Education: Public or Private?

[NadiaStar]

I think Backroads is talking about a theoretical system where public schools just aren't part of the equation--not a charter/public/private/homeschooling combo. Who is to say anyone would be willing to pay taxes on education in this situation?

I am personally a fan of public schools. My youngest was in a charter school for awhile. I loved it, but he didn't and when his grades improved enough I let him switch to a regular public school.

I like the quote above how it's a parent's responsibility to take care of the education--so that seems to suggest public schools are bad.

So how much public funding would go to a non-public system? If I'm paying taxes on something, I should get a say. I can't do that with private businesses.

[NadiaStar]

Did you actually think this through before saying it? You think its acceptable to put children of families with little money to work instead of school?

Seriously?

I agree with what you're saying. BUT if there is no money for these kids to go to school, what would be done with them? What's the alternative? I am not saying it would be good for society, but who knows? With work available to kids, at least they could learn some skills and earn money for school later down the road.

[annewandering]

I agree with what you're saying. BUT if there is no money for these kids to go to school, what would be done with them? What's the alternative? I am not saying it would be good for society, but who knows? With work available to kids, at least they could learn some skills and earn money for school later down the road.

Great idea. Well when you find that those kids dont like being marginalized as useless you will also find that the society that would do that to its children will pay, as it well deserves to pay. Dont think the parents are going to sit back and take it either.

You hear the cries of protest now from the economic disparity of the have and soon to have nots/have nots. Just wait till that gross unfairness and regradation of society takes place. You will have a class war like you never believed possible.

Marie Antoinette 'let them eat cake will be nothing compared to "let the children work" instead of going to school.

It will be the last straw of trying to break the back of the poor and believe me. You dont want to take the American Dream completely way from us.

[NadiaStar]

annewandering, I really do agree with you. But you must understand this is all theoretical. If society decides "hey, we don't want public education", that is a big possibility of what will happen. If education is privatized, there will possibly be the situation where the government will not be pitching in to help people. So what is to be done with the kids?

So I take it you're against completely privatizing schools? Say that instead of yelling at me. I'm just throwing out what will probably happen. Society either contributes to education, or it doesn't. You can't privatize schools, not require taxes to contribute to the education of the have-nots, and then expect money to magically appear from nowhere.

[annewandering]

Someone better be putting some serious thought into that then before it happens. If it becomes a charity or welfare project same as food stamps that is not going to fly either.

I keep thinking we arent stupid enough to go down those roads but past history proves me wrong every time on the intelligence and foresight of people on important issues so I hold little hope anything will be done better on education.

[NadiaStar]

What's wrong with charity?

I need to add to this. I am a big fan of charity. I actually prefer it to welfare in most cases. But, as the OP said, it's probably not reliable for something so broad.

Edited January 30, 2012 by NadiaStar

[Guest]

I think Backroads is talking about a theoretical system where public schools just aren't part of the equation--not a charter/public/private/homeschooling combo. Who is to say anyone would be willing to pay taxes on education in this situation?

I am personally a fan of public schools. My youngest was in a charter school for awhile. I loved it, but he didn't and when his grades improved enough I let him switch to a regular public school.

I like the quote above how it's a parent's responsibility to take care of the education--so that seems to suggest public schools are bad.

So how much public funding would go to a non-public system? If I'm paying taxes on something, I should get a say. I can't do that with private businesses.

annewandering, I really do agree with you. But you must understand this is all theoretical. If society decides "hey, we don't want public education", that is a big possibility of what will happen. If education is privatized, there will possibly be the situation where the government will not be pitching in to help people. So what is to be done with the kids?

So I take it you're against completely privatizing schools? Say that instead of yelling at me. I'm just throwing out what will probably happen. Society either contributes to education, or it doesn't. You can't privatize schools, not require taxes to contribute to the education of the have-nots, and then expect money to magically appear from nowhere.

Okay guys... wait up. The only reason privatizing education is on the table is due to the pitch to promote VOUCHERS. You can't privatize education without that. The theory with vouchers is that EVERY American child is guaranteed an education by virtue of their citizenship. And the reason for that is because you can't have a democratic republic where people elect their government when your citizenry is uneducated.

Okay, so how does public funding work in a privately delivered product? Well, it works the exact same way food stamps work as well as things like section 8 housing, medicare, etc. This is how health insurance is provided in the state of Massachussets. Government subsidy for a private delivery system. Best of both worlds.

Of course, Voucher Funding is still part of the State Budget using Tax dollars the exact same way we have today. But instead of giving the $10,200 per student per year to the district public school, it gives the $10,200 per student per year to the child's school of choice. The good thing about this is, you will not have the unfair practice of having a taxpayer pay for public education and then pay another $10,000 per year for the child to attend a private or home school.

[NadiaStar]

But what if the democratic system decided they no longer wanted education to be a right? That's what I've understood from the OP.

[Guest]

But what if the democratic system decided they no longer wanted education to be a right? That's what I've understood from the OP.

The democratic system is ruled by the people. Just like any other State entitlements, if the people don't want it anymore, then they get to vote it out of law. If it's not needed then it won't be funded. Why would a State continue to provide a service the people don't want?

[NadiaStar]

So clearly laws would have to be changed if public education was voted out. If people plain did not want the education system touched by the government, you would not have a voucher system and you would have kids unable to go to school. anne is right, that would probably be a bad thing. But if it did happen, we would legally have to have an option for these kids. They can't be punished for not going to school when it isn't required.

[Guest]

So clearly laws would have to be changed if public education was voted out. If people plain did not want the education system touched by the government, you would not have a voucher system and you would have kids unable to go to school. anne is right, that would probably be a bad thing. But if it did happen, we would legally have to have an option for these kids. They can't be punished for not going to school when it isn't required.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Today - government funded education is mandated by federal law and attendance for all children is required by law. To change it so that it won't be government funded anymore requires congressional change on the federal level. Can we have enough people write their congressmen that would result in shutting down this funding? Sure. If that happens, then the people mandated they don't need education funded by the government, which means, they'll have to go fund it themselves. It can still be required. Can they change it so education won't be required by law? Sure. Which means, people don't need to be educated by default. In either case, if people don't want government touching education, then that means they shoulder the responsibility themselves including "options" for those that couldn't afford it.

[Vort]

Your comments reflect your experiences with home schooling ...as do mine. That doesn't qualify me as deeply ignorant anymore than your comments qualify you as deeply informed.

So then: If you have served in the military for ten years, and if I have known a few military folks, then your military comments will reflect YOUR experiences with the military, and my comments will reflect MY experiences with the military.

Therefore, our comments are of equal value, and are equally knowledgeable (or ignorant). Right?

Of course not.

You admit you have little experience with homeschooling. I have lots. Therefore, I am much less ignorant about the subject than you are.

Isn't that much obvious?

Were you home schooled Vort?

No, I am a proud product of public schooling, and am therefore quite well-qualified to speak on that subject, too.

Smart? Best? Most polite? Seriously? Evidence? Proof?

Do you really want to know? If so, start by looking at LM's link.

The home schooled kids I have dealt with were not polite, not socially well adjusted and frankly not well prepared to do much in life.

Do you suppose that your experience is representative? Or might you have been dealing with the dregs of homeschooling, with the ones who couldn't cut it? As you say:

In my previous posts, I admitted my opinion is colored because of my limited experiences with home schooled kids, and I hope I was clear that I would never wish to deny anyone the right to do so.

This being the case, why are you so offended? You agree with me: You are in fact ignorant ("limited experiences").

My wife is highly regarded as an educator by students and parents and while we feel that the PS education system is in need of serious repair, there are a whole lot more success stories in Public Education than in home schooling.

Evidence? Proof?

Considering that publicly schooled children outnumber homeschooled children by at least an order of magnitude, should we not assume as obvious that the number of high performers from the former will outnumber those from the latter?

Or are you claiming that public schools produce a higher percentage of "success stories"? Now there's a claim I really do demand evidence for.

Oh, and I have two sons in public education. Both are in the top 10 of their classes in a school of over several thousand students. They are polite, smart, not involved in criminal activity, haven't gotten anyone pregnant. My eldest will attend BYU after his mission and wants to become a lawyer and my youngest, after he filters through the incredible number of full scholarship offers will hopefully attend BYU for a while before he goes on to Med School.

And therefore...?

I know a dozen kids who smoke pot but who have never (yet) done harder drugs or participated in other antisocial activities. Does that prove that smoking pot doesn't lead to bad things?

I would put my two up against ANY home schooled kid anyday...oh and their friends as well.

Put them up against homeschooled kids for...what, exactly?

You should check the condescending, arrogant attitude regarding the vast majority of kids that attend PS. It's....well, frankly...deeply ignorant.

Says the guy who is busy dissing homeschoolers.

[annewandering]

My kids were homeschooled for awhile. Several years. I am a lousy teacher. My husband is a lot more patient than I am but it was hard for us to switch mode from parent to teacher.

Nevertheless, when we were able to put our kids back in school our kids were ahead of their classmates on everything. Of course they are exceptionally bright kids which helps but it hardly says much for the quality of the PS that even with us as teachers they still were way ahead.

My youngest daughter spent much of her time tutoring her fellow students to help them catch up. (She tends to be quite helpful to others in that regard) She got straight A's and principals scholarships for two years straight in jr. high, which by the way they reneged on since we moved before she graduated. She was not alone but hers I remember more clearly.

School is what you make of it. You being the student. We, the teachers and parents, are only there as facilitators for making knowledge available. Any other kind of teaching is a waste of everyones time unless you are training them for burger king.

[bytor2112]

Okay Vort......your comments prove nothing and my responses won't either. You can feel right and I will as well.

You admit you have little experience with homeschooling. I have lots. Therefore, I am much less ignorant about the subject than you are.

Isn't that much obvious?

Lot's? That's kind of like....smartest and best? Isn't it....?

Do you really want to know? If so, start by looking at LM's link.

Not really...I just think smartest and best are......like saying coolest. Meaningless and seriously, how does Vort measure best with that vast home schooling acumen?

Do you suppose that your experience is representative? Or might you have been dealing with the dregs of homeschooling, with the ones who couldn't cut it? As you say:

In my previous posts, I admitted my opinion is colored because of my limited experiences with home schooled kids, and I hope I was clear that I would never wish to deny anyone the right to do so.

This being the case, why are you so offended? You agree with me: You are in fact ignorant ("limited experiences").

No and I doubt that yours is either and I'm not offended. I think you just like to take the opportunity to throw meaningless insults at people.....are you like this in person...around men? Doubtful.

Dregs? I am guessing you are referring to the parents and not the kids. I would say the parents had no business trying to home school these kids.

Put them up against homeschooled kids for...what, exactly?

By your standards Vort....you know, bestest, smartest, most polite and whatever meaningful standard with which to compare.

Says the guy who is busy dissing homeschoolers.

No....I didn't diss home schoolers, I rendered an opinion with a caviat that my experience and opinions had been colored by the various things I named.

And I'm done with this thread before I get banned for being not nice, or best or smartest or most socially well adjusted.

Edited January 31, 2012 by bytor2112

[Vort]

Okay Vort......your comments prove nothing and my responses won't either. You can feel right and I will as well.

It's not a matter of "feeling right".

Lot's? That's kind of like....smartest and best? Isn't it....?

Nope.

Not really...I just think smartest and best are......like saying coolest. Meaningless and seriously, how does Vort measure best with that vast home schooling acumen?

By observing performance.

By your standards Vort....you know, bestest, smartest, most polite and whatever meaningful standard with which to compare.

Not sure why you're so wounded by what I wrote, which was:

Homeschooled kids, generally speaking, are the best, smartest, most polite, and socially best-adjusted students I have seen.

Are you suggesting that this is not true -- that I have seen better, smarter, more polite, and better socially adjusted students in public schools than I have in homeschooling situations?

It is obvious that my observation deeply offended you, but I cannot figure out why.

No....I didn't diss home schoolers

Your words:

I am opposed to home schooling.....

Not "I have had less-than-optimal experience with home schooling". Not "Home schooling has yet to show me it is a good option." Rather, you bluntly and openly claimed to be opposed to home schooling itself.

If that is not a "diss", please explain what would qualify.

[NeuroTypical]

If it helps, we have a bumper sticker that says "DANGER - Unsocialized homeschoolers on board!"

[Blackmarch]

Considering the amount and type of investment to make homeschool work, I'd be very surprised if there were no or very rare horror stories about it.

On the flipside most people i know who seriously look into homeschooling/privateschooling have an understanding that its going to be hard, and are a little more prepared.

[NeuroTypical]

In our experience, you need three things to be a successful homeschooling family:

1- Enough brain cells to budget and plan

2- Enough dedication to stick to a budget and plan

3- You need to really like spending a lot of time with your kids, every day, without end.

No, this does not describe lots of good, righteous, wonderful parents. That's not a bad thing.

[Guest]

In our experience, you need three things to be a successful homeschooling family:

1- Enough brain cells to budget and plan

2- Enough dedication to stick to a budget and plan

3- You need to really like spending a lot of time with your kids, every day, without end.

No, this does not describe lots of good, righteous, wonderful parents. That's not a bad thing.

You forgot a few more, LM:

4 - lots of patience and solid handle on discipline.

5 - ability to expand your horizons very far and very wide and willingness to discuss things of the world that you may not agree with.

Edited January 31, 2012 by anatess

[Jennarator]

I used to work at a private school. Every girl (that I can think of) lost her verginity by the time she was in th grade. Just sayin'.

[NadiaStar]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Today - government funded education is mandated by federal law and attendance for all children is required by law. To change it so that it won't be government funded anymore requires congressional change on the federal level. Can we have enough people write their congressmen that would result in shutting down this funding? Sure. If that happens, then the people mandated they don't need education funded by the government, which means, they'll have to go fund it themselves. It can still be required. Can they change it so education won't be required by law? Sure. Which means, people don't need to be educated by default. In either case, if people don't want government touching education, then that means they shoulder the responsibility themselves including "options" for those that couldn't afford it.

I'm simply going with the ideas of what would happen if we were to completely get rid of education.

[NeuroTypical]

You forgot a few more, LM:

4 - lots of patience and solid handle on discipline.

5 - ability to expand your horizons very far and very wide and willingness to discuss things of the world that you may not agree with.

Those may be high on anatess' and LM's list, but there are homeschooling families who do just fine withtout them, thank you very much.

For #4, there are unschoolers and artist-y types who thrive on chaos and lack of discipline. There are also the drill-instructor parents who have zero patience. (Kids from both groups are often the spelling bee winners). For #5, there are the narrowly-focused, politically- or religiously-motivated homeschoolers who carefully control and spin information to produce a desired mindset.

These folks still manage to produce groups of kids with superior measurable achievement to public/private schooled groups of kids. So yeah, although we figure it's a travesty for a kid to be homeschooled in an environment without elements of 4 or 5, other folks are raising successful kids without them.

But if you're missing one or more of my original list, well, see bytor's posts about his wife's experiences.

[Vort]

In our experience, you need three things to be a successful homeschooling family:

1- Enough brain cells to budget and plan

2- Enough dedication to stick to a budget and plan

3- You need to really like spending a lot of time with your kids, every day, without end.

No, this does not describe lots of good, righteous, wonderful parents. That's not a bad thing.

I think your list looks about right. I would add a #4, "At least one parent willing and able to stay home with the children all day, every day." I suppose trading off days or weeks could work, but I have never seen it done.

Conversely, here are a few things that you do not necessarily need to be a successful homeschooling family:

1. A college degree

2. Formal educational training

3. Lots of money

4. A programmed curriculum

5. Intense governmental oversight

6. Lots of other homeschoolers nearby (though it certainly helps)

7. Perfectly disciplined children

8. Parents who can answer all their children's questions off the top of their heads

The list is not exhaustive -- which I am sure is why you produced a short list demonstrating what you do need, rather than an extensive and necessarily incomplete list of things you don't.

[Guest]

Those may be high on anatess' and LM's list, but there are homeschooling families who do just fine withtout them, thank you very much.

For #4, there are unschoolers and artist-y types who thrive on chaos and lack of discipline. There are also the drill-instructor parents who have zero patience. (Kids from both groups are often the spelling bee winners). For #5, there are the narrowly-focused, politically- or religiously-motivated homeschoolers who carefully control and spin information to produce a desired mindset.

These folks still manage to produce groups of kids with superior measurable achievement to public/private schooled groups of kids. So yeah, although we figure it's a travesty for a kid to be homeschooled in an environment without elements of 4 or 5, other folks are raising successful kids without them.

But if you're missing one or more of my original list, well, see bytor's posts about his wife's experiences.

LM, artist-y types who thrive on chaos and lack of discipline doesn't mean they're undisciplined. It just means that their discipline style is tailored to how they thrive best. Drill-instructor doesn't necessarily mean they got a solid handle on discipline. Drill-instructor to a kid like mine is sure to get very disastrous results. Solid handle on discipline means - you can positively keep your child under control. If your artist-y type decides he wants to take one year off of school and just run around naked painting the sky for a year to have a sense of freedom - you have to be able to handle that to keep his studies moving. If you have a kid that will match you yell by yell throwing books at you and putting his foot down saying, No, I refuse to learn Math! You gotta be able to control that. I don't see how you can be successful without a solid handle on discipline.

#5 - I don't see how you can raise a successful kid when his critical thinking skills are compromised by knowing only half of an equation. Sure, he excels in his studies then he gets released out into the world having to deal with things that are different and then what?

[Jennarator]

In our experience, you need three things to be a successful homeschooling family:

1- Enough brain cells to budget and plan

2- Enough dedication to stick to a budget and plan

3- You need to really like spending a lot of time with your kids, every day, without end.

No, this does not describe lots of good, righteous, wonderful parents. That's not a bad thing.

You also need a parent that can stay home and NOT have to work. There's not enought time to try to home school at night......

There are a lot of families that would love to have at least one parent at home, but it is not possible. I would love to home school my children, I can't stand their school!