School Privatization

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so please give me a coherent argument why public education is the first step towards communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, it wasn't my argument. I do know that he was specifically talking about public schooling, and you specifically left that detail out to help your argument.

Public schooling IS a vital element of any government's self-perpetuation. The government has a vested interest in indoctrinating the population into accepting its dominance. I don't see it specifically limited to Communism.

[lehighguy]

Parents have a great deal more insight and experience in raising thier kids and knowing the specific needs and methods they best respond too. This allows for a more individualized, and I would posit more effective, method of education then the one size fits all beauracratic method.

Of course, one could be even more cynical and note that parents have a much higher vested interest in thier child doing well, while most people in the education profession couldn't give a flying f-uck because they have tenure.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the child the property of the parents or does society as a whole have reasons to make sure each child gets a reasonable education?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose that's the crux of the whole debate.

If we imagine a purely capitalist world and I see a family such as the one you described, ie. parents totally neglecting the kids etc., then I'd be concerned somewhat because those kids are likely to pose a danger to me and my family down the road. Chances are others will feel the same.

So what do we do? We would probably need to pool our money somehow and use force against such families, but how? Do we kidnap their kids and brainwash them to become our slaves (the current system)? Do we blackmail the parents and threaten them with physical violence if they don't educate their kids in ways we agree with (almost the current system)? Or do we just sit by and let them develop into dangerous teenagers (probably) and wait until they pose an imminent threat to us before we take action (via a private security force we have a contract with)?

I vote for the last one because

1) We can't be 100% sure they will pose a real danger. Maybe they will figure out on their own it's not advantageous to mess with a professional security force and find some other way to live without causing havoc.

2) While the only thing we have on them is a semi-paranoid (IMO) fear of what they might do later, we don't have the right to infringe on their lives. Even if in our value system they may be living their lives the wrong way, it is not for us to judge that. We only have that right when we are directly affected IMO.

3) Their own circle may come up with a solution, ie. a relative may enter into conflict with the parents and kidnap the child for the child's benefit, say. A lot of mothers and mother-in-laws would like to do that in a lot of circumstances today if not for the laws that prevent them. If the kid suffers from that then he may take it out on the mother-in-law and not on society at large, leaving us more secure at zero cost.

4) Private people with their own ingenuity acting in their own interests may come up with an answer none of us have thought of.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea of a public school system was first really developed in the Communist Manifesto.

[/ 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 think the guy wrote what he was trying to say poorly. Basically, the idea is that if you have a Centralized Education Department that can basically control what people learn, you can keep the population under control. Hell, look at North Korea, their children are taught that the US invaded them, and they fought us off by themselves or some nonsense. I don't even know for sure if the fact that China put about a million troops into NK is even told to their children.

The idea behind the Communist Manifesto, and indeed liberal policy in this country, is that if you control what people learn, you control the people.

[Il_Mostro]

For once we agree [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Il_Mostro]

I think you and I pretty much agree here. I have nothing against parents having a choice in where to educate their kids. I do have a problem if parents are allowed to stop their kids from getting any education, or if schools are allowed to teach anything. I belive there is a need for some sort of control mechanism to make sure everyone gets a decent level of education in a broad spectrum of subjects.

[lehighguy]

I find that when you allow government to set the curriculum, you end up with a neutered and disfunctional curriculum. It becomes more and more disfunctional the farther away from the classroom that the curriculum is formulated. School districts that are given more control over thier own curriculum have proven to do much better then those where the curriculum is dictated by the state. Even in countries like Ireland or Hong Kong, where religous schools recieve government funding and teach a large portion of the populace you don't end up with a bunch of religous nuts. I think parents will do a much better job of regulating this then you think.

Lastly, if a kid has bad parents they are screwed. It really doesn't matter what you do for them, they're screwed. My mom tried to get this one smart girl into a nice school downtown. All the parents had to do was go downtown and sign some paperwork. They wouldn't even take the time. Thier daughter is screwed, and there's nothing you can do to help her.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Thier daughter is screwed, and there's nothing you can do to help her.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's where we disagree. She's screwed, but we can provide here with a decent public education --- despite her shitty parents.

[lehighguy]

My mom deals with these cases everyday. If you really have parents that bad, unless child services takes them away (which happens alot) the kid is pretty screwed.

Money is a problem you can solve. You can provide funding for education. However, if parents are completely opposed to thier child getting an education (I can't imagine why but whatever) then they aren't going to be able to. You can make the kid go to school, but if they have no support or even hinderance from thier parents the odds are slim.

Moreover, the policies you enact to try help these kids end up screwing the vast majority that has remotely decent parents while generating little additional benefit if any for the less fortunate.

If someone has poor but dedicated parents they can make it. If they have poor parents that don't give a [censored] it's going to take more then compulsary schooling to save them.

[Benman]

pvn, I was hoping you'd respond to my original question since I'm curious how a strong libertarian view the issue (I assume you are one from reading many of your posts). Are you OK with tax dollars going into educating children so long as the provision of the education is private, or do you feel otherwise.