• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Gov't Sponsored Education

MAgnum9987

Do What Thou Wilt
How do you feel about Gov't sponsored education? Do you feel the it is essential to America in these economic times? Do you feel slighted if you do not have children but pay for it anyways?

I believe education is one of the the public is one of the greatest needs of nations everywhere. Education leads to better jobs, better work, and thus more money, and a great natural booster of the economy. It also paves the way for thoughtful voters who can independently think and thus control their Gov't. It is the responsibility of the Gov't to maintain the Education system.
 

Doc

Trust me, I'm The Doctor.
V.I.P.
People pay for schools for reasons other than the educational level. Safety and religion are pretty common reasons for people to pay for school.

People in rich areas still send their students to public schools because the public schools are better in those areas.

I don't think anyone feels slighted when they send their children to private schools. Public schools are a necessity. The purpose of school is to advance human knowledge. It would be unfair to the majority of Americans if all schools were privatized. Not everyone can afford schooling.
 

Hatton

Registered Member
I decided to do some reading before I replied to this thread and found this:
The History of Education in America

Education, specifically public education, didn't exist as it does today in America before the mid-1800's. Even then, it's was the responsibility of each state to provide for.

Without a doubt, education is a very important thing. The concept of "government run" is misleading because it is a highly decentralized system. Each region has a school district with a local school board and a superintendent. The districts must report to the state through either a Board of Ed, Regents office or some combination. The states then work with the federal Department of Education which sets guidelines and requirements to be met.

Private schools must still meet the state and federal requirements, while providing their own set of rules and requirements. A new player to the game (relatively) is charter schools, which are something akin to publicly funded private schools.

Should the government run education? Only to a degree. The biggest problem comes in defining that level of "meddling."
 

SuiGeneris

blue 3
I think government "ran" schools are alright. I mean really it's a necessity, however, it opens up to potential abuses, such as No Child Left Behind. Which was/is the biggest waste of time in the world. It lowers the quality of education over all to universalize it's standards.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Sui pointed out a definite drawback to government run schools but generally speaking public schools are a necessity. A more educated citizenry is important to an advancing society. And, as Hatton pointed out, schools are basically run at a much more local level than at the federal level.
 

Susano

Registered Member
There are four reasons why "the government" (and wether that is federal, state, muncipal or whatever level is irrelevant) should run the government:
1) and most important is of course social fairness. Everybody, no matter the economicla background, should have a chance to get a good education - or else poor people will never be able to work their way up.
2) Connected with 1), it would also be quite a waste to not use the talents in the lower classes who could not afford to fund school education by themselves.
3) There simply needs to be a standard set for what is taught and at what minimal quality.
4) To defend a pluralist society, the state should not allow social firnge groups to indoctrinate children. Of course even parents of such fringe groups can raise children, but the children always need to see that besides that there are always other ways to live, too. And yes, that means Im also quite against homeschooling.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
4) To defend a pluralist society, the state should not allow social firnge groups to indoctrinate children. Of course even parents of such fringe groups can raise children, but the children always need to see that besides that there are always other ways to live, too. And yes, that means Im also quite against homeschooling.
I pretty much agree with your post but I'm confused about this. What constitutes a "fringe" group and who decides what is and what is not a fringe group? An argument can be made that ALL education including public education is indoctrination. While I agree with public education, that is a society owes it to it's citizens for the betterment of that society to educate, I don't thnk that supersedes parental rights in deciding how and where their children should be educated.
 

Susano

Registered Member
Well, fringe in that sense means every group not part of the social consenus - fundies, neonazis, hardcore communists, you name it. I agree that just having those, ah, non-mainstream convictions doesnt mean their children should be taken away or anything, but the point is those children should see alternatives. Or, no, make that more general: ALL children should be exposed to a variety of social positions and lifestyles, but as it is it are mostly those fringes who homeschool for ideological reasons, isnt it? The point is that exposure to variance means less chance for ideological indoctrination. Only school itself cannot be indoctrination, because there is after all always still the family as counterpoint.
 

Hatton

Registered Member
4) To defend a pluralist society, the state should not allow social firnge groups to indoctrinate children. Of course even parents of such fringe groups can raise children, but the children always need to see that besides that there are always other ways to live, too. And yes, that means Im also quite against homeschooling.
Okay, I'll bite - you've hit on a nerve here with me. I'll try to make as few assumptions as I can and be as general as I can as well.

First, let me pose these theoretical scenarios to you:
1. Should the child of a family of vegetarians be forced to go to a school that has only meat on the menu?
2. Would the child of a family that does not condone physical violence of any kind be made to participate in a rugby match (assumption: rugby to my US eyes looks like football without the pads, pretty violent pass time)?
3. Do you think the environmentalist parents will really take well to a lecture on the postitive virtues of strip mining?
3. Does a deaf child have to take public speaking?
4. How much training does a school nurse need to take care of a child that needs medication 4 times daily, twice by IV?

I pose those scenarios on purpose. They are opposite extreme examples of what some families already see and address by either home-schooling or making use of the private system.

For example, some of the reasons that people in the US have are:
1. Their children are in school systems that teach middle-school children how to use condoms and have them available for free.
2. Any form of religious expression (including keeping a Bible in a backpack) is forbidden in some public schools. VERY limited at this point but it is a reason I've seen stated.
3. Schools are getting better at dealing with special-needs children but some systems don't know how to.

The biggest thing to take into consideration, especially with the US, is that for the most part (and regardless of political affiliation) we have a "Don't Tread on Me" attitude. While I don't consider myself one, some have called me a fundamentalist Christian (or to use your word - "fundie"). There are plenty of things I don't agree with in some public school curriculum. Thankfully none of those things are present in our local school system.

If they were, my wife and I would probably be paying for private schools.
 

Susano

Registered Member
1. Should the child of a family of vegetarians be forced to go to a school that has only meat on the menu?
2. Would the child of a family that does not condone physical violence of any kind be made to participate in a rugby match (assumption: rugby to my US eyes looks like football without the pads, pretty violent pass time)?
3. Do you think the environmentalist parents will really take well to a lecture on the postitive virtues of strip mining?
One of those three is unlike the others. One could say 3. is exactly what Im aiming for, yes. To have the child see point of views contrary to those of their parents. As for 1. and 2., its good for the child to see that there ARE people who eat meat and play rather, uh, physical sports. It should not be forced to participate in that, but its exposure to those facts of life thats good.

3. Does a deaf child have to take public speaking?
4. How much training does a school nurse need to take care of a child that needs medication 4 times daily, twice by IV?
Err, thats another tangent alltogether. There are of course children with special needs, but:
1) Concerning homeschooling I was talking about ideologcial reasons for it
2) and concerning public vs private schools there are also public schools for those children.
But yes, those are things where private schools an dhoemschooling are entirely justified of course.

For example, some of the reasons that people in the US have are:
1. Their children are in school systems that teach middle-school children how to use condoms and have them available for free.
Well, as said above, as long as they arent forced to particpate in sexual activity... that is one of those things I was talking about. The parents in these cases want to keep the children ignorant and without alternatives. That should not be allowable.

2. Any form of religious expression (including keeping a Bible in a backpack) is forbidden in some public schools. VERY limited at this point but it is a reason I've seen stated.
That point is usually so vastly exaggerated... students are free to do whatever in breaks, and school time outside breaks is for learning, not praying. And lets not forget that in the USA the debatte about school prayer and its constitutionality was originally about compulsory school prayer.

As for not allowing bibles etc., its been my opinion from news stories etc. that this is just a symptom of US schools often being overly rigid in regulations and stuff in general, not a case of "religious persecution" or anything.

There are plenty of things I don't agree with in some public school curriculum. Thankfully none of those things are present in our local school system.

If they were, my wife and I would probably be paying for private schools.
Well, Im sure youre trying to pass on your values to your children anyways, regardless of what they experience in school. So, as Ive said, its not like the children get indoctrinated at school - they simply are shown alternatives so that they are not indoctrinated by the parents.

So that they can choose on their outlook on society, lifestyle and ideology eventually, instead of simply taking over their parents. And thats a good thing, and a necessary thing in a pluralist society. In a way, its society defending the freedom of the children, and protect them from being treaded on.

Note that I dont say parents shouldnt raise children according to their values. What Im saying is that the children should be able to come to their own conclusions later on, drawing on what they have been taught by their parents and what they have experienced differently.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Dekzper Breaking News 6
SmilinSilhouette Breaking News 31
Zachary Politics & Law 7
Top