School Privatization

[natedogg]

Believe it or not, America had a 90% literacy rate before there were any public schools. I think that in this day and age, it might be harder to get that kind of success so we probably need some kind of free education for all, but the state-run version we have now is a farce.

To quote Milton Friedman:

[ QUOTE ]
If one were to seek deliberately to devise a system of recruiting and paying teachers calculated to repel the imaginative and daring and self-confident and to attract the dull and mediocre and uninspiring, he could hardly do better than imitate the system of requiring teaching certificates and enforcing standard salary structures that has developed in the largest city and state-wide systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

natedogg

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you guys come up with this? Is there a right-wing blog somewhere spreading this kind of nonsense? Are you just making it up? Have you ever heard of the Common School Movement? If not, I'm almost positive some of you went to an elementary school (or a junior high, or a high school) whose namesake was 'Horace Mann' - or perhaps you've merely heard of schools with the namesake of 'Horace Mann' - did you ever stop and consider what he's famous for, and when he lived/worked? Try this:

Google "Horace Mann + Massachusetts board of education + 1839"

Then Google "Communist Manifesto + 1848"

I'm honestly very curious how stuff like "the idea of a public school system was first really developed in the Communist Manifesto" gets said with a straight face.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, the idea of public schooling was embraced by communists, because it is a communist idea. Whether or not communists actually came up with the idea, it's still a bad idea for reasons I've already mentioned.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, America had a 90% literacy rate before there were any public schools

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't believe it.

[FishHooks]

I dont either.

[elwoodblues]

post-posting search results:

1870's - 1979 illiteracy statistics

[fluxrad]

I just thought I'd throw in my .02 on this matter since I haven't been slumming it in the politics forum lately.

The federal government exists to force people to do that which they either cannot or will not do on their own. To wit, speed limits exist for a couple of reasons. The first is safety, the second is economy. Without government enforced speed limits, a libertarian might argue, an "equilibrium" speed limit would be found. We all know, of course, that this line of reasoning is bogus. We, as a society force eachother to drive at (or around ;-) a certain speed for everyone's safety, not because we are concerned that the guy doing 104 in the right lane is going to kill himself. The line of reasoning follows for a ridiculous number of laws, from mandatory seatbelt regulations to the prohibition of certain substances. In many cases, the government "gets it wrong"(tm) as could be argue for a number of narcotics. But the purpose of the federal government's role in regulation is clear, that is - to protect us from ourselves, as much as you may disagree with it.

The other extremely important focus of the federal government is the development of capital (not "money" capital). In this regard, we task the government with the building of roads, bridges, performing research and yes, maintaining our schools. The reasons are two fold. First and foremost, we have the government perform these tasks because, in certain cases like the above, it is the most efficient mechanism for doing so.

The second reason we task the government with the development of capital is because we are unable to make certain decisions as well as we should. In reference the the above point, we know that we should not speed. Why do we do so? People know that they should not smoke cigarettes. Why do they take their first puff? Because part of the human condition is to make dumb decisions for whatever reason. Hell, I got a B on a sociology final I never studied for by asking myself after reading each question "What is the dumbest thing a group of people could do in this situation?"

So why do we task the government with providing public schools without choice? Because, while it makes economic, we know that a school should not be run based on what the parents want their kids to be taught. We as a society have agreed that education cannot be a simple voucher-based popularity contest in which the school that teaches what's en vogue gets the money. What do we do with vouchers when schools start pandering to the "intelligent design" demographic? What do we do with vouchers when schools eliminate the arts and sciences because parents don't find value in that? The answer is obvious. We move from a well rounded curriculum that may be broken to a quarterback-cum-prom king scholastic system that is most certainly worse. Society has said that they wish for the government, just as in speed regulations, the FDA, EPA, or one of a hundred other examples to help force us to that which we should be able to do on our own (in this case, what is right for our children) but are unable to do without the proverbial stick.

-A

Don't ever hire a libertarian plumber. He'll take one look at your leaky faucet and say you need a new house.

[Il_Mostro]

What's communist about it?

[Darryl_P]

Communism is about getting everyone to be totally subservient to the system, ignoring any personal goals that might conflict with it.

The public school system is the first and most important way in which the child's mind is moulded to make him into a good robot.

You Americans think you are free and that you have capitalism at the moment, but as soon as you introduced progressive taxation, equal rights laws for minorities and homosexuals, and rampant feminism, you quickly became a glorified version of Marx's original dream but with more money and toys to play with while you unwittingly give up your priniciples and true aspirations in obedient
submission.

The really scary part is that your economic well-being (the only thing making your current situation better than true Marxist communism) is only an illusion because it's based on unbacked worthless paper currency and enormous debt. It's a big house of cards waiting to collapse.

You guys are living the communist dream right now and most of you are blissfully unaware.

[Darryl_P]

Your post assumes values which I disagree with, but rather than elaborate on those I'd just like to point out that in Germany and Hungary there are no effective speed limits on super-highways. Techinically there is in that the letter of the law says there is, but it is never enforced, except in construction or other reduced-speed areas, and everyone knows it.

If you drive 150 miles on a super-highway in either country it is 98% certain you will be passed by a high-speed car whose limiting factor is its own engineering and not the laws of the State.

Europeans are MUCH more courteous on the roads and show more skill in driving and if anything there is a negative correlation with the strictness of laws because over here both the laws and their enforcement are quite lax.

[Il_Mostro]

psst, I'm Swedish.

And you seem a bit hysterical about the issue.

If education is the first step to communism, is the first step to capitalism ignorance? I'd be willing to hear out that argument, but it's somewhat controversial.