warehousing children at best and creating
> dependents at worst.
While they're being warehoused, they learn to read, to do math, and often
computer skills. And if all the parents had to do all of it themselves,
there would be no work force to speak of.
-Amy
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 21, 2007, 4:12 pm
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>>
>> I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what we
>> would have if we had NO public education system. Again I say look to
>> countries that do not offer public education and ask if that is what
>> we want for this country.
>
> Why do you insist on missing the point? I've not said to get rid of
> it.
> I've simply said that public education is not the solution to the
> problem. The problem isn't "education". It's that we're actually not
> "educating" in the public schools to a degree that makes any
> difference.
> It's not for lack of teachers or money or anything like that. The
> problem is that parents do not know what is being taught, nor do they
> really care.
The key, then, is to somehow get the kids to care. One caring teacher
really can make a big difference...what a child needs is at least one
caring adult, even if it isn't a "parent" (I put that in quotes, because
IMO, just contributing to the dropping a wriggler into a doctor's hands
is in no way equivalent to actually being a Parent...). I sure as heck
didn't learn about what motehrs are from my female chromosome donor; my
frined's parents were more involved with my activities than my own (and
they bever had to beat me black and blue to get me to follow their
suggestions).
Parents are important, but it is erroneous to think that bad parents are
the end all and be all, and that nobody else can step in and be a great
influence in a child's life - and education.
> Parents, by and large, claim to have their children's best interest at
> heart, but rather than back up a teacher who disciplines a child, they
> sue the school. Rather than expect their kid to read--and read stuff
> worth reading, they're happy to have their kids be able to pass some
> stupid standardized test. Rather than let kids be kids--have some
> ability to get outside and run around, or have chores, they fill their
> homes and cars with videos and video games. They feed their kids
> preprepared junk and wonder why they're fat, lazy and mentally
> unstable.
> I know these parents. They're the majority. They're their kids
> worst enemy and they don't know it.
More to the point, they don't care - their protstations of "caring" are
self-delusion, and illusion, created so that they "look good" and "keep
face". Actions speak ouder, however, than words - if you care about a
child, you learn what to do to try to keep teh child healthy, which
includes nutrition. If one does not, it's nothing more than self-
centeredness and laziness. Well, sometimes sheer stupidity...
Part of the problem is precisely the ntion that kids are basically
[porpoerty, and what "parents" do to them is "nobody else's business".
If people treated a dog or cat teh way many people treat their kids,
there would be hell to pay.
Yes, people are nosey - but that is far different from being *concerned*.
Merely gossiping about someone's neglect or abuse is low and stupid and
destructive.
OK, so really, we know all of that. Most people suck. But does that
make it ethical to merely ignore what happens to children? In a way,
part of the problem is that people are so obsessed over what they think
tobe their own individual rights, that they refuse to learn from, or take
advice from, ANYONE. ANd they also refuse to answer to anyone. They
have, they beleive, the "right" to "raise" their kids however they damn
well please, regardless of whetehr it is harmful to the child.
No. Poeple have the right tio harm themselves if they wish, but a child
is a human being, and taking into account different styles of child
rearing, there are things which harm children, period. Malnutrition is
one such thing, and ther eis no excuse for it to exist in a houshold that
is materially decently well-off - it's nothing more than parental
laziness (and yes, many kids *are* malnourished, precisely because of not
being provided adequate nutrition because it's "too hard" or "takes too
much time" to provide erasonably-helathy food). WHy is this permitted?
Why is it OK to allow poeple to harm other poeple, just becaus ethose
other people are not adults? What kind of mindset is it to accept that
someone has a *right* do harm their child, simplybecause the figure that
the child is their "property"?
>
> These aren't problems solved by the government (it'll try and destroy
> our liberty in doing so). They are solved by individuals making good
> choices. The current educational system is not helping. Couple that
> with the abysmally poor examples provided by their parents and other
> "adults" and things, for the most part, don't look good.
>
> I'm also now saying that if we're hoping for it to be the answer for
> 1-2% of the population, it's a bad economic choice. Paraphrasing
> Einstein: We can't think that we'll solve a problem with the same
> thinking that got us into the problem. I'll restate: Public
> education works when it is an augmentation to learning that occurs at
> home. Otherwise, it is warehousing children at best and creating
> dependents at worst.
>
SO what is the solution? Or not even "the" solution, but at least some
possible solution?
|
|
Posted by Amy Blankenship on November 15, 2007, 9:51 am
> "Amy Blankenship"> wrote
>> I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what we would
>> have if we had NO public education system. Again I say look to countries
>> that do not offer public education and ask if that is what we want for
>> this country.
>
> Why look to other countries?
> Just look at your own country and how it was BEFORE public education.....
Yes, lets. Most people didn't live far past 40. People were short due to
poor nutrition. Children worked in coal mines. Utopia!
> Its sort of unbelieveable that you are defending public education so
> ardently considering how wasteful and inefficient it is not to mention
> damaging to society as a whole as well as the multitudes of individuals
> mulched up in the machine.
>
> ....and contrast that with today where untold billions of dollars are
> spent each year and the students keep coming out the other side even more
> stupid than the year before.
>
> More money = more stupid students, more waste, more bureacracy.
>
> And thats what you're in favor of?
I haven't suggested more money. I HAVE suggested that if we had no public
education, no matter how ineffectual, we'd be even more of a third world
country than we are.
> The public schools are very expensive daycare centers for kids from 5 to
> 18 or more years old (at Estero High in FL last year they found out some
> of the students were in their late 20 and this fact was hidden because the
> football coach wanted to keep them on the team indefinitely) and haven't
> been even remotely involved with education for 30+ years and this is
> proven by the fact that the colleges routinely spend the first 2 years
> giving new students remedial education - that is, they have to teach them
> the 3 R's before they can move on to the more intensive things.
That's not all students, or even most. And at least they go to college and
eventually succeed.
|
|
Posted by George Conklin on November 15, 2007, 1:15 pm
>
> > "Amy Blankenship"> wrote
> >> I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what we
would
> >> have if we had NO public education system. Again I say look to
countries
> >> that do not offer public education and ask if that is what we want for
> >> this country.
> >
> > Why look to other countries?
> > Just look at your own country and how it was BEFORE public
education.....
>
> Yes, lets. Most people didn't live far past 40. People were short due to
> poor nutrition. Children worked in coal mines. Utopia!
It was far better than 5 acre farms.
|
Page 3 of 17 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: The value of shopping local | November 11, 2007, 12:47 am |
| Re: The value of shopping local | November 13, 2007, 6:50 pm |
| Re: The value of shopping local | November 15, 2007, 7:30 pm |
| Re: The value of shopping local | November 15, 2007, 7:36 pm |
| Re: The value of shopping local | November 15, 2007, 7:43 pm |
| Right to have armaments was Re: The value of shopping local | November 10, 2007, 7:32 pm |
| This is a local bar in a town of 300 | May 23, 2007, 4:40 pm |
| How to find a local architect | April 18, 2008, 1:15 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
