jump to last post 1-38 of 38 discussions (374 posts)

Could America survive without the public school system?

  1. Rose West profile image89
    Rose Westposted 6 years ago

    I've been writing an article about the government's involvement in education... It seems to me that our kids would be a lot better off if the government had never gotten involved. But what if the Department of Education was stopped? What would education look like if public schools were closed? Could we survive?

    1. Ohma profile image78
      Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think, and I could be wrong, that there are to many people who could not afford privatized schooling. The absence of public schooling would create a serious decline in the education of our youth there by leading to a serious decline of the country as a whole.

      1. Rose West profile image89
        Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But if we didn't have to pay taxes to support the public school system, we would be able to afford private education.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not everyone would be able to afford to pay for it.

        2. Ohma profile image78
          Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I have never paid a school tax per say. Of course I have never owned my own home either. I could not afford to pay for private schooling.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I rent an apartment but still pay school taxes. I don't even have any kids smile

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              There is a difference UW between you and Ohma.

              Ohma is in the U.S. and You are in Canada. There is a good reason why you would have different situations. wink

            2. Ohma profile image78
              Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe it is different in Canada {{shrugs}} not sure I pay state taxes on my income and everything else I use except food and clothing. I also pay local taxes for the city I live in. Maybe they are all tied up together. I really do not know. My sister who owns her home here pays a separate school tax from the others I mentioned.

              1. Rose West profile image89
                Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The owner of the place you rent is paying school tax, so yes, indirectly you are paying school tax.

                1. Ohma profile image78
                  Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Kind of figured it was something like that. But to the point even without that tax I doubt my rent would be decreased so I still could not afford to pay for private schooling.

                  1. Rose West profile image89
                    Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I understand, and I blame the government that we can't afford alternative education.

        3. Rafini profile image82
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Are you serious?  Who making $7.50 / hour would be able to afford $5,000 (min) per child per year for an education??

          1. Rose West profile image89
            Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I see where you're coming from, but if the government didn't retain control of education, parents could decide how to educate their kids, and that might mean a less expensive education (whoever said that private school was the only alternative to public school?). Plus, if citizens weren't forced to pay so many taxes for innumerable government programs, we would have a lot more money for our kids.

            1. Rafini profile image82
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I honestly don't think taxes are so bad, but then again my property tax is like $3.69/month.  The average annual property tax (here) is $1,600 - again, I don't think that's too much.  But that isn't the issue, is it?

              The people are still in control of the public schools even if the government pays for it.  The people vote for members of the school board, the people vote for government officials, the people have the right to communicate with the schools and the school board, the people are encouraged to participate in their childs education by running for school board seats...I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

              1. Rose West profile image89
                Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I disagree, parents are not in control of public schools. The government retains the right to decree what kind of education is given in a public school. Parents have no say.

                1. Rafini profile image82
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hhmmm, it just makes me wonder why permission slips were sent home for me to sign for my kids to watch Schindler's List in History if it wasn't up to the parents.....

                  I'm not saying parents are in absolute control of the schools, but neither is the government.  It's a shared control where majority rules - parents can win.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Exactly, Rafini. A parent of a public school student can be as involved in their kid's education as he or she wants and is able to be. Public schools are, well, public. The majority does rule, but the rights of minorities should be respected.
                    Sadly, it's true that all too often the rights of minorities get violated in public schools. I imagine that we hear more about it now than in the past both because we live in the information age and because minorities are becoming increasingly braver about standing up for their rights.

                    There's no analog for the rights of minorities being violated in private schools because private schools are, well, private. They don't have to make allowances for Muslim students, say, if they don't want to.

            2. Rafini profile image82
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              (whoever said that private school was the only alternative to public school?).

              So, how is a single parent who earns minimum wage (or not much more) supposed to pay for private education or have the time to home-school their children?  Public schools are there for a reason - some people can't afford any other type of education for their children!

              1. Rose West profile image89
                Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know all the answers, but I do know that our country is declining, just like the family and the church.

        4. Marisa Wright profile image92
          Marisa Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No you couldn't.  Right now, the taxes of all people, whether they have children or not, contribute towards educating children for the ultimate good of the nation as a whole.

          Don't you ever wonder why things like public education and public health care started in the first place?  It was the better-off members of the community recognizing their Christian duty to help those less well-off, and thereby enable everyone to reach their potential and contribute to the community.  Seems like Americans are so focussed on the individual, no one gives a damn about the greater good any more.

          Having said that, it does sound as though the public education system needs a thorough overhaul - it's not the fact that it's public that's the problem, it's the way it's run.

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Public Education was not started because of Christians.  Public Education came to be due to some Christians & some parents wanting an education for their child with potential but no opportunity due to cost

            In other words, for the betterment of their descendants.


            Christians aren't responsible for everything good that happens.

          2. 0
            Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ummm, sources for that?

            It's my understanding that modern public education was pushed into being primarily by the major players of the industrial age and based upon various (faulty) psychological and sociological theories.

            I even read somewhere - I'll have to look it up later - that some kids in Kansas (I think it was)were "removed" and escorted to school by government officials because the parents did not want to be forced to send their kids to school.

            1. Rafini profile image82
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Umm, I think I read it somewhere...or most likely, learned it in school.

              Based on (faulty??) theories?  By whose opinion are they faulty?


              Are you sure you aren't thinking of Little Rock, Arkansas?

              1. 0
                Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Oh no- Little Rock was a different time, place and situation.  I believe we were talking about the origin of massed schooling.  So, fine!  You gave me homework to do.  I went and looked it up.

                "Our form of ocmpulsory schooling is an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850.  It was resisted - sometimes with guns - by an estimated eighty percent of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost in Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the 1880's, when the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard." (John Taylor Gatto, "Dumbing Us Down")

                OK, so I got the state wrong smile

                As far as in whose opinion the theories are faulty - that would be assorted  sociologists, psychologist, historians, and education activists throughout history.  One would assert their theory and put it into play - others who came later would either dispute and replace with a new theory or simply build on top of what came before, leading to the system as we know it.

                Yet, some historians looking back on the particular studies and data that originally allowed these theories to be put into practice have found major flaws, if not complete falsehoods, in the information.  Ahhh, there's nothin' like good ol' "spin" when building a foundation on which to raise future generations.

                1. Rafini profile image82
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  What you're referring to is in regard to the current form of Public Education, what I'm referring to is the creation of Public Education as an institution (rather than relying on tutors, private school, governesses)  I think it's completely different things.

                  And you think the theories put into practice in our public school system are faulty?  For what reasons? I can only say, nothing is perfect & it takes time to get things right.  (Rome wasn't built in a day, ya know)

                  1. 0
                    Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, I'm referring to the beginnings of compulsory schooling - "going TO school" ala 1850.  That's where the "escort" came in.  Of course, education varies from state to state and I'll admit that I do not know each states laws.

                    The foundations of our current system were laid in the Post Civil War era, in the Industrial Age (I'm actually working on a hub about this right now).  Then it underwent another transformation in the 70's (when we were sitting in the middle of it - who knew?).

                    And, do I think theories put into practice in our pub schools are faulty - yes!  That is if the goal is to create a group of advanced thinkers, artists, mathematicians, etc.  Certainly nothing is perfect, yet we seem to be unwilling to drop-kick what isn't working and just except it.

        5. rusticyeti profile image78
          rusticyetiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If the public school system didn't exist in the first place, then the role of education in society would change dramatically. Children would work in apprenticeships for various occupations and companies. The richer families would hire private tutors and organize private school to learn in. The poorer families would resort to local organization, which would provide schools that double as social support systems for the communities and end-up developing their own local economies.

          In essence, the whole corporate world would collapse because new generations would not know how to interact and work in the corporate environment (which is the main reason why I think the public school system is organized the way it is). When public schools were first a national system, they were to prepare children for an industrial economy. Now, we are moving closer and closer to a high-tech corporate economy, which the public schools perhaps haven't adapted to.

          What we need is a reformation in the way public schools teach and are organized. We don't need to abolish the public school system all together.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        if public schooling were done away with, prices of private schools would decrease. Dont' use the price argumetn.

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Under what assumption are you basing your view on? hmm
          The price argument is a legitimate argument, because public education actually does not cost as much as private schools cost the families putting their kids through those schools.

          You say that the price would come down? I say you would be wrong, because those who control the wealth, would not let the price of education fall to a point that it is simply given away.

          Nope, not buying it. wink

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Who "Controls the wealth"?  You're talking to me like I am making weird assumptions, then you say that people "control the wealth".  If you want to know who controls the wealth... it would be government: Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

            But, if we casually ignore your weird assumption, and analyze the idea that "the price of education [would not] fall to a point that it is simply given away."... why would an education be free? You expect teachers and desk makers to come together and educate children for free? Not. Going. To. Happen.  Our current system isn't free (psst...Taxes!!), so I don't understand why you think education SHOULD be free.

            But I suppose that we can assume, for your sake, that there are wicked people out there who ... somehow... have the ability to control the price of things... Why don't they exert their control over food prices? -- they sure would makea  fortune (everyone has to eat!)... Why don't they exert their control over any other area of the market? -- monopolies are a great way to make money!

            ... Thinking about it more... Why isn't everything in our economy way too expensive? After all, we HAVE to buy it all! ... right?

            The reason that food doesn't cost a fortune, and the reason why things are affordable, is simply because of competition. Businesses have to compete for your money! They compete through (generally) two methods: lower prices and quality. The reason why McDonald's doesn't charge $500 for a hamburger is because I could grow my own cattle, and slaughter them, and then sell a burger for $450 and put them out of business!! ... but then they could charge $400... then I could charge $350... then $300...

            ... until we get near the cost of production. Just ask any manager of any restaurant or just about any business - profits are razor thin.

            Government, however, doesn't need to compete: they can just outlaw competition. And they can throw you in jail if you don't pay them. Prices pretty much HAVE to go up under these circumstances.

            With government control, prices go up. With Free-Markets, prices go down until they can't go any lower (until new technology comes along).

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You would be normally right, but then again, you are assuming something not said. Those who control the wealth is certainly not government. If YOU have a problem with government, then take it up with them. Not, with me. The upper 20% of American are millionaires or better.

              The lower 13.5% have no place to live.

              Of the 13.2% of those who do have a place to live, live within poverty level.

              And, some how you see it fit to force people to pay for an education? You must be sadistic.

              The rest of your post I ignored, because you failed to realize, it's NOT about You, it's about the greater good of society, and had you been able to look over your own ego, then you might have seen what I was talking about.

              Those who control the wealth is certainly NOT the government. In fact- the Federal Reserve Bank is NOT owned or operated by the government.

              So, with that said- before you decide to try and use whatever methodology you use to think...it might be helpful if you actually thought the thought through.

              Education for the greater good of society is to be free to people, otherwise, it simply dumb down society. If you have a problem with the education system, then take the damn politics out of it. Federal aid shouldn't exist. Schools in each State should be State funded, so Federal authorities have no control.

              You take away public education and the direct effect on society will generate tons, upon tons, of illiterate people, who can be manipulate for whatever purpose through fear and because they won't know what is best for themselves.

              So please.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Before you read and get all flamed up: we actually (sort of) agree on two points. The federal reserve is not government, and federal money shouldn't be spent on schools. I am going to argue, however, that the federal reserve couldn't exist without government (it is a monopoly granted through the FRAct of 1913), and that ... why stop at "no federal money"? Let's make schools completely privatized.

                Now, let's begin with the fire!!

                What is it with you thinking that rich people control money? You clearly haven't read the Constitution, nor have you read the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Because the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve, are LITERALLY the people who control the money. The federal reserve was created by the government -- I'll agree that they are private -- but this private monstrosity could not exist without the government. You can't disagree with this: just like all other monopolies in existence, it was created and continues to be protected by government.

                Yes, the upper 20% of Americans are millionaires... what the saying? the top 5% own 75% of the money or something ridiculous. Even if that were TRUE (which it likely isn't), what would it matter? They invest their money, make more money, and proceed to deliver products to you.

                Here are some great examples of people who are rich that I love!

                Bill Gates is the richest person on this planet. And yet, no one really hates him. I love him. I love that I can afford a computer with a fantastic and easy-to-understand operating system that comes with an easy-to-use internet surfing program, an easy-to-understand word processing program... etc etc... for under $300! That's beautiful! He has helped SO many people - more people than Ghandi and Mother Theresa combined.

                Henry Ford made the first mass-produced vehicle. And since then, it has come to be that one month's salary at a fast food crud job can get me a machine (crummy, I'll admit) that can take me from my home to my job, and many other locations.

                Rockefeller, the dastardly bastard whom we're all trained to hate, made such a marvelous contribution to life (AND the environment!!). Before him people were hunting whales to kill them and take their oil to burn. Lighting your home was expensive! Rockefeller changed this. He lowered the cost of Oil and gasoline-esque products to a fraction of their costs. Thanks to him we have petroleum jelly.

                All these people who you hate for some delusional reason have made life SO much better for the poor that NO government could ever hope to equal.

                I'm MORE than happy to give these people my money. Kudos! Keep it coming, guys!

                ... but the people who get rich by living off the teat of my tax dollars... that's another story. Dodge, AIG, Chevrolet, Goldman Sachs, Freddie and Fannie, the AMA, and countless others that get governmentally-granted monopolies should be dragged into the streets (along with their government buddies) and murdered.

                Going further with your statements: what are you smoking? 13.5% of the people are homeless? not in this (*cough*) Capitalism-having (*cough*) country! We only have about a .5% homeless rate! (1.6 million divided by 310 million). Sources:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_Hom … o_Congress

                I got the population number from the CIA world factbook.

                Going even FURTHER with your pro-thievery agenda (*see below): No, I'm not sadistic. I just realize that competition makes products better. Just ask the USSR.

                Your claim that I "see it fit to force people to pay for an education"... are you kidding? YOU ALREADY PAY FOR EDUCATION! IT'S CALLED TAXES!!!

                My argument is that private schools would be cheaper and better than anything the government could provide: we'd have education, but we'd likely pay less but get more! Mainly because people would have the power to choose what schools to send their kids! If one school sucked, just quit payment and go to another!

                And then you apparently stopped reading my argument. Good job on that.

                FINALLY! something we can agree upon: I can agree that federal money shouldn't be dished out to schools and that it should be paid for through states (at most) -- that would at least be Constitutional! But I want the government completely out! Make it privatized, just like everything else that's good in our society.

                (*footnote: I say "pro-thievery agenda" because that's all that tax dollars are. If I want to keep my money, and not partake in police / Firefighting /  road services / etc, and instead try to hire a private business to do these things... then...... I'll be thrown in jail at the point of a gun. Sounds a lot like thievery to me!)

                1. Misha profile image76
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Rather highway robbery smile

                  Good luck Evan, I envy your enthusiasm - but I gave up on these people long ago...

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    rofl, thanks man. I'll keep trying to change minds. I'm sure I won't, though.

                    "whoa!!! so ... like... things can happen without government forcing you to pay for it?! ... like... how would they get their money if government didn't take it out of my wallet at gun point?! It ... doesn't make sense!! ... like... if I WANT something, i can CHOOSE to pay for it? this is just non-sensical. Quit talking, Evan."

                    "wait a minute... YOU're telling me that all that education that I got from k-12 cost MONEY?! NOOOOO WAY!!!! Education is just some THING that HAPPENS! And I am allowed to have it NO MATTER WHAT!! ... even if my family can't afford to have me not work for 12 years, and even if it might just be better for me to go learn on-the-job-training at a business, and even if my time could be MUCH better spent... I HAVE TO HAVE AN EDUCATION AND YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!"

                    Yeeesh.

                    I'm all for education, but the current system just doesn't make sense. Our government is just saying "You will have education, now! If your family can't afford to have you away from work for 12 years... too bad! Also, everyone in society will have to pay, or else they go to jail!" ... and people don't see this as a problem.

          2. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I have to agree with Cagsil.  The cost of Private Education would skyrocket if there was no public education.  Supply VS Demand.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              .....

              People would demand more schools, and then there would be tremendous profits...

              ... profits signal where there is a need for something, and then more educational facilities would be built, and the price would plummet to lower-than-current prices.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                and then more educational facilities would be built


                And just who do you think is going to pay for the facilities to be built?  The cost of inflation goes up every year, ya know.

          3. rusticyeti profile image78
            rusticyetiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It would be very difficult for private schools as they presently exist to meet the demands for education. Plus, once the system goes private, out go the laws and procedures the force all children to go to school. Many poor families would lose their "daycare" while they go to work because they can't afford to send their kids to school, and neither would the kids choose to go to school because of their own social life.
            On the other hand, perhaps poorer communities would be forced to organize their own schools at low cost, in a sort of community action that would bring the culture and neighborhoods closer together.
            In any case, it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to let this happen. They want checks and balances on all people's education and all of the economy.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Right, they lose their "daycare" (which cost them $10,000/year, btw). But children COULD be learning a trade skill and working to earn money for the family.

              Before you tell me I'm an evil psycho, remember that this is the way life has been in the "european world" until around 1915 or so. In the most of the world, this is how it is today! Children work and help pay for their family's expenses.

              Work would be a pretty good daycare, I would imagine.

      3. adrienne2 profile image83
        adrienne2posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        @ohma I agree there are far too many parents who can not afford private schools.  And would not want to even image what tuition would be like if there were no public schools.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          public schooling costs around $10,000 /year currently

          .... don't see how privatized schooling could be so much worse....

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Let's see....right now let's say 50 people per neighborhood provide $10,000 per year (through taxes) for a single childs education, opposed to each child's parents having to pay $10,000 out of the $7.50 minimum wage they earn. (which equals $15,600 per year)

            ...who exactly gets to benefit from this non-wonderful system you're creating?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              50 people per neighborhood paying $10,000 for ONE child's education - many of whom have never even met the kid?

              And you're asking who's going to benefit?... I'd argue that through my system, 48 of those people would benefit! And the one person would have to make a decision: "do i want my child to be educated about history and other random subjects for 13 years for a lot of money (-- the price WOULD be cheaper in a privatized system)? or do I want him learning a trade skill or just plain old working, which would be create wealth for our family?"

              BUT HERE'S THE BEST PART!!! =--- because the family actually MAKES the decision "my child's education is worth more than the money that I'm spending on it", THE FAMILY BENEFITS TOO!!!

              SO under a free system, all 50 people benefit.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                and what about the exceptional child whose parents don't have the money for a private education?  they would be forced to 'choose' for the child to 'learn' a trade skill or just plain old working in order to create a non-existent possibility of wealth for the poor family.  This is not a win-win situation.  Having public education available to those who wish to benefit from it is.

    2. Ben Evans profile image74
      Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is a problem with getting rid of public shcools.  If you take a look at just a few countries like Mexico, Philippines, or Thailand, you will see a big disparity between the people with money and the people without money.  For the most part people with money have the ability to access the best education.

      It is proposterous and completely idealistic to even think that we can get rid of public funding for schools.  I would have to say that public schools are not great here and there is a lot that could be improved.........However, go to some other countries where there is not enough money to spend on quality education and see how it is.  I assure you it is horrible and I have seen it with my own eyes.  If there is no public education, only wealthy get educated period.  As bad as our education system may seem, without it our country would completely go in the crapper.

      The crux of the biscuit is if we eliminate publicly funded schools then we are going to suffer as a country.

      1. Rose West profile image89
        Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The government is stealing from the people in outrageous taxes. They are paying for the millions of people on welfare. This is why we are broke and cannot afford private education.

        1. Ben Evans profile image74
          Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I understand that we are paying high taxes.  I am a business owner and I pay ridiculous taxes.  I feel there is so much waste but i dont think schools are a waste.  I think they have a lot of room to improve but I would axe other programs before schools.

          1. Rose West profile image89
            Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            For sure, there are tons of programs that should be dissolved.

        2. Research Analyst profile image79
          Research Analystposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          We are broke because people do not know how to manage their money it has nothing to do with paying high taxes.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I will agree with you that, even though taxes eat up about 40% of our incomes (income tax with state and federal eats up between 25-40% of wealth, and add sales tax on that can be another 6% or so), people can still manage to invest their wealth and take care of themselves.

            And even though we have constant inflation that can vary between 1% and 10% (brought on by the federal reserve, which was created by government), people have still managed to, somehow, maintain their wealth.

            and even though most of us don't even use upwards of half the amount of money that i send to government, we still have managed to make decent lives for ourselves.

            ... I'd say that life would be a lot better without the idiocies of government and taxes than with it!.

      2. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with this post. The public education system in this country is broken, but better a broken public education system than none at all!

        My nephew/ward attends a local Catholic school with a good reputation, yet he already knows more about American history and government than any of his classmates, despite only living in this country for three years. He also knows more about Catholic theology than any of them, despite being one of the only non-Catholics in the school, and has read more books in English than all but a couple of his classmates, despite having only spoken it for three years. tongue This is because my husband and I care about his grades and his education and provide tons of enrichment outside of school, including a personal library of nearly 1000 books and weekly trips to the local public library. If their kids are any basis to judge, very few of the other parents do any more than the bare minimum to keep their kids in the school.

        In between this experience and my own experience in public school before my parents started homeschooling us, I frankly don't think the majority of parents give a sh*t about their kids' education, so if school of some sort wasn't compulsory and free public schools weren't an option, I think we'd devolve into a nation of illiterates and morons in very little time. Even many parents who DO care can't afford to send their kids to private school and don't have the capability to homeschool them, thanks to, for example, both having full-time jobs.

        I have no interest in living in a third world country ruled by an uneducated mob, so I gladly pay taxes to support public education, even though I don't ever plan to use it for my own kids. For much the same reason, I do not mind my taxes going to welfare programs. Going without food or medical attention does horrible things to children's performance in school, so I don't believe any child should be allowed to drop below a certain standard of living in any country claiming to call itself civilized. Not if we want our country to REMAIN civilized, at any rate. Welfare has its problems, sure, but far, far better to have a few people abusing the system than millions falling through the cracks and ending up living in cardboard boxes and crime- and disease-ridden shantytowns like those that cover the Third World. I'd much rather take a bite out of the 50+% of my tax dollars that go to military spending. tongue

        1. Rose West profile image89
          Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If it wasn't for welfare, people would be forced to fend for themselves. Maybe then they would actually work for a living instead of begging off the government. Maybe then private charities and churches would be better able to reach out to the widows and orphans.

          If it wasn't for government-run education, people would be forced to educate their own kids. Maybe then, private education would be more affordable.

          1. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You have a fairly romantic notion of what happens to a society with no social safety net.

            Sure, some are going to find new strength and swim. Others, probably the majority, are going to sink, and you can see how well life in a society with no social safety nets is working for the poor of Africa, Haiti, India, even Mexico. You can even read up a little on the slums of 19th century Europe and the US - Dickens and Hugo are entertaining starts, but don't forget that the world they wrote about was reality for millions of people, and few were lucky enough, like Oliver Twist or Jean Valjean, to ever escape it. These kinds of slums breed crime, political instability, and devastating diseases, and trap people in a cycle of poverty far more brutal than welfare ever has.

            For somebody who claims to be Christian, I'm surprised by how social Darwinist your views appear to be. My brother-in-law opposes welfare, too, but at least he's honest about his social Darwinism. He thinks that anyone who can't make it in this country (illness or disability excepted) deserves to live under a bridge in a cardboard box and die young from hunger, disease, or foul play. Can you honestly agree?

            1. Rose West profile image89
              Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No, I'm not a social Darwinist. Some people do need to be taken care of - some people do need help. But my stance is that the government does not have the responsibility to help those people. The responsibility lies with family, with friends, with neighbors, with churches.

              I suppose I do have romantic tendencies - my parents tell me that when I have a hard time facing reality.

              1. kerryg profile image87
                kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I figured that's what you'd say, and that's why I said you were romantic. Churches and private charities are great, but they can only do so much, and the kinds of slums I'm talking about that were common in the past in this country and the Third World today are multi-generational. If your parents, siblings, grandparents, uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors, and children are all making $1 a day just like you, how are they going to help you in any meaningful way?

                I'm sorry, but the government is the only entity that is large enough and with a broad enough scope to do the kind of significant social engineering that was required, for example, to stop poor parents from sending their kids to work 16 hour days in dangerous factories and send them to school instead.

                I don't like the government sticking its nose in things that are not its business any more than you do, but democracy requires an educated and informed populace to be sustained, so in this case I think it absolutely is government's duty to educate our youth if their parents are unwilling or unable to educate them themselves (or via private means), and I think it's our duty as citizens to demand that the government neither shirk that duty nor do an inadequate job.

                It obviously is doing the latter, but I think that says more about our priorities as a society than the government's genuine ability (or lack thereof) to run a good education system. What the FRAK is wrong with us when we spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually fighting two wars we never even should have CONSIDERED entering into, yet we can't scrape together the money to save the hundreds of teaching jobs being cut this year in my city alone due to budget cuts? If things keep going this way, I guess you'll get your wish soon enough. It will be interesting to see if it's really the libertarian utopia you envision. tongue

                1. Rose West profile image89
                  Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The government isn't the only entity big enough... what about the millions of American citizens? We as a people are not doing our job as far as taking care of the widows and fatherless goes. That is our job, not the government's. Just because we're doing a bad job, doesn't mean that the government should take over our responsibility.

                  Besides those who are truly in need, there are those on welfare who would rather take money from the government than work hard to provide for their families. There are some people who are poor because of themselves and their lack of integrity. I'm not being naive; I know there are truly needy people out there. But welfare just encourages the lazy without doing a good job of helping the helpless. And some people are unable to afford the absolute best education; that's how it goes. Unless of course, you want our country to become socialistic (which it's already becoming); if education was completely socialized, then, instead of educational choice, everyone would get the same crappy education.

                  As to the money involved, we are already spending too much on education, and yet our schools still suck.

                  1. kerryg profile image87
                    kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You're being romantic again. In a perfect world, yes, parents would take responsibility for educating their children well and people would take care of their elderly and sick relatives.

                    However, it's not a perfect world, people in general mostly suck, and therefore we need to take steps to ensure that the most vulnerable sectors of our society (including children, the elderly, and the sick) have an alternative way of getting their basic needs taken care of. I would be just fine with punishing able-bodied adults who are just too lazy to work, if it wasn't the people who depended on them who ultimately suffered as a result, but it is. Why should we punish children for being born to loser parents who shirk their responsibilities?

                    Nobody is claiming education should be socialized completely, just that free public education needs to remain an option, and should be improved in quality rather than eviscerated further.

                    I do, however, feel it's necessary to point out that those horrible social democracies in Europe consistently beat us by miles in every marker of educational achievement except the performance of the very best students (which is comparable), so maybe if you really care more about improving education in this country than attaining some ahistorical vision of libertarian paradise, you should be promoting socialism instead of making ignorant comments about it. tongue Or at least studying it to figure out what they're doing right, so we can try to duplicate it. Ideological purity is only justifiable when it WORKS.

          2. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe???  I am not a widow!!  My kids are not orphans!!  Minimum wage & Corporate Greed keep my wages too low to be able to afford to stay home and educate my kids myself OR to send them to Private school!! 

            I seriously think anyone who feels this way  needs to go back to school and learn a few more things about education, the world, the economy, employment, wages, and history.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              how does minimum wage keep your wage low?

              ... I'm really failing to see the logic there...

              Minimum wage increases unemployment by keeping wages HIGH.  I could see if you said "minimum wage has made me unemployed" but not that it makes your wages too low.

              Also, corporate greed is a good thing. Everyone seems to think it isn't, but it is. Steve Jobs was being REALLY greedy when he created the iPod - he was like, "Hey, If I make this thing that people want, I'll make a lot of money!"... But everyone loved it.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                It may not make a lot of sense, but it's factual.

                Minimum wage is $7.50/hr or $15,600 per year.
                Poverty level in my area is $9.83/hr or $20,446 per year. 
                My last job paid $12.60/hr or $26,208 per year. 
                A living wage in my area, for a family of 4, is $30.00/hr or $62,400 per year.


                Due to corporate greed and the minimum wage being set below poverty there is no way people can improve their lives no matter how hard they try.  Even entry level wages for an Associate Degree, $30,000 - $35,000, do not match up to a living wage. 

                Please explain how corporate greed can be good when all it does is put more money into corporate pockets while at the same time failing to increase the wages of the average employee to a decent living standard.

                1. Misha profile image76
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  What corporate greed has to do with that exactly? All those numbers are set by government...

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That never seems to be understood.

                  2. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    The government only determines minimum wage. 
                    Poverty levels are determined by how much money is required to provide the bare essentials of life. 
                    A living wage is determined by how much money is needed to live a comfortable life - ie: enough money to provide food ($755), $1,100 monthly child care expense, medical, housing ($807), transportation, and $800 in other expenses.  The government does not set any of these costs.

                    the government did not determine how much I should be paid at my last job.  that was determined by corporate officials.  if these corporate officials had been less greedy they would have paid themselves less and I would have been paid more.  How much I was paid was determined by what minimum wage was set at - and corporate could feel that they paid me a decent wage because it was more than the federal minimum. (but it was less than half of what is considered a living wage where I live - how can that be a decent wage??)

        2. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Kerry, here I think is where we diverge. I don't think that illiteracy (or lack of formal education in any other form) begets moronity. smile

          1. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Lack of formal education certainly doesn't! I was homeschooled, as you know, so I am extremely sympathetic to alternative forms of education and personally don't believe that school should be mandatory beyond the 8th grade.

            But, I draw the line at the 3 Rs. If we're going to maintain a functioning democracy (or functioning society of any kind that doesn't descend quickly into mob rule or authoritarian dictatorship), we need a literate populace.

            1. Rafini profile image82
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I would agree with you, except in order to obtain any type of gainful employment a college degree is required - h@!! just to get a job to support yourself you need to have a high school diploma or GED, in order to earn anything above minimum wage you need to have a work history or some college education.  I can't agree with a minimum 8th grade education...there are no jobs in America for someone who hasn't at least finished high school.

              1. kerryg profile image87
                kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You are correct.

                I just happen to see this as a problem to be fixed rather than a prejudice to be accommodated. These days everyone has a BA, even people who spend 75% of their college career passed out in a drunken stupor in a frat house, so it's become essentially meaningless.

                Some people are simply not intellectually inclined. They are never going to do well in school and they are never going to enjoy it, so why should we force them to stay in school, force taxpayers to waste money giving a higher education to people who don't want one, and force teachers to waste their time and the time of more intellectually inclined students teaching to the lowest common denominator? I think these kinds of kids need a good old-fashioned education in the three Rs through 8th grade, but beyond that I think child labor laws should be relaxed to allow for a system of apprenticeships and other opportunities for teens to seek serious gainful employment from a younger age.

                1. Rafini profile image82
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I understand.  I actually have a daughter who fits the bill you laid out. smile  She dropped out at the age of 18 - when the law would allow it. (at least she kept me from going to jail due to truancy - lol) 

                  It seems to me we are heading backward into the era before public education was was considered a privilege.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    so, public education WAS considered a privilege, and that was a good way of looking at things....

                    ... but now we think it's a right, and things are bad?

                    ... so how is education a right?

    3. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes we would survive.
      A formal education doesn't always equal wisdom nor knowledge of how to live one's daily life.   My own parents didn't graduate grade school, even, but they had common sense and steadiness and strength of spirit that's becoming rare these days.
      And especially these days, with the liberal dumbos we have heading our Education System,  we'd be a lot better off without it anyway.

      1. Rose West profile image89
        Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well said, Brenda. I sometimes think kids would be better off with no education than with the liberal education provided by the government.

    4. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The dept of education isn't the primary source of funding for our public schools as I'm sure you must know. It's a federal agency and actually shouldn't even exist. I will say education is a good thing but when it's provided publicly it ends up being less than the ideal education for any particular individual and it costs much more than it has to. Maybe someday parents will go back to educating their own children.

      1. Rose West profile image89
        Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I pray that they will. Our government spends way too much money - money it does't actually own.

    5. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The answer is, obviously, "Yes, our children can EASILY survive without the public school system. In fact they'd be much better off without it."

      But, unfortunately for the state of civilization, the vast majority of people don't seem to want to seriously ask or seriously analyze the question

      "Would we all be better off without the government?". For, the answer is the same.

      1. Rose West profile image89
        Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We as a nation like to trust the government to take care of all our problems - for our poor, for our children, for our health. The state of the school system is just a reflection of who we are as a whole.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I whole-heartedly disagree.

          Why doesn't "the state of our computer-creation system" reflect "who we are as a whole"? ... and going further, why does the computer industry function so smoothly, while the education (k-12) industry fail so horribly?

          ... Also, why does the private education system run so smoothly and successfully? (just ask any teacher where THEY'D rather teach: private or public?)

          Why is it that people on welfare don't WANT to work? (Just ask managers who have to work in inner-cities: they run into this problem all the time. "Why would I work for you, for about $1500/month, when I can get about $1000/month without doing a darn thing, and then do illegal things in my free time to make even more money?" -- My friend, a manager, was asked this the other month).

          The fact is, government makes things worse. But no one wants to admit it. All of these "let's help the poor" projects fail horribly. You don't see poor people in rent-controlled apartments!

          Rent control encourages poverty. Minimum wage prevents people from working. Welfare encourages illegal activity. The drug war isa  waste of money. With the money we have spent in iraq and afghanistan, we could have given EVERYONE in the US a check for about $4000. And we have tortured people in the name of our country.

          ... yeah... not really seeing how this reflects me in anyway. It seems to reflect, more accurately, a bunch of nuts who want to be elected to office -- promise projects that seem good, but then never follow up on them even when they fail. Doesn't sound like the computer industries, or any other private industry.

          These things seem to reflect GOVERNMENT, not the FREE-MARKET.

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I"m too tired to get into this tonite, but honestly!  How many poor people do you know??  Or, people on welfare??  I've been there, many times in my fight to improve my life.  In fact, I've been there since last October when I was forced to quit my job!!  Don't tell me I don't want to work!  Don't tell me I would rather engage in illegal activity in order to earn enough money to survive. 

            This thread is about the Public Education System - not about bashing disadvantaged Americans.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What does it matter how many poor people I know? I cited my sources of information (while trying to keep the people involved somewhat secretive, due to the touchy subject). My neighbor, who's a great guy, was asked this question by someone who was on welfare. YOU might not asked the question, but people are asking this, and those that aren't are probably thinking this.

              I bet you wouldn't have lost your job if you would have been willing to take a reduction in wages.

              I bet you could've been offered a cheaper wage if wages could go below minimum wage.

              and, my "bashing disadvantaged Americans" had a point - apparently it was lost on one of the same (you admit it yourself). Rose West was arguing that public education reflects who I am as a person, and then i pointed out that, if that were true, so would all these other god-awful programs that make life worse. I then tried to show why those programs were awful.

              I don't hate poor people, I just recognize the source of their poverty and misery comes from the government, not from the market. And I'm using that as my guide to say that public education is nonsense.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Don't make assumptions about me, okay??  I was forced to quit my job due to a b!ich of a manager throwing me under the bus.  Thank you, I enjoyed it tremendously for the 4 months after she was fired.

                Bashing an entire group of people based on the actions of 1 is considered Discrimination.  Next time, bash the single person, not all who might fit the profile.


                Let me get this straight...you're saying the source of a persons poverty is due to the government providing a free education?  lollollol  Sorry, but that really is hilarious.  Education has been proven to improve a persons life, not destroy it.

                BTW - a lower wage wasn't an option for me to remain employed.  Nope.  The only option was to 'admit' my b!tch of a manager was telling the truth.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  i'm not bashing you, I'm merely pointing out that labor costs money, and that jobs can be saved by paying less.

                  Sorry your manager sucked - but I bet that for $1million /year you would have put up with her!

                  and... let me clarify this for the 9 billionth time

                  PUBLIC EDUCATION ISN'T FREE FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!!!!

                  IT COSTS $10,000 / YEAR PER STUDENT!!!!!! IT'S EXPENSIVE!!!!!

                  1. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Jobs can be saved by paying less....less what?  Wages?  How on earth can anyone earning less than $7.50 an hour afford to pay $10,000 per year for a single childs education??

                    (apparently you misunderstood what I said about my manager - care to re-read?)

                    Public Education is free - I am not charged a fee for my children to attend a public school.  Public Education is provided by the government and paid for by the general public through Taxes because everyone knows Society benefits when children are educated.

      2. John B Badd profile image60
        John B Baddposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Without government thier would be anarchy or monarchy.  Take your pick.  The corperations would be the new monarchs by the way.  They are almost there now despite the government.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          well... actually... without government there would be Anarchy. Monarchy ... is... a government...

          Mono- one
          Archy - rule.

          One person rules.

          A - no
          archy - rules

          no government.

          Anarchy wouldn't mean people running around killing each other, it would mean that, OH MY GOD, we'd be free to choose how to spend our money.

          and before you respond, Yes, I want anarchy, but I'll settle for a return to our Constitution.

          1. 0
            Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ahhh yes - the Constitution.  Here here!

    6. John B Badd profile image60
      John B Baddposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Parents also have the right to pull there childern out of public schools and home shcool them if they want.  They can send them to private schools if they can afford it.  If we eliminated the public school system this country would fall apart.  We would be a nation of idiots and violence and crime would prevail. 
      If you truely believe we could eliminate public education you have no idea what the real world is like.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        they CAN take them out of public schools, but they still have to pay for public schools because government is so inept at figuring out where their money is going.

        This makes private education more expensive than it really is.

  2. lxxy profile image60
    lxxyposted 6 years ago

    I think that having teaching tools and knowledge widely accessible for all families that wish to educate their children would really open up the ability for communities to place teaching back into the hands of themselves.

    Whether or not the government has fouled it up is debatable, but there's not much a government touches for the better.

    However, I think the fracture of public education versus family education is definitely a key trigger to the social issues of today.

    1. Rose West profile image89
      Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you, Ixxy, that government tends to hurt whatever it interferes with. I think the government's control of education has damaged the family structure.

  3. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    The schools inside each State should be funded by State and other Private Organizations.

    The "Federal" Government should not have anything to do with it. And, the fact that Federal Government strangles States(suggesting the loss of federal funding for services in order to get bills passed is ridiculous) should be down-right illegal.

    It's a sad fact that the politicians in each State refuse to take responsibility, as they are suppose to, then the Schools system wouldn't be in trouble or seen as a bad thing. hmm

    Just a thought. smile

    1. Rose West profile image89
      Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Neither the State nor Federal governments have educational responsibilities. It is not their job to educate your children. The family should have complete control.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In reality, it isn't about to happen. wink

        1. Rose West profile image89
          Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It would if the government goes bankrupt.

          1. Jane Grey profile image94
            Jane Greyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The government has gone bankrupt, but that doesn't really matter because it can just print up more money or go deeper into debt to China.

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              That is quite a lot you've said, but I am pretty sure it goes deeper than just what you said. Government has been broke for years, but as far as printing money? It's actually illegal for the government to print it's own money. Thinking that they can just print money and it not have an effect is absolutely foolish.

              The Federal Reserve Bank, which is NOT owned or operated by the Government(that goes for the entire world, in case you did not know).

              Just a thought. wink smile

              1. Jane Grey profile image94
                Jane Greyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks for your thought! smile

                Printing money has had an effect: inflation, which is what we're experiencing now. The paper money we have now can not be backed in gold or silver from the Federal Reserve because that much hard money doesn't exist in the Fed's Bank.

                If the government (or Fed Reserve) doesn't print more money, then where did the money for the stimulus package come from? What's mysterious to me is that the requests to audit the Fed (a simple request) have been shushed and refused.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The family does have complete control. The family can choose to send their kids to public school, or send them to private or parochial school, or to home-school them. Nobody is required to use the public schools.

        1. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Jeff, I did not really seriously look into this, but I think I remember that you still have to follow government guidelines and kids have to pass government exams - or you are charged with child abuse. Not sure in this though - but if this is correct, it is a far cry from a full control...

          1. Rose West profile image89
            Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with Misha. The government still makes education compulsory. I was homeschooled, and my parents always had to go through some government requirements (like state testing) to prove I was educated properly.

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              These vary a lot state-by-state though. I was homeschooled too, and all my parents had to do was sign a piece of paper saying that's what they were doing. After that, the state left us 100% alone.

              1. Rose West profile image89
                Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                True, it does vary between states. But the government still acts like it has a right to oversight.

        2. Rafini profile image82
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol  I wonder which private school would have accepted my children when I couldn't afford to pay the tuition & all scholarship money was already used?   Then again, I wonder which private school would have been able to provide the physical therapy, occupational therapy for the first few years and the speech and language therapy my son needed throughout his school years?  NONE!!  They would have sent him to the public schools for these services thereby sacrificing more of his education due to transporation times.  Because, let me tell you, Insurance wouldn't pay for it.  Treatment for Autism isn't covered by insurance.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I guess public education that takes all comers isn't all bad, is it?

            Sure, you have to show that your kid is in fact being educated when you home-school. That's the gov't looking out for the rights of people who can't stand up for themselves, especially if they haven't been educated about the fact that they have a right to receive an education.

            1. Rafini profile image82
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Public education isn't bad at all.  It's just a matter of what are the kids learning and who's in control of what they're learning.  I understand 'the people' have a voice and a responsibility to use that 'voice' in a variety of ways. 

              I will agree, though, had I been able to afford private education for my kids I would have gone for it....but then I'd have had major issues with their father because we have different values and want our kids to learn different things....

  4. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    I think it would be possible to incorporate more University of Phoenix like education for those who would like to teach their children at home.

    A home PC with parental guidance could provide a better education then the public school system.

    Even if the parents choose to send their children to public schools, an additional online curriculum could put the kids in the fast lane to a beneficial future.

    1. Rose West profile image89
      Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sadly enough, almost any alternative education would be better qualified than public schooling as it is today.

  5. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    America's debt is deep, but it's not that deep yet. But, you do raise a valid point. However, should America go bankrupt, a child's education is going to be the least of many people's worries.

    Because, said bankruptcy will break every person in the country. Pricing structures will crumble, the federal notes will become worthless(not that they had any value to begin with) and life is going to become more uncivilized than you could ever imagine.

    So, with that said- let me give you an example of what I mean- I'm not sure how old you are and it could play a factor- but do you or have you ever seen or heard of the TV Show Little House on The Prairie? If so, good- times like that will come.

    The cities will become empty. Everything of value each person owns, is already been accounted for, in the debt of the nation. To clear the books, every citizen would have to walk away from everything they own, and start completely fresh.

    Ugly picture, but very possible. hmm

    1. Rose West profile image89
      Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, people would be more worried about being able to afford food and shelter than education. Our debt is pretty deep, which is quite an understatement. If the government keeps up its rate of spending, bankruptcy isn't impossible. I dread the day.

      Well, I'm not that old, but I used to watch Little House re-runs, so I know what you're talking about. The Ingalls family was a lot happier in their simplicity than many families are today with their complex electronic lives.

      I wonder what starting fresh would really look like - I guess it's impossible to really know. All I know is, we're digging our grave, and if we don't turn around soon, our country is in big trouble.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Rose, I recently answered a question posed by another Hubber, with regards to "quality of life" versus "standard of living".

        I think you might like it. It might even show you something different. smile I'm not self-promoting, but to get my point across, I ask that you read it. You do not have to leave a comment, unless you want to. It's only for spreading what is common knowledge to most, but unseen by many. smile

        1. Rose West profile image89
          Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Very interesting hub, Cagsil... I agree with you that "quality of life" and "standard of living" are two different things. It seems that you can have a high quality of life despite lack of money, but standard of living seems to depend more on income - but I could be wrong - haven't thought about it too much before.

      2. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Don't forget, the Little House books have a political agenda as well. They just happen to have one that agrees with your own. tongue They were heavily edited before publication by LIW's daughter, one of the founders of the modern libertarian movement.

        The reality was a good deal less romantic:

        "The Wilders' life on a shrinking frontier was considerably bleaker than even the Ingallses' had been. The first decade of their marriage, as Laura later recalled, was a period of almost unrelieved calamity and failure. Their infant son died. Drought and hail destroyed their crops, and they struggled to pay the interest on their heavily mortgaged house and equipment. Then the house burned down. Almanzo had a stroke, brought on by diphtheria, and he never fully recovered from the paralysis. Virtually destitute, they embarked on a series of futile peregrinations, by train and wagon, across the Midwest, with a wretched interlude on the Florida Panhandle. In 1894, they were uprooted by one of the worst depressions in American history, and headed for the Ozarks, which had been touted by promoters as yet another promised land. They struggled for years to eke out a living from the rocky soil."

        The books also conveniently neglect to mention that the Ingalls spent some years as illegal squatters on Osage reservation land. So much for respect for private property. tongue

        http://jezebel.com/5329088/little-house … untainhead
        http://www.oyate.org/index.php?option=c … d=35:avoid

  6. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    Absolutely Rose, I do think that America would have been in much better shape now if there was no such thing as public education (read brainwashing the public) and corresponding departments, both on federal and state levels. smile

    1. Starfishfelix profile image73
      Starfishfelixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If there is no mandate to educate kids, who is going to pay for all the uneducated adults that cannot find jobs or support themselves? 

      The past looks idyllic in hindsight, but I imagine most anyone back then would trade it for now - Polio Vaccine, warm running water, plenty of food (in the US at least), universal access to knowledge and learning, anesthesia, etc.

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Who did this before government monopolized education and charity? Some would say the church, I would say the people. smile

        In fact the people are still paying for this, just the lion share of what we are paying goes to support the army of government clerks and their inefficient projects...

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Who did this before government monopolized education...."

          You mean there aren't any private schools anymore? When did they go away?

        2. Rafini profile image82
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nah, actually I would say nanny's, governesses, private schools and private tutors.

        3. BDazzler profile image83
          BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree.  I once worked for a company that wrote software for public education.  Very little of it was for helping teachers or students or parents. 

          It was always "one more thing" to meet Federal or State requirements so they could qualify for more money. 

          I was also on a data standards committee for student information.  If your kid goes to public school you can absolutely forget about "privacy" ... every piece of information you can imagine is on a database somewhere.

          The top bureaucrats  don't care if someone comes in and guns down a bunch of students, they just want to be sure there's a data trail that says it's not their fault.

          Remember the "threat" about your "permanent record"? ... it's real.

          Billions of dollars poured into hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats to supervise someone who really just wants to help kids.

          I had to quit.  People told me I was nuts.  It was a cushy, recession-proof job.

          The programs I was helping with were of the nature that caused the bureaucracy to expand to meet the needs of the bureaucracy. 


          Alternatives:
          1. Home school ... it's not just for right wing wackos any more (but those of us who are right wing wackos still love it!)

          2.  Private School. Smaller class sizes and lower administrative overhead make this a viable alternative in many cases.

          I know of parents who seriously sacrifice their standard of living to either educate their kids or pay for private schools.

          Most of the the kids I know from private and home-schools are secure intelligent, respectful, focused and disciplined. 

          Most of the kids I know from public school are angry and confused.

          I do not blame the teachers.   I blame the bureaucracy.

          1. Rose West profile image89
            Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks so much for your insight, BDazzler! It's great to hear first-hand experience with how the government really works. I blame the bureaucracy too.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            right on, bruthah! Testify!!

            End the public education, return to private schooling.

      2. Rose West profile image89
        Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "If there is no mandate to educate kids, who is going to pay for all the uneducated adults that cannot find jobs or support themselves?"

        Well, the government has no responsibility to educate people or to provide for their day-to-day needs. That's not what government's for.

        1. Ben Evans profile image74
          Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          With all due respect, it is the governments responsibility to educate people.  Laws are written which actually say so. 

          What I dont understand is what in your opinion is government?  Is it not a collection of laws that govern people and are suppose to be for the best interest of people?  I know there are laws which are bad and serve only a few people but education serves everyone and brings up our standard of living.

          1. Rose West profile image89
            Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Since when is it the government's responsibility to educate people? Written laws do not give a government that responsibility.

            The government's job is to protect us from outside enemies, administer justice, and punish criminals.

            Well, if the reason for government education is that is serves everyone, then maybe food, shelter, and clothing are the responsibility of the government as well. But wait, that would make us Communists.

            1. Ben Evans profile image74
              Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Rose lets just put it this way.  That is your opinion of what government is.  So you want the government to protect you?  Why shouldnt we eliminate the police and the armed forces?

              Let me tell you what government is..............It is to govern.  It makes laws and governs.  Now all I see in your  thesis, stating that it is not the governments responsibility to educate, is your opinion..  There is an awful lot that I dont like with the government...... okay. However, the majority of the people would suggest that education should be supported by government.  Therefore, government is doing its job in the way of education.

              I would personally like to see education improve.  I would like to see many changes.  If you want to pick and choose, lets get rid of police and you can defend your own country.  Good luck

              1. Rose West profile image89
                Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, the government is supposed to govern and make laws. But the government has no right to interfere in certain spheres to make laws. The government is there to protect and defend (police and armed forces), not to raise our children. This is my opinion, and not a very popular one.

                1. Rafini profile image82
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you serious?  Nobody is expecting the government to raise our children!  Education and raising children are TWO different things.  Next!!

            2. Ben Evans profile image74
              Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What you are advocating is no government.  Rose that is okay if that is what you believe but you cannot say I want protection (like police and military) and call everything else communism (by the way I believe you meant to say socialism).

              Government and laws are socialism (police and military are included)......You pick and choose okay

              1. Rose West profile image89
                Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I am not advocating government, just government in its rightful place. "Govern" is not synonymous with "educate". This is not only my opinion, it is the priniciple set forth in the Bible. And yes, I know the Bible isn't the most popular standard to follow, but I follow it.

                1. Ben Evans profile image74
                  Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I do not fault you for your religious beliefs.  However, we live in secular country.

                  1. Rose West profile image89
                    Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Secular as in no state religion. But looking back at history, Christianity is what made this nation great in the first place.

          2. 0
            Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            However...there is no mention of education as a right in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

            And if we go forward with the UN Charter for the rights of the child, then other nations will be able to  weigh in on education decisions.

            1. 0
              Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oops - meant to put Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights -my bad.

        2. Rafini profile image82
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, throughout history the governments of the world have always accepted the responsibility of seeing to the welfare of the people.  What form this takes has changed much over the centuries and today includes many other things besides education.

          1. Rose West profile image89
            Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That's quite a blanket statement. The word "welfare" is a very dangerous one. Welfare shouldn't mean that government provides education.

            1. Rafini profile image82
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol  shoudl I have said 'well being'?  It would mean the same thing, and yes it would mean the government provides education otherwise we'd still be living without electricity, phones, running water, cars, furnaces, stable housing.....  Think about it:  Where would the world be without education??

              1. Rose West profile image89
                Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I was referring to the General Welfare Clause in the Constitiution - the Founders wouldn't approve of the way we interpret that clause nowadays.

                Education is important, yes, but why government-run education? In my opinion, education that is not provided by the government has a much higher quality.

                1. Rafini profile image82
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  then why isn't it affordable for all???

                  1. Rose West profile image89
                    Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Ask the Federal Government.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol
              Hello, Ms. Pot? I've got Mr. Kettle on line two...

              "Blanket statement..."

  7. Rafini profile image82
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    There is no way in h@ll I could have survived educating my two oldest kids had they not been in public schools.  I'm telling you, something would have had to give!! lol

    (being unemployed throughout most of their childhoods I couldn't have afforded a private education)

    1. Rose West profile image89
      Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The question really isn't if you will survive; it's whether your kids will.

      1. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol  obviously if I didn't , they wouldn't!

  8. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Hey Rafini, sounds like there isn't enough people stepping up to the plate and that's because they do not want to. Most rather leave it up to those who supposedly know better? This is the dumbfounding of society, I recently started talking about. Ignorance is dangerous, never mind, wonderfully bliss.

    You own a home. That's good. But, there are plenty of people who can barely get by(I am not saying you're doing better than they are) and unable to put food on the table every night. Why? Because, they have been dumbfounded into believing there will always be a supportive measure in place(gov) to fall back on. Government is too involved in people's life and it must be removed.

    Should America's Economy crash completely, destroying the American dollar on the open markets and America is forced to file bankruptcy?

    What then? Do you have an idea of what life would be like should it happen? It a thought to ponder. It isn't pretty, that much is for sure.

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I understand what you're saying, but what does it have to do with public education? 

      Or...Are you in agreement with Rose West, and saying public education is being threatened?  That I can agree with.

      I can also agree with the idea of less government support in terms of entitlement programs....to a certain extent.  I don't agree 100% because some people really need the support.

  9. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Win what?

  10. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    I haven't read the books.
    But one of the tv episodes did mention that the Indians actually had some hold on the land.....but I don't recall how much discussion there was about that.

    ...Actually, it seems to me that THAT episode would be one that was trying to be "politically correct".....

  11. Jeff Berndt profile image92
    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago

    Here's a couple questions.

    I think we all understand that we are not required to send our children to a public school if we don't want to. We know that we have the right to send them to a private school of our choice, or educate them at home if we want, correct?

    So my questions are these:

    First, to the folks who homeschool or send their kids to private school, do you think that people should be denied the option to send their children to a public school?

    Second, to the folks who send their kids to public school, do you think that private schools and homeschooling should be forbidden?

    Why or why not?

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The options are not always there for people who can't afford private school or homeschooling.


      I do not think private school or homeschooling should be forbidden - America is a Free Country.

      1. 0
        Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I homeschool my kids in coastal California (= very hight cost of living) and have had to work eves to help make ends meet (currently umemployed due to Barnes and Noble closing all their B. Dalton stores).  It is not easy, but definitely worth it.

        We've never been "high income" (or "medium income" for that matter) so money has always been an issue for us.  But, when we looked into the details of me working more and putting the kids in school vs. me not working (or working part time), it was really a wash. 

        If I worked more, I would be paying to have kids in daycare and after school care, paying for extras like a decent selection of school clothes, packable or hot lunches, more "professional" work wardrobe for me, and all of the nickel and dime fees that schools request for fundraisers, events,more gas for commuting, etc.  The childcare alone pretty much wiped out anything I had made. 

        So, why work more, be away from my family more, and have the government raise my kids when I'd have about the same amount leftover after expenses if I stayed home?

        By the way, we've never collected welfare or, as others have pointed out already, received any compensation for our educational materials.  And, we do pay our taxes which go to our local schools.

        I will agree that homeschooling can be a financial hardship.  But, it's a lot more "do-able" than people think, if they would take a closer look at income vs. expenses and wants vs. needs.

        1. Rafini profile image82
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I understand and agree with what you're saying.  The issue for me personally comes down to:
          Being a single parent.  (nope, can't stay home to provide an education to my kids)
          I have a special needs child.  (no way in h@!! I could have dealt with him on my own for homeschooling & private schools don't provide the services he required throughout his 15 years in the public school system)
          $12.60/hr isn't a high enough income for a single parent to be able to afford private school for 3 children.  (= $26,208 /yr.  A living wage-in my area-for 2 adults w/2 children is around $35,000)
          My kids father undermines me every step of the way - what would my children have learned had they been homeschooled or gone to a private school?

          Also, the issues presented in this thread claimed a homeschooled student received a superior education.  I wholeheartedly disagree.

          1. 0
            Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Single parenthood and/or the support (or lack thereof) of the spouse is a valid issue when it comes to being able to homeschool or not.  You have definitely been dealt some challenges in your life.

            I also agree homeschoolers do not automatically have a superior education.  I wholeheartedly feel that education requires the STUDENT to step up to the task of learning.  It comes back to that "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" expression. You could be the best classroom teacher, or I explain rules of grammar until I'm blue in the face (and I've been there), but unless the student decides to make the effort to learn, then not much will come of it. 

            I simply believe that homeschooling better provides that motivation/opportunity than the government OR private school system (as they're usually set up the same way).  It's easier (to a degree) to inspire your own child that you know well, and it's easier to engage them when they've "checked out."

            1. Rafini profile image82
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I will agree with you for some of the population, but I don't think a majority.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          doodle - I was wondering if you get a rebate from the government on your taxes or something for homeschooling. or do they take your tax money and not recompensate you for not using their service?

          I would like to add - for those who might have missed it - what doodle is also saying here.  HE WORKS HIS ASS OFF for his children - education is a privilege that he is working hard for. Hard work is what's needed! And doodle is doing it!

          Three cheers for Doodle!!

          Hip hip HOORAY!!

          hip hip... HOORAY!!

          HIP HIP!!!! HOOO RAY!!!!

          1. 0
            Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Evan - no, I ask every tax-time, but there is nothing for homeschoolers in the state of California and we do pay taxes for our schools.

            Thanks for the encouragement.  There are certainly days when I REALLY need it.

            P.S.  I'm a girl smile  I know it's hard to tell with the feathers and all big_smile

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              terribly sorry about the gender mix up

              I suppose it's true: only asses ASSume! Sorry!

    2. Rose West profile image89
      Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, if a homeschooled student didn't measure up to the government's standards, the student could be forced to attend public school. So in that case, the parents' rights would be taken away, unconstitutionally and unbiblically.

      But at any rate, I believe public schools should be abolished. The Department of Education is unconstitutional. Even though I think even State government shouldn't provide education either (according to Biblical standards), we should at least get rid of Federal interference (by Constitutional standards).

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Actually, if a homeschooled student didn't measure up to the government's standards, the student could be forced to attend public school."
        Well, forced to attend a school, certainly, but I don't see how the government can deny a parent the right to send their kid to a private school.

        "So in that case, the parents' rights would be taken away, unconstitutionally..."
        Sorry, I don't see how ensuring a kids right to an education is unconstitutional any more than ensuring a kid's right to be fed and clothed is unconstitutional.

        "... and unbiblically." And that has any bearing on this discussion how?

        1. Rose West profile image89
          Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The point is, parents have God-given rights to educate their kids, and the government shouldn't be able to tell them how to do it.

          Show me in the Constitution where it says that people have the right to education provided by the government. The right to being fed and clothed by the government isn't in there either.

          Ok, so you don't consider the Bible as a basis of principles... that is where you and I truly differ. Tell me what basis of principles you stand on.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Ok, so you don't consider the Bible as a basis of principles."
            I didn't say that. I do think, however, that your (or anybody's) interpretation of the Bible is not an argument that will hold much water with me when discussing public policy.

            "parents have God-given rights to educate their kids, and the government shouldn't be able to tell them how to do it."
            But, the government isn't telling anyone how, where, or by whom their children must be educated. The government merely requires parents to fulfill their responsibility to educate their children.

            "Show me in the Constitution where it says that people have the right to education provided by the government." In the US Constitution? It doesn't.

            The States established the public schools, as was their Constitutional right (since powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States). In fact, in the constitution of the State of Michigan (where I live), it explicitly states "The Legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law. Every school district shall provide for the education of its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin." Hawaii's constitution says this: "The State shall provide for the establishment, support and control of a statewide system of public schools free from sectarian control, a state university, public libraries and such other educational institutions as may be deemed desirable, including physical facilities therefor." (Ain't Google grand?)

            I suppose the several states could dismantle their public schools, but I bet you'd see a pretty loud outcry from The People (the ones from whom authority is derived) if they tried.

            Here's where I think our main difference of opinion comes from. You seem to see it as a question of a parent's right to educate their children (or, by implication, not to educate them). I view it more as a question of a parent's responsibility to educate their children. If the parent chooses to educate his or her children at home, fine. If at a private or parochial school, fine. If at a public school (which the government makes available, but does not require you to take advantage of), fine. As long as the child gets educated, fine.

            I look at this as analogous to a parent's responsibility to feed their children. If the parent chooses to feed his or her children at home, fine. If at a restaurant, fine. If at a soup kitchen, fine. As long as the child gets fed, fine.

            But just as you can't feed a child with only bread, you can't educate a child with only one book.

            If a parent starves his child, the state will step in, and rightly so: the parent is shirking his responsibility and the child's rights are being violated. Do you disagree?

            If a parent keeps his child in a state of ignorance, the way I see it, the parent is shirking his responsibility and the child's rights are being violated. Do you disagree?

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well put, Jeff.

            2. Rose West profile image89
              Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I understand that you don't hold my interpretation of the Bible as a basis of argument. But I still don't understand what you are basing your arguments on. What is the foundation of truth that you hold to?

              Since education isn't provided for in the US Constitution, I think we can both agree that the Department of Education is unconstitutional. Yes, our state's constitutions do provide for state-run education, so I'm not questioning that. I happen to think that the states shouldn't provide for education according to Biblical standards; but as you don't think this is worthy of discussion, I'll drop it - we can agree to disagree. But at least the D of E should go.

              The government has the duty to protect life. If a parent isn't feeding his kid, then the government should step in and make sure that the kid gets fed by the parents or gets taken care of by someone else. But that someone else shouldn't be the government.

              Protecting life is different than providing education. I agree with you that parents have the responsibility to educate their kids. I just don't think the government has the right to make sure they live up to their responsibility in education.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "What is the foundation of truth that you hold to?"
                Well, my interpretation of the Bible, of course, which is different from yours, which is different from the next person's, and so on..... And this is why even in a country where everyone (not just the majority) followed the same faith, I wouldn't want to make Holy Writ the basis for public policy. It's too easy to say to someone who has a different idea, "But Scripture says X, so you're wrong, so shut up."

                But specifically about the public education issue, here's why I think free* public education is a Good Thing**:
                I assert the following as fact that I think we can all agree upon:
                People are born into many different economic circumstances.
                Children have no control over the economic circumstances of their parents.
                Children of high intellectual potential are born to families of limited economic means.

                Now I get into premises that we probably, but may not, agree on.
                The US was created to be a land of equal opportunity.
                The above is not possible in practice, as the opportunities of children from impoverished families will never be the same as those of children from wealthy families.
                This is not the fault of the children in question.
                A child born to an impoverished family has comparatively limited opportunity for learning, regardless of said child's intellectual potential.

                Here's some thoughts that we might disagree on:
                A child who is capable of learning and who desires to learn should not be limited by circumstances beyond his control.
                It is a loss for not only the child in particular but also the society at large when a child is denied the opportunity to learn as much as he or she is capable of learning.

                My conclusion:
                It is in the best interest not only of the individuals in society but also of the society at large, that all children be given the opportunity to be educated, regardless of the economic situation of their parents, therefore, I support public education.


                * I recognize that public education isn't actually free; it's supported by taxes, like the interstate highway system. But that's okay with me.

                **I say that public education is a Good Thing, but this takes nothing away from the goodness of private schools or homeschooling. I do not argue that public schools are "better" than homeschooling or private schools, or that private schools and homeschooling are in any way bad. But as long as there are parents who are unable to educate their children at home (whether due to not having the time or not having been well-educated themselves) and unable to pay for schooling outside the home, free* public education is a public need.

            3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Jeff, really quickly, your argument about the "right" of education isn't exactly accurate.

              It doesn't say that people have the right to an education, it simply says that the government will provide it.

              Under your argument (which i admit is a bit tricky, not trying to be a jerk)...

              "the government must provide me with life, because I have a right to it." --- much to my mother's chagrin!! This would mean that the government has a right to go around impregnating women against thier wills... or something... to provide people with the right of life....

              Or ...

              "the government spends my money building tanks to invade Iraq, thus... I have a right to invade iraq"

              or, backwards...

              "If the government quit paying for education, then I wouldn't have a right to it"

              People don't have a right to education. BUT they can afford it, and for some stupid reason, they think that the government would be the best way to deliver that service to the people.

      2. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        and just how do you propose to ensure a free education for the huge numbers of students currently enrolled in public schools either due to not having:  the financial means for an alternative education OR the teaching ability OR the time OR the students being admitted to a private school OR private schools with capacity for the huge numbers of student currently enrolled in public schools?

        Honestly!  It isn't practical to abolish the public education system.  Many underprivileged children would wind up suffering through life with NO education rather than an education YOU think is substandard.

  12. Shealy Healy profile image61
    Shealy Healyposted 6 years ago

    I would love to live to witness a change in the United States government budget-allowing the entire public school system to be revamped. It needs it. More than ever today children need a wide range of teaching styles in order to be successful. Today, the public school system does not offer a wide range of educational styles-especially hands-on forms of education. Too many children are not able to achieve an education due to the limited funds offered to schools and teachers.

    1. Rose West profile image89
      Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, the government is increasingly taking more and more money from taxpayers to "fund" the public school system. Obviously, money isn't helping the quality of the schools any. The school system is beyond fixing at this point.

      Check out how much money is being wasted without improving education:
      http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-28.pdf

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "The school system is beyond fixing at this point."

        Prove that it's broken.

        That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

        1. Rose West profile image89
          Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I thought the bad grades etc. were pretty obvious, but if you want I can dig up some statistics.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't dispute that some of our public schools are substandard. I also recognize that most of our public schools are just fine, and some of them are exceptionally good.

            The "school system" isn't broken. Some school districts are, no question. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, shall we?

          2. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Where I live all 4 inner-city high schools have received the School of Excellence award.  I don't believe they would receive this award if the bad grades were that  'obvious'

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          compare the jobs of people graduating from private schools to those who go to public schools.

          Sure this is a biased report of who does better: obviously people with rich parents will do better job-wise, but it's really about the best we can do. I suppose we could rely on test scores... but... those tests are pretty stupid (I'd rather have 'essays written' and 'experiments done' to prove knowledge).

          This is one reason why the scientific method might not be the best way to "prove" if the public school system is broken or not: too many variables.

          We could just rely on praxaeolgy: the idea that you can figure things out by just thinking them through.

          Government schools don't have to compete for money, but private schools do. Thus government schools will likely not respond to market needs, but private schools would.

          Government schools are run by politicians, private schools are run by business men. Thus, government schools would likely hold propaganda, but private schools would be aimed more towards what the market wants.

          It's not hard to see that there is a problem: If I don't have children, why do I have to pay for other people's children's education? Why do other people "have the right to education", when that means - literally - that they "have a right to my money"?

          That doesn't make sense.

          1. 0
            Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            As far as public schools being run by politicians - it's true that education falls under state jurisdiction, but it's a bit more complicated.  I'm in the process of reading more about this, but I know the driving force behind compulsory schooling were the four major coal powers of the industrial age.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It is state jurisdiction - no doubts about that. The tenth amendment pretty much can't be misinterpreted. (well, it can... but it shouldn't be - it's very easy to read).

              I'm not sure what you mean by "the driving force behind compulsory schooling were the four major coal powers of the industrial age."

              could you plz to be elaborating on your statement?

              1. 0
                Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'd love to - I'm currently writing a hub about it.  Check back with me in a couple of days as I have to double-check my research and all.

                1. 0
                  Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It took a while, but the hub is fresh out of the oven smile

                  Y'all have to stop by and visit a while.

          2. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Public schools are not run by politicians.  The general public has the right to voice their opinions & concerns through being involved.  (PTA, school board, etc.)

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              so, we can voice our opinions, ... but then politicians make the decisions?

              ...

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I believe school policy is put to a vote of the many independent school boards across the country and majority rules.  (I haven't felt the need to participate in school board/policy functions, so I'm not real sure how it works)

                Are school board members paid?  Something tells me no...other than the Superintendent...so, they would be more likely to 'represent' the wishes of the parents I would think.

  13. Rafini profile image82
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    Rose West -

    I would like to know How & Why you feel the need to disparage the Public School System when you were home-schooled.  You don't even know what it's like to go to school with others your own age.  You don't know what its like to get up and walk to school every morning, or catch the bus on time to get to school. 

    You think you received a superior education by being home-schooled - well then, Prove it!  Use the education you received to do a little extra critical thinking about the truth of the matter.  Use the superior knowledge you supposedly have to conduct a thorough analysis of the public school system.  Use the brain you were given to determine whether or not it is truly a feasible option to abolish the Public School System.  Once you do this, I think you will be surprised with what you find.

    1. Rose West profile image89
      Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Rafini, I am not claiming to be smarter than anyone on here. One thing I was taught in home school was that manners matter. I haven't questioned your right to disagree with me because you were public-schooled (which I assume you were, since you know what it is like to catch a bus).

      I am not being ignorant of the condition of the public school system. I may not have attended public school, but that does not disqualify me from criticizing the system. I don't need to look at pornography to know that it's wrong. I don't need to be a slave to know that slavery is wrong. Please respect my opinion - I respect yours.

      I criticize the public school system because I believe its foundations are made of sand. The children of our country are suffering, and I care about our future just like you do. I see many problems with education, and even though I don't have all the answers, I still claim the right to speak out against an institution that shouldn't even exist.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And, who are you to say that it shouldn't exist? Just because it run foolishly, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. It requires more responsible people at the helm, than ignorant. hmm

        What gives you the right to say that other families should not have access to an education? If it cannot be provided at home, because the parent are unable to, then they have a secondary choice.

        You choose to home school your children. Fine. No problem. Don't be surprised when they grow isolated from interacting with others that comes from the differences in people and spurs growth.

        You want to argue about those who run it? Fine. But, that is where you stop.

        Otherwise, you are infringing upon the rights of others. The State and Federal government have public schools so people can get a education and America can grow.

        1. Rose West profile image89
          Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I thought we agreed about entitlements. Are you saying that children are entitled to an education from the government if they can't get it from an alternative?

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Education is not an entitlement. roll

            Everyone has a right to learn. Where they learn is not for you to decide.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ...?

              You've changed the wording to make things trickier - The argument thus far has been "the right to education" (which is non sense, as I'll show) . But here you claim "the right to learn" (which, is less nonsensical. People don't have a right to learn, it just sort of happens because we have weird brains).

              People don't have a right to other people's money, and education is paid for (currently) through other people's money. I pay taxes, that money then is taken and split up into a whole ridiculously long list of programs, and one of these programs is the school system. I don't have any children going to school.... so why am I paying for other people's education?

              But if we go further into the debate of the "right to X", we realize that it's complete nonsense to say that I have a right to education. I don't. No one does. Let me make this clear:

              Education is a fantastic thing, and I encourage it whole-heartedly... but, No one has the right to an education.

              If we lived int he times of the cavemen, and everyone spent all their time hunting and gathering, you think they could afford to have someone step in and teach their children about igneous and sedimentary rocks? of course not. They can't afford to have "Ug, the spear maker" spend his time talking about rocks. Sure, the kids will learn to make spears by talking with him, but this is much much much MUCH more akin to on-the-job-training than it is to education.

              An education has to be paid for. it has to be provided. People have to come in and spend their time teaching. If people had a right to these things, then slave-labor would be permissible: If we couldn't afford teachers, but everyone had a right to them... then... um... I guess we have to enslave us some teachers!

              Education is not a right, it's a (glorious) privilege that must be paid for.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Education is a right and a privilege.  It's the right of every American Citizen to go to school to learn.  It's also the privilege of every American Citizen who wishes to learn more and improve themselves through education.


                Sorry to burst your tax paid education bubble.  A Public Funded educational system is fair in the ways of 'it takes a village to raise a child' - every child who successfully completes their public education is better off to serve society and everyone in the general population benefits from all who graduate and lead productive lives.  Something that wouldn't happen without a Public Education System.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  no it's not. I've already shown that it isn't.

                  You don't have a right to force other people into slave labor. If you can't afford education, then you... can't... be ... educated... It's really that simple.

                  It doesn't take a village to "raise" a child - and ... weren't you arguing that "raising children and educating children are different"? ... NEXT!!! (as you would say).

                  Yes, a fully educated child is much better off than one who isn't - but was the cost worth the benefit?

                  You instantly say "Yes! Education is a right! no matter the cost we need to educate our children!" ...

                  I say "maybe not! Education isn't a right, it's a benefit! It must be earned! If it isn't cost effective to be educated, then it's probably better to NOT be educated."

                  So, let's run our arguments through the meat grinder:

                  Let's say that giving a child 12 years of education costs about $10,000 / year to educate a child (http://www.homeschooldistractions.com/2 … child.html  i took the highest and the lowest and divided by two). . So for 13 years (K is a year) it costs $130,000.

                  minimum wage is about $7.3/hour (or so, i forget what it is now, but it's rising). so, working 40 hours/week = about $16k/ year. The average high school student makes about... $24k/year (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77). So, about $130,000 / $8000 = about 16 years of work until the education is paid off...

                  ... but that's not the end of the story - the kids could have been working for those 13 years (child labor isn't inherently evil, so don't bother arguing this. Many families need money to survive, and many children helped acquire this income. this trend stopped for the first time about 100 years ago. So it is normal, even today, Just not countries like the US for the last 70 years or so), so we need to add the amount of time that they would have been working on to that 16 years.

                  So, it takes about 32 years to repay a child's education.

                  32 years.

                  Thirty - TWO years to repay a k-12 education. (using a back-of-the-envelope equation)

                  Is it worth it? We can never know - the child could have been honing a specific set of skills for those 13 years instead of learning about happy-culture- crap. And perhaps that set of skills could have increased his value by MORE than the normal k-12 education.

                  So, it likely would take MORE than 32 years, but I won't add that in, because it's impossible to know.

                  Let's write, 32+ years to repay an education.

                  ONE MORE TIME

                  32+ years. -- A student with a high school degree is able to repay that which he has had to pay for his education when he's 50 .

                  Is it a right? of course not - Education can't be a right, because it means you have the right to other people's money and labor.

                  Is it cost-effective... I don't think so. I bet the private school system would be Cheaper and more efficient --- not only would it cost less to educate a child, but they would get a much larger return on their investment.

                  So, let's cut all the emotional bull-sheiss  and return back to logic. 32+ years.

                  1. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You want to return to logic??  Are you serious?? 

                    Do you have the right to Freedom of Speech??  Or, was it given to you?  Was it paid for by nameless soldiers who died on the battlefields fighting to earn that right and give it to you as soon as you were born?  Or, did you pay for it yourself??

                    Seriously!  The true cost comes down to what you believe your rights really are.


                    Now, don't you understand when someone tells a story for you to learn the moral by yourself?

      2. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think you misunderstand.  I don't believe a 'superior' education can cause anyone to be 'smarter' than anyone else.  I'm also not questioning your right to disagree - what I am having a problem with is your misguided thoughts on abolishing the public school system.  You have not responded to any of my questions except to say you don't have all the answers. 

        You think the children of this country are suffering Now - just wait until there are no more public schools and 95% (a wild guess) of Americas youth go uneducated because
        A. Their parents can't afford to educate them
        B. They aren't accepted into the private schools and the parents aren't capable of being teachers themselves
        C. The student has special needs (private schools don't provide for & the expense would bankrupt the parents within 2 years)
        D. The parents aren't capable of working 40 hours a week to support the family and homeschooling their children at the same time.

        You may not be ignorant of the condition of the public school system, but I do think you are ignorant of the benefits provided by a free public school system.

        If you really, truly think the public school system is a failure then may I suggest you do something about it rather than post a misleading question?  Perhaps you could serve on the School Board & make the necessary changes....

        When I first came into this forum discussion I expected to have a discussion on how to improve the Public School System - because its obviously needed.  What I didn't expect was to be told , repeatedly through your responses, was how inferior public education is to a private education or homeschooling.  I also didn't expect to come face to face with someone who claims to have a superior education yet lacks the necessary knowledge of America being the melting pot of the world.  (I'm referring to your earlier post about the decline of Religion & Family - not everyone is a Christian & not everyone even believes in Creation, and there is more than 1 kind of family)

        You claim the right to speak out - fine and dandy.  That is your right.  Saying the institution of public education shouldn't even exist - is an arbitrary opinion that is baseless unless you:

        A. Think critically about the truth of the matter
        B. Analyze the public school system thoroughly
        C. Use this knowledge (A & B) along with your brain (because using your eyes wouldn't do any good) to determine whether or not what you suggest is feasible (abolish public school system)

        Again, I will say:  Once you do this, I think you will be surprised with what you find.

        1. Rose West profile image89
          Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Look, I'm not here to argue about whether or not public schools are good. I think they're bad; you think they're good. That's fine - we disagree. I think the public school system should be abolished, not because the system is doing a bad job at education, but because the system shouldn't exist. I would say this even if the public school system was the best in the world, so I really don't care to research that much the quality of public schools. I think that Federal-funded education is unconstitutional in the first place. But I also think that both Federal and State-funded government is unbiblical. Government does not have the right or responsibility to provide education. You might disagree with me because I use the Bible as my standard of truth. And that is fine. But I just hope you understand that I don't want to abolish public schools based on quality.

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Apparently you either didn't read my post or you didn't understand my post.  Which is the truth isn't important to me - I said it is obvious you feel you received a superior education by being home-schooled, why not prove it? 
            I also said - it's obvious the public school system needs improvement, but there are benefits that you don't seem to understand or are refusing to acknowledge.  I'm sure thats because you haven't needed to take advantage of the benefits provided by a free public education. 
            Like I said, you need to think before suggesting the public school system be abolished. 
            Do you have any idea how many people in this country don't believe in God? 
            Do you have any idea how many people in this country would be left uneducated if the public school system were not in existence? 
            Do you have any idea how many people in this country feel the public school system is superior to a private education or homeschooling?

            FYI - I believe in God, but I also believe in the Freedom of Religion as well as the Freedom From Religion - the majority of Americans wont care whether or not the Bible is your standard of truth.

            1. Rose West profile image89
              Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps I have misunderstood you. I don't feel any need to prove the quality of my education. I can't help but feel that you are a little upset with me (it's always hard to tell on the internet), but I had no intention of posting this topic to stir up strife. I just wanted to have a peaceful discussion about education. I have enjoyed the discussion, and have learned much as well as thought more deeply about these issues. Maybe I have misunderstood you - I honestly don't know what you want me to prove.

              I would be the last to say that no one is receiving any benefits whatsoever from public education. Obviously many people have successful careers after receiving government-run education. But the end does not justify the means. Children need to be educated, but it does not follow that the government should be the educator.

              The fact that many people in America do not believe in God is only too obvious to me. The Bible is not only my standard of truth; it is The standard of truth. America has ceased to believe in the God of their fathers, and our nation is suffering, inside and out. This deeply saddens me, and with sorrow - and not with judgment - I look on the horizon of our country's future and see darkness.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                (a much better post - thank you - meaning, I don't feel this post is telling me you think your education was superior to a Public Education)

                You may not feel the need to prove the quality of your education, but I was requesting it due to what I perceive as an obvious lack of skills. (critical thinking, analytical, and regular knowledge)

                Its not so much You that I'm having a problem with, but what your beliefs mean for the general public, the disadvantaged and the disabled.  (an education, especially a quality education, is a privilege for the chosen few who can afford it)

                You say the government shouldn't be involved in educating our children - what are the feasible alternatives?  Public education hasn't been around that long and look where it's taken us in the short time of its existence - are you sure you want to continue belittling the ideal?  It's not just about the cost & taxes, its not just about separation of church and state.  Its not just about what subjects are studied, or when and where.  Public Education was created due to the perception of need and the desire of the people who wanted an education for their children but couldn't provide it. 

                Most people understand nothing is perfect and sometimes choosing the lesser of two evils is the best alternative.

                America has not ceased to believe in God.  America has grown up to understand there is more than one religious view in this world of ours and whose to say ours is correct?

        2. 0
          Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you look at where public education has taken us (I wish people would) = Literacy has done nothing but gone into a freefall since compulsory schooling was put into effect.  It is not doing what it claims, but it has had a huge influence on the thoughts and perspectives of generations now.

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If literacy has gone into a freefall, whose fault is it? 

            My point of "look where public education has taken us" refers to the incredible advances the world has seen in the past 150 years or so since public education for all became a reality.

            1. 0
              Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "whose fault is it?' - Well, a system that has dominated that has dominated our young lives with its failed theories of whole-language reading instruction.

              Yes, I would agree that there have been some incredible advances in the world in the past years (sorry if I misread that).  However, I'm not convinced that many of those advances wouldn't have happened in a world without government schooling - some of the people who started those advancements didn't fit the school mold or were considered "feeble-minded" (like Thomas Edison).  It was government and big business that were able to purchase those ideas and run with them.  Also, school a century ago was much different - had a different focus - than they are today.  Late nineteenth and early twentieth century education was very different than it is today.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I don't understand this 'whole language reading instruction' you're talking about.  Does it refer to 'Phonics'? 

                I don't think compulsory education seriously has a negative effect on literacy.  I think the issues are more demographic related.  More along the lines of adjusted statistics for an inflated population. 

                Thoughts and perspectives, I think, are more highly influenced by family than schooling.  At least among those families that communicate with each other.

                Incredible advances....where would the world be today if - the incredible minds of the past weren't nurtured or didn't exist?  I don't agree with you.  Would Einstein still have come up with the Theory of Relativity had he not been educated? 

                Yes, education has changed - and I believe its a good thing. smile

                1. 0
                  Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks for your discussion points. : )

                  Whole language reading is what they REPLACED phonics with in compulsory schooling.   It involves looking at a word and memorizing its meaning - look/say.  It can offer up some positive results in students just beginning to read.  However, farther down the line, these kids still show a limited vocabulary because of an inability to "de-code" the phonetic sounds.

                  Statistics support a decrease in literacy since the start of forced schooling.

                  I would disagree that thoughts and perspectives are more highly influenced by family.  Perhaps in the youngest years they are.  But, after several years of being in a school where you spend the bulk of your day - away from your family - steeped in textbooks that may (or may not) reflect your family's values, around peers whose behavior is near unchecked (a monitor on the playground at recess and teachers who have had most of their disciplining options stripped away)...

                  Sure a some families communicate well and have good relationships in spite of this, but I think it's clear that families really struggle these days.  And it's the PARENTS who are blamed even though they may only see their child for a few hours in the evening.

                  I don't know much about Einstein, but I do know that he demonstrated an interest in science and problem solving before he even entered school.  Whether he would have come up with the Theory of Relativity if he had not been educated...well, I guess we'll never know.  But, I'm sure he would have continued to think, ponder, explore, conduct experiments, read the findings of others in his field of interest, seek out others with similar interests to converse and debate with, etc.  That IS self-driven learning - that IS self-education.

                  1. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Why the h@ll would they replace Phonics?  lol   It worked, didn't it?  Stupidity if you ask me.  (seems to me my kids learned with Phonics...)

                    The early years are when kids learn the most & fastest.  Thoughts and Perspectives of the family are internalized during that time.  When kids get older they challenge them and then choose for themselves whether or not to keep or change them.  It's healthy.  Sure, sometimes negative experiences will occur but it's basically a risk of life.  Can't raise kids in a plastic bubble, ya know. smile

                    I think the parents ought to be blamed if they're not communicating with their kids.  It's called Accountability & Responsibility.  (not saying there should be anything other than natural or logical consequences...I mean, nothing legally enforced in that way)

                    May I suggest you read my hub "How to Raise a Moronic Genius"?  Then we can discuss Einstein issues further. (what would have happened had he not been educated - or, what if public education hadn't existed)

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "I may not have attended public school, but that does not disqualify me from criticizing the system."
        Of course it doesn't. Similarly, I've never lived in a communist country, but that doesn't disqualify me from criticizing communism. Criticize all you want: it's a free internet!

        "I am not being ignorant of the condition of the public school system." Well, ignorant, no. Misinformed, perhaps. Several of the things you've said as reasons to dismantle the public school system have been either overly broad generalizations (like "our school system is broken") or untrue (like "parents have no say in public education"). I don't doubt that you believe everything you've said is the God's honest truth. But a lot of what you've said is erroneous.

        "I still claim the right to speak out against an institution that shouldn't even exist." And I'll defend you in that right unto death, even though I disagree with what you're saying.

        "Please respect my opinion - I respect yours."
        This is an interesting thought that I'd like to explore. Sure, everyone has a right to hold whatever opinions they choose, but does it follow that all opinions are equally valid? Perhaps another thread...

  14. Cagsil profile image84
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    An "entitlement" is social security, health care and even a job.

    Those are entitlements.

  15. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    I believe free education is a right for all citizens of all countries.

    Luckily, the US and all Western nations are not based on Biblical law...unlike Afghanistan, when ruled by the Taliban, which did not allow girls to go to school.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      how can "free education" be a right of all citizens of all countries...

      ... but "forcing teachers to work for free" be slavery?

      ... Education can NOT be a right, because it would require slavery to exist.

      the same is true for everything else.

      "FOOD IS A RIGHT!!" --- no it's not, because you have to earn the money to buy food from someone else. If it were a right, it would require slavery.

      "HOUSING IS A RIGHT!!" -- once again, if this were true, we'd require house-builders to be slaves.

      None of these things are rights. They require someone else's property rights to be stolen.

      Life can be a right: no one needs to be a slave for that one.

      Liberty can be a right: no one needs to be a slave for that one.

      Property can be a right: no one needs to be a slave for that one.

      The pursuit of happiness can be a right: no slaves there.

      ... well, jeez, I guess John Locke and thomas Jefferson were pretty close to right!

  16. optimus grimlock profile image61
    optimus grimlockposted 6 years ago

    no all the kids would talk like this: what up dawg i d in da hissy no whut im syin lol

    1. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Trying to bring humor to a serious discussion about Education?

      In case you hadn't noticed- it's a BIG and GROWING problem.

      But, I can see you wanting to lighten the discussion. However, that diminishes the subject, because the subject is not funny.

      Just a thought. wink

  17. Ohma profile image78
    Ohmaposted 6 years ago

    In addition to Rafini's post I would like to add that you already can not get a lot of parents to take responsibility for their kids during the time they are not in school, what makes you think they would take responsibility for educating them properly?

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So right, Ohma.  There are way too many things to consider when talking about the educational system of America.

    2. Rose West profile image89
      Rose Westposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The welfare mentality of most Americans is the cause of our failure to take responsibility. The government continuing to provide this welfare does not help at all.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Leaving aside for the moment the assertion that "most Americans" have a welfare mentality, would you punish the children of impoverished parents for their parents' supposed welfare mentality?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I would have to say "yes", as horrible as it sounds.

          Being able to afford a quality education for your children is a great incentive to work hard and save your money. It puts one more incentive on "being a good, hard working person", and puts punishment on "being a lazy bum who spends all his money on (... i dunno...) roulette."

          As god-awfully horrible as it might be to say, Yes - parents who can't afford educations for their children ... shouldn't necessarily get a free education for their children.

          Now, this isn't to say that it would still happen: lord knows many wonderful charitable organizations would help the children. I'm sure churches, for one, would provide free education (the way they do now). I'm ALL for this, and openly encourage it. (even though i'm a staunch atheist).

          I refuse to believe or agree with or in ANY way encourage this notion that everyone seems to have that "Education is a right". I ADAMANTLY disagree with this.

          Why the hell do I have to pay for the education of a child in Idaho who's parents spent all their money on (...i dunno...) prostitutes, alcohol, tobacco, and gambling? That just encourages the problem.

          The parents are the custodians of their children, and they need to act appropriately. If I save my money, I should be allowed to give my child an education. If Jim-Bob-Jones McGee the third (sorry if this is anyone's real name: it is merely a coincidence) blows all his money on hookers (or whatnot) then he doesn't have the resources to afford an education for his children.

          It, sadly, is that simple. But let me reiterate: I fully love the idea of charities helping these children out. Government is not charitable because it is not voluntary : If I don't want to give away my money, then why do the feds come to my home with a gun to get it? -- it isn't charity if it comes from government.

          1. Ben Evans profile image74
            Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Evan,

            With all due respect why did we have to pay for your college education?
            Think about that for a moment.  I will bet that if it was no education or you had to foot the whole cost of your education your stance would be different.

            But lets expand this........

            Why should anyone pay for roads.  Make your own roads.  Take care of your own welfare because police service is an entitlement. 

            Here is the thing and this is where education and entitlements are differentiated.  Roads are a need, police are needs, EDUCATION IS A NEED.  Without education our whole country would be much worse than it is now.  As bad as it may be, it is a necessity.   

            You have a very idealistic view.  The thing that you forgot is I had to pay for you going through college.  How fair is that based on your thesis.

            Some people waste their education.  That is just part of life.   Education is needed for prosperity.   Basic education is a fundamental need of a country.........It is a universal concept also most countries try to educate their citizens.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I... paid... for my COLLEGE education... without government assistance...

              where did you get the idea that you paid for my COLLEGE education?

              Are you crazy? or do you want to give me money?

              ... i'm confused.

              "Here is the thing and this is where education and entitlements are differentiated.  Roads are a need, police are needs, EDUCATION IS A NEED.  Without education our whole country would be much worse than it is now.  As bad as it may be, it is a necessity.  "


              ... ermm...let me take a shot at this "emotional nonsense"...

              FOOD IS A NEED! HOMES ARE A NEED!! ELECTRICITY IS A NEED!!  CLOTHES ARE A NEED!!! DRUGS AND MEDICINE ARE NEEDS!!

              THUS THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO PAY FOR IT ALL!!!

              ... and yet every single one of them is provided by the free market much more efficiently than the government could ever hope to pull off - just ask the soviets . Deal with it. Just because "something is needed" doesn't mean that i should expect YOU to pay for it for me. that's called "mooching", "leeching", and "being a parasite", and it sucks.

              Look above, I just did an off-the-back-of-the-envelope calculation that shows that it takes about 32 years for a high school

              1. Ben Evans profile image74
                Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You need not be confused anymore.

                You need to check out how much college educations cost.  While you paid tuition, the government also supported your school.  It was far in excess of what you paid in your tuition..  Both the state and federal government helped pay for your education.

                So no I am not crazy.  I am just saying that as a recipient you have no right to complain.

                All your arguments are tangential and silly......Food, homes, and yes electricity............... are needs but not public needs.  Focus on the main idea not the words.  I did not say anything about those aforementioned needs.

                You do know your college education was subsidized? You paid a small fraction of your college education even if you paid for it yourself.  duh!  oops there goes that word.

                Now listen to emotion..........You do not want to pay.........Yet you want to take.  Whether you paid for your college education or not does not matter but the government put a hell of a lot of money towards your education.

                I own a business and I have paid an awful lot of taxes.

                You attended college in the US.
                Are you paying taxes now?  (If you are in Japan, I would guess probably not)

                Now I don't understand why you are  saying that education should not be publicly funded when yours was..........Yes you can try to argue off point but you need to address the money that has gone towards your education.  Unless of course, you believe that it is okay for every to pay for you yet you believe it is not okay for others to pay for others (because I don't believe you paid very much in taxes)

                Below is the public cost of college education:

                http://www.nber.org/digest/dec03/w9720.htm

                Let me take a shake at this............"emotional hypocrisy"

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  OK... i never asked for government assistance on college education. But if you think about it, I've been paying taxes for ... what? 26 years now (my father paid it for me for a lot of those years), and so... I think I've earned the money that government stole from me!!!

                  Not gonna buy that argument -- I'm paying, too, buddy! In fact, by your argument, I've paid for my own education fully, but it will just take a while to repay, and for some reason the government was involved. It's just that I gave the money to the government, and then they gave the money to the school. ...

                  ... probably woulda been cheaper to just let me do the paying... yeah, not gonna buy that argument at ALL.

                  quote: "I did not say anything about those aforementioned needs."

                  No, you didn't, but ignoring these arguments makes your argument foolish. How is "giving our children a good education" a serious public need, but "giving our children food" NOT a serious public need? Eating is more important than education... ... .. and you can't be educated without food... ... ...

                  so... No, you didn't mention it - but because you aren't including these into your argument, you clearly aren't producing a non-contradictory thought.

                  I don't want to pay - and i dont' want to take. I WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO QUIT STEALING MY MONEY SO I CAN SPEND IT AS I CHOOSE!! Every time I pay money, i damned well BETTER get something for it.

                  Quote: "Now I don't understand why you are  saying that education should not be publicly funded when yours was"

                  Is this really hard to understand?

                  If I had a private education, you'd say "god, you didn't have a public education, you're a rich snob", but since I did have one you're like "you had a public education, thus EVERYONE NEEDS to have one".

                  I paid taxes (my parents thankfully took up that role for me), and I will be paying taxes for the rest of my life (unless, the glorious takes place). SO I AM PAYING FOR MY OWN EDUCATION!!!! I'm not stealing from everyone, I'm just being forced to give my money to the government first.

                  1. Ben Evans profile image74
                    Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Evan,

                    I am sorry for reacting the way that I had.  It really struck a nerve when you said that it was unfair for you.  That got me going.  Maybe I misunderstood  what your intent was.

                    I do have to say that right now we as a world do not know how to run our affairs.  We also are unable to do something seemingly simple like propel the economy.

                    I am pretty conservative.  I don't mean that in political terms but in terms of how I conduct my life.  I am also a studier of all the markets. I watch forex, metals, and equities markets. 

                    I see the world differently from you Evan. I see some government as an unfortunate part of life.  I have also been to countries like the Philippines which is actually almost feudal and the economy is run by just a few families. I have seen the bottom rung of society there and also in Latin America.  I think it is a point of where you draw the line.  I choose and wish to pay so others can be educated.    I know some of it goes to waste but that is my choice.  There are some part of government that I don't want to pay for now but I don't want to open another can of worms.

                    I am sorry for being harsh.

          2. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lollollollollol   I'm sorry, but who do you think supports the Church??  Isn't it more fair to tax all citizens and provide the education to all children rather than only those who attend that particular church?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              what?

              No it's not fair.

              Fair would be "letting people pay for things without having a gun put to their heads if they refuse".

              That sure as hell sounds fair to me.

              does this?:

              "you didn't pay taxes because you didn't want to pay for some lazy person's welfare check. Also, you refused to pay for that same person's 5 children to get an education because he doesn't have a job and just sits around all day watching Oprah. we're gonna throw YOU in jail, now"

              That does NOT sound fair to me.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You do realize, don't you, that Churches gather money on a voluntary basis, right?
                What if nobody volunteered to donate money?  What then? 
                Who would pay for the education through the Church then? 
                Or, would there be no more education since nobody would be willing to pay for it? 
                What then? 
                Do we just return to the middle ages when education was a privilege for the chosen few who could afford it?  Puhleeze.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  well, if people stopped voluntarily giving money to churches...

                  ... it would mean people don't like the services they get from churches, and/or they value their money more than what the churches give.

                  Education is still a privilege. it costs $10,000 / year / student.

                  1. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    yes, I believe education is a privilege and a right.

          3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            'It puts one more incentive on "being a good, hard working person", and puts punishment on "being a lazy bum who spends all his money on (... i dunno...) roulette."'

            Actually, it's not the lazy bum who gets punished; it's the lazy bum's kid, who hasn't yet decided to be a lazy bum or not. But by virtue of being born to a lazy bum, and having no public education with which to better himself, Lazy Bum, Jr. is doomed to a life of drudgery, at least for the beginning part of his life, since he won't have any education. Even if he decides to break the cycle of lazy, he's starting way behind the starting line, hobbled by his lack of education.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              i agree it sucks, but ... maybe the people should try harder. Educating your children is a great incentive to be a good hard worker. It sucks, but is true.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hey Jeff,

          I will admit that I was a bit tripped up by your "should we punish the children of deadbeat parents who can't pay for education?" statement.

          That one's a doozy. It really tugs at the heart strings.

          But as I was jogging, just now, a thought occurred. It can only be "punishing" them if we consider education to be a right (which it can't be, otherwise it would require slavery).

          The sheer fact that education could be stripped from a child without government or any other intervention pretty much proves that it can NOT be a right: how can it be a right if the right could be stripped by just not doing anything? that makes no sense.

          Also, if "things that benefit society" are rights, then so should food, housing, clothes, steel production, oil production, and every other thing that "benefits society in general". but, alas, we've found through Communist rule in most of the eastern world that this is not true.

          And finally, to fully abolish the "education is a right" argument, education currently costs about $10,000 / student / YEAR!! There's no way that the right to free speech costs that much!!! Also, if it's a right, then why do the parents of home-schooled children not get refunds for fully taking this $10,000/year burden on society off the grid? (doodlebird HERself attested to this in a post on this forum). They have to pay for the other children AND their own children, even though they are removing the 10,000/year burden off society and taking it up completely by themselves.

          But, if we consider education a PRIVILEGE, or a service - which it has to be, simply because it can't be a right (as shown above) - the we are simply not giving a child something for nothing. We simply aren't giving the child a gift. We simply aren't buying him a present -- even if that present helps us all to a degree.

          We aren't "punishing" the child, we're just not "giving" him/her a $130,000 gift.

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You make some valid points.

            ----if "things that benefit society" are rights,----

            Food, housing, clothes, heat, and electricity are considered rights (to a degree).  The government provides food stamps to those who are in need.  The government & other agencies provide assistance for housing to those in need.  Heat and electricity are forced upon society in general (you know social services is going to knock on your door if you don't provide these two things for your children) (the Amish are the only ones who can get away without it because they provide a different source of light & heat for religious reasons)

            As I consider education to be a right and a privilege, I think your statement of education being a service provided makes much more sense.  Just as police and fire protection are a service to society & paid for by society.

      2. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think you're confusing welfare with entitlement.  Advocating for the welfare of mankind is a good thing, it speaks of the well being of mankind.

        Entitlement, on the other hand, is holding the belief that something is deserved just because of existence.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ...what's the difference between an entitlement and a right, then?

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            entitlement is holding the belief that something is deserved just because of existence.  A right is something that belongs to all equally and can't be taken away by another.

            The government provides the entitlement of Food Stamps for those in need.  The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of Freedom of Speech.

  18. 0
    Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago

    If you look at the statements made throughout this thread, there is a striking similarity that is screaming (yet probably unnoticed).  That is, most everyone is suggesting that kids need to "be" educated, and if the schools/parents don't do it, then we'll have a dangerous population of idiots running wild in the streets, unable to take a phone message or put catsup (or ketchup) on a burger. 

    This is a key point of my hub in action - we all have ingrained in us throughout our own schooling the notion that learning is not possible without someone else (an "expert") spoon-feeding us.  In reality, people (including children) do have the capacity to learn difficult concepts quite quickly in a natural setting, especially when the need arises.

    Both George Washington and Ben Franklin had no more than 2 years of formal schooling in their lives.  That was over a century prior to forced government schooling.

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't believe George Washington would have been as successful today as he was then - due to the fact he didn't receive a 'proper' 12 year + college education.

      Ben Franklin, I believe, would have found a way to learn & still been successful.

    2. Ben Evans profile image74
      Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Doodlebird,

      Most people in this thread are not advocating that kids need to spoon fed by experts.

      What most people are saying is if there is no public school system the kids wont be educated.  There is a difference.

      I agree that a lot of people can learn quite a bit outside of the educational system.   However, Ben Franklin and George Washington are extraordinary examples and most people would not be capable of the same things.  (I also will have to disagree that they only had 2 years of formal education....that is a bit of a stretch)

      1. 0
        Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ben, I appreciate your comments.

        I agree that people are not "advocating" that kids need to be spoon fed by experts - no one would consciously say that.  However, I do feel that if people stepped back far enough to look at the situation, and read a bit of history, they would see that this is exactly the process that we've accepted.

        I'm just saying that forced education has effectively raised American kids to take an increasingly passive role in education = teacher to student.  And, "schooling" is not the same as education - our kids are schooled.

        Proponents of forced education throughout history have used this way of thinking to support their mission, referring to people/kids as:
        - "little plastic lumps of human dough" (Edward A. Ross)
        -"blank tablets" (John Locke)
        -"vegetables" (Friedrich Foebel, inventor of Kindergartens)
        etc.

        Literacy rates that have been recorded in the United States in 1840 show 93-100% literacy - prior to forced government schooling.

        "Full literacy wasn't unusual in the colonies or early republic; many schools wouldn't admit students who didn't know reading and counting because few schoolmasters were willing to waste time teaching what was so easy to learn."

        And, yes, George Washington and Ben Franklin had TWO years of formal schooling each.  The rest of their education came from more natural sources such as family interaction, SELF-DRIVEN study, on-the-job training, and entrepreneurial projects.

        "In July of 1755, at the age of twenty-three, possessing no university degrees, the alumnus of no military academy, with only two years of formal schooling under his belt, half-orphan George Washington was detailed an officer in the Virginia militia to accompany an English military expedition moving to take the French fort..."

        "Benjamin Franklin commenced school at third-grade age and exited when he would have been in the fifth to become a tallow chandler's apprentice."

        They are exceptional men - especially by today's standards.  But, interestingly enough, George Washington was considered "no genius" by his contemporaries - called "too illiterate, to unlearned, too unread for his station and reputation" by John Adams.

        But, they did live in a time where they were required to make something of THEMSELVES - that's what people did.  And I believe that people ARE capable of the same things today.  People are generally chosen for leadership because of their use of "good judgement" in ever-changing situations - not because of test scores or the number of facts they can recite.

        (References from "The Underground History of American Education" by John Taylor Gatto)

        1. Rafini profile image82
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          People are generally chosen for leadership because of their use of "good judgement" in ever-changing situations


          lollollollollol

          Presidents are voted into office by POPULARITY & whoever has a more engaging SMEAR CAMPAIGN.

          1. 0
            Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            I was thinking OUTSIDE of the political "blah blah blah" arena - guess I should have been more specific (it was around 2:30 in the morning - ha ha).

            Actually,  I was thinking of situations a little closer to earth - like who do you want to lead a business you've invested in?  Who do you want to lead your child's Scout troop on an overnight hike in the wilderness?  Who would you want to lead a sports team, or a military situation where your family members' lives are at stake?  What type of person would you like to lead in your own family...those sorts of situations I meant.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "like who do you want to lead a business you've invested in?"
              Someone with a track record of business success.

              "Who do you want to lead your child's Scout troop on an overnight hike in the wilderness?"
              Me. (Eagle Scout, class of '86.)

              "Who would you want to lead a sports team," A coach with a track record of good mentoring, if a school or youth team, or a coach with a track record of victory if a pro team.

              "a military situation where your family members' lives are at stake?" a soldier/officer with a track record of victory.

              But in many cases, we have to get by with someone who merely has training/education. Training is not by definition a bad thing.

              In relatively low-stakes situations (youth sports, for example) we can get away with the attitude of, "Gee, how hard could it be?" Nobody's life is at stake.

              But in high stakes situations, I want a combination of experience and training, with a track record of success. Combat, for example, isn't a place where I'd want my leader to have a can-do attitude and no idea what he's doing. Of course, with US foreign policy as it is, we'll have a lot of experienced combat-tested leaders for the future.

            2. Rafini profile image82
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Non-Presidential Leaders aren't chosen for their abilities either - Leadership ability will be overlooked if there is an opponent with more 'qualifications' such as schooling.

              1. 0
                Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "Leadership ability will be overlooked if there is an opponent with more 'qualifications' such as schooling."

                I disagree that it WILL be overlooked.  If my kids are going on a missions trip to another state or country, I would expect the person in charge to be able to deal with the unpredictable circumstances that could arise .  I would want that person to have familiarity with the situation he/she was leading my family into.  And I would want to be confident in that person's judgment as they will have to make important decisions that would affect my child.

                I couldn't care less what he 2got in high school Civics or if he had a degree or not.

                1. Rafini profile image82
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, you're talking about a personal situation.  I'm talking about a larger arena.  Personal, maybe....I've seen too many times where the loudmouth obnoxious manipulator was accepted as the leader rather than the one who actually understood the consequences of decisions made.  I've noticed this in larger arenas too. hmm

                  1. 0
                    Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe if we looked at a person's judgement, character, experience and track record more closely and gave it more value in those larger arenas, then we might see some better leadership.

                    Oops - baby crying - gotta run.

  19. 61
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    Absolutely. Education is not a basic need. Education is the stone upon which a humans most valuable tool is honed and sharpend...the brain. How education attained is not as important as if it is attained. Many of the great minds, were thrown out of formal educational institutions. Einstien and Hitler come to mind. Any educational system that becomes so structured as to restrict free thought and learning does more harm than good. The public school system in America today fits that description.

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The American public school system needs help - we agree to that. smile

  20. 0
    Chasukposted 6 years ago

    So, supposing that the Department of Education were eliminated, would there be anything to take its place, even if only in an advisory capacity?

    When you applied for work as an engineer, would credentials from Leroy Schmuck's School of Really Cool Things[TM] be sufficient?

    Would our common cultural heritage become fragmented when some institutions offered Bachelor's in English focusing on the works of Matt Groening, others on the works of  Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and a vestige on the works of Shakespeare?

    Would madrasahs teach about Muhammad and not Thomas Jefferson?

    1. 0
      Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The world managed to design and construct amazing buildings, invent life-changing contraptions, and write profound literary works before there was ever a Department of Education.

      I think that learning, invention, art, etc. will happen regardless of institutions.  That's just how people are.

      "Schooled or not, the United States was the best-educated nation in human history - because it had liberty." (The Underground History of American Education - speaking of American culture prior to the Civil War)

      1. 0
        Chasukposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The world has changed.

        We now have no guilds of craftsmen or religious confraternities to transmit knowledge. Most of the amazing buildings, life-changing contraptions and profound literary works were the creations of the learned, even if from radically dissimilar institutions.

        Our existing educational system is arguably in need of repair, but I see no evidence that it needs to be demolished.

        1. 0
          Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The world has definitely changed!

          Learning in places like academies of ancient Athens was self-directed and not presented by certified experts, attendance was optional.  There was no state-driven cirriculum or bureaucracy - there were no "schools."  Yet Athenian civilization flourished in the areas of literature, philosophy, art, architecture... They may have been creations of the learned - or apprentices in workshops, etc. - but they did not require "schooling" to create.

          While I think human beings would function just fine without it, at this point, I don't see how our system could be demolished - there is a staggering number of professions, industries, publishers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. that have all been sustained by it.

      2. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But how many opportunities were missed due to someone not having received an education?

        Maybe there was someone born in 1758 who could have discovered the cure for Cancer but due to no public education requirements, the potential died.  We will never know.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Your argument is ludicrous.

          I DEMAND EDUCATION FOR CAVEMEN!! HOW MANY DISEASES AND NEW TECHNOLOGY COULD HAVE BEEN INVENTED IF CAVEMEN WOULD HAVE BEEN EDUCATED!!!

          ... it's the same thing.

          The take-away lesson here is that education is a privilege that needs to be paid for. If a society can't afford to pay for the education of their children (as per my caveman example) then it... clearly isn't the best way of spending money.

          Please acquaint yourself with the idea of "marginal utility", developed by the Austrian School of economics for a further understanding (I have typed up a great discussion of the ideas of the Austrians here on hubpages, check it out).

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            As far as I know there's no reason for me to 'acquaint' myself with this idea of 'marginal utility'.  If you were to provide a summary of some kind, I might be interested in looking into it further.

            I believe education is a privilege and a right. 

            Just because you think my example is ludicrous doesn't make it so.  We will never know if someone, somewhere in the past present or future could have changed the world merely by their existence.  Where do you think the world would be today if Einstein's mother had an abortion rather than giving birth?  Where would the world be today if Edison had never been born?  Galileo?  Shakespeare?  Homer?  Plato?  Jesus?  (well, we probably wouldn't have so many controversial religious debates)

            The point is, education is important no matter how its given or received and the entire population ought to be educated at all costs.  How much education?  However much an individual wants or needs and society is willing to cover.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ... "I [rafini] don't want to learn something, even though  you [Evan] have made it readily available on this website, and you [evan] have told me the information is where it is"...

              ..."education is a privilege and a right"...

              jeez. I don't have to do any work whatsoever to make my point, do I?

              It's funny, because half of your examples never went to a publicly provided education service, nor was public education considered even a norm at their time. In fact, much of the education of their times was private, and VERY expensive - only the rich could acquire an education.

              But... i guess ... I'll ignore everything that you don't mention, and still try to think that Education is a right - even though not a single one of the people you mentioned would have agreed with you.

              ... wait a minute, No I won't. That's a perfect example. Plato didn't have a public education, neither did Newton, nor Jesus, nor Homer, nor Shakespeare, nor Galileo, nor ANYONE at their time. They had to pay for their education (the same way we do now).

              You, earlier, defined a right as "something that belongs to all equally and can't be taken away by another." ... and yet... your own examples show you incorrect.

              To go even further with your own definition of a right , how can an education be a right when it requires someone else to give you an education? That means that your right to have someone else teach you "can't be taken away by another". ... How do you have the right to demand someone else to spend their time educating you - even if you can't pay them? Even if they don't want to? This is nonsense on stilts!!! how can you not see the inconsistency here?

              'Tis truly amazing, the human mind, to be able to believe two things at the same time, both of which are 100% inconsistent.

              "Plato made great contributions to our education system." "And all people have a right to an education" ... "Plato didn't have a public education system, nor did just about anyone at his time even consider an education a valuable thing"...

              argh... my brain...

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol  You're funny! 

                Okay, in the past education wasn't considered a right and most likely was not even considered a privilege by those who received it (much like students today who don't enjoy learning)  But does that change the fact that today a publicly funded education is a right?  No.  The only thing that changed is the attitude of society regarding education. 

                I get your point but you missed mine.  (re: Marginal Utility)  My not knowing what it means tells me it doesn't have anything to do with Public Education.  I could be wrong. hmm  I am only asking you to give me a reason to look into it other than because you told me to. 

                As for education being a right even though it has to be given or taught, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence and the birth of the USA.  An entire nation was born upon the concepts of certain God-Given inalienable rights.  The right to the freedom of speech had to be given to the people.  The right to bear arms was given to the people.  These rights were given after a change of attitudes within the society that became the US. 

                How many children do you know who demand an education?  I believe the parents might, but children?  Be serious, okay?  Nobody is forced to be a teacher in the public school system and I don't believe anyone is forced to be a teacher anywhere else in the US either.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  marginal utility has a lot to do with public education.

                  The fact that you don't know about it doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to public education (even though it is ... we went through 12 years of public education and didn't learn about this? -- i learned it on my own)... what it means is that you are ignorant on the subject.

                  if educatino IS TRULY a right, then it would mean that we would HAVE to force teachers to teach.

                  This is why it CAN"T be a right. it HAS to be a privilege

                  1. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think so....I think what you're thinking of would be more along the lines of.....control rather than cooperation.

                    Because I want to learn, I have the right to force you to teach me  or

                    Because I want my children to learn, I have the right to force you to teach my children

                    I'm looking at the right to education the same as I look at the right to Freedom of Speech.  Both are offered to me.  Both will be given to me.  I have the option of choosing both, either, or neither.  But my choice has no bearing on the choice of another person because they are given the same opportunity of choice as I am.

                    Freedom of speech was paid for by the lives of:   those who fought to create the country in which I live, those who enforced the laws of the government within the country in which I live, all who came before me to ensure I had the right to Freedom of speech.

                    My education was paid for by the citizens of my neighborhood because they understood that my education would benefit them someday in one way or another. 

                    Teachers teach because they enjoy teaching.  (true, some teachers need to leave the profession, but they weren't forced to be there in the first place)

        2. 0
          Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I know of some opportunities that were lost - even though the person would have been an outstanding candidate for the job with the right skills, temperament, etc - because he didn't happen to have a piece of paper that said he had jumped through all of the necessary hoops for a Bachelors degree.

          Their loss, really.  But that kind of thinking automatically rules out some excellent people.

          Bottom line - people can learn and be very intelligent without doing well in a school atmosphere.  History has shown this repeatedly.

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Right.  I believe it all comes down to choice.  I also think it's a shame that Education / Credentials are valued more highly than actual competence.

    2. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No one said that the credentialing of educational institutions was wrong. In fact the independent auditing of these institutions are a good thing. They are also not publicly funded. People, at least in the US seem to be conflicted about educating children. We say we "VALUE" education, but believe some one else should pay.  Education is NOT a right.  Whats good for me may not be good for you, educationaly speaking. With the endless possibilities of whats right and for whom, how could any "one size fits all" education system ever work? It can't. School system's should be localized in regards to funding and content. Private business is best at giving people what they want at prices they can afford. The government has no incentive to concern themselves with product quality or customer satisfaction.

  21. GreenTieCommando profile image86
    GreenTieCommandoposted 6 years ago

    American public education school is actually good. I don't really know how you guys can argue about something you have only read in the news. I had been through some school abroad and some school in the US. Both public schools. Abroad I was in the best school in my town and it was terrible compared to an average american public school I visited here.


    Discipline. American schools don't have fights at every break? Say what? Sign me up!

    American books are large, shiny and read like encyclopedias? They have pictures, graphs, charts and an easy to follow index? Sign me up!

    Americans have programs like "no child left behind" and the teachers actually care about students? I don't have to cheat to pass? Sign me up!!!

    I get to pick my own classes in America??? This is really cool!

    A lot of things that your kids take for granted are a privilege in other countries!

    1. ambersagen profile image88
      ambersagenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Discipline-where our teachers see students getting bullied to the point of suicide and do nothing.

      American text books that cost hundreds each year to buy new and get bout back at pennies on the doller.

      A system where insted of fixing problems like iliteracy in the upper grades we simply through more money at the problem.

      My parents home schooled me, even though they were dirt poor and could hardly pay the bills. They wanted me to enjoy my educaction, and to be able to read and write. They wanted me to grow up outside a system that promotes bullying as part of growing up and learn Real "social skills", not a pack mentality.
      It doesn't take thousands of dollers a year to home school a child. Use the public library, spend a couple hundred on a math program for your computer that can be reused by each child as they come. If we didn't have to pay into the public school system this would be very afordable, unless, and I admit that this is a problem, you need each parent's sallery to just get by. Otherwise go for it!

      1. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, I can't agree at all with the home-school option.  I've seen a few now, here on HP, who've been home-schooled and I don't see where the education received is any better than a public education.  In fact, I'd even say it wasn't nearly as good.  But, that's my opinion.


        Please check out my arguments & responses, and provide your thoughts on how to deal with the issues I presented. 

        The fact of the matter is, education is a good thing and where education is received isn't as important as what information is learned and what a person chooses to do with their new skills and abilities.  It comes down to choices & understanding nothing is perfect. (meaning there is always room for improvement)

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ?!?!?!?!?!? HOW CAN YOU NOT AGREE WITH THE HOME SCHOOL OPTION BUT STILL THINK THAT EDUCATION IS A RIGHT?!?!?!?!!

          THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!!!

          AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

          You even argue that plato and socrates and all those good guys - who were home schooled - are great people who's knowledge needs to be treasured!!!

          ?!?!?!

          This is simply amazing

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            sorry, I was in a rush this morning and was thinking the person I was responding to thought Home Schooling was the best and only option.  (as Rose West was saying)

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              but it doesn't matter- if education is a right, and private educatino is the only option - the it's still a right that you'd be entitled to.

              If education is a right, it doesn't matter how it comes about.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                -----If education is a right, it doesn't matter how it comes about.------


                That is exactly my point!!  lol  It's all about choices and being able to choose for your own family / children.


                (maybe you're misunderstanding me?  I can't agree with home-schooling being the best and only option.  Give me choices!!)

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  -----If education is a right, it doesn't matter how it comes about.------

                  I'm on board with this as well.

                  I'm also coming 'round to the idea that the Dept of Ed could be done away with, or at least scaled way back. Really, what does it get accomplished? It seems to me that if it's going to exist, it should be only to serve as a way to compare and contrast the schools run by the several states, and serve as a clearing house for ideas and practices that work, so other states may adopt them if they choose to.

                  Just a thought. Comments?

                  1. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not really up on the Dept of Ed.  and what they do.  Wait, I'll check. 

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … _Education

                    Okay, Wikipedia states the Dept of Ed doesn't do much more than handle funding and enforce laws re: privacy & civil rights.  What I'd like to know is why does the Dept of Ed have 5000 employees??  I might agree with you, though.  There seems to be no point in this government office.

    2. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for a comparison view.  Most Americans, I believe, have no idea what educational systems of other countries are like.  (I definitely belong to the no idea group lol )

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I've taught in the public school system of Japan. It's a big, publicly paid for, baby-sitting place where no one learns a damn thing.

        Then they all get out - after about 8 hours (8-4) - and then go to PRIVATE SCHOOLS to learn what they need to get into a good college (which is private, as well), in order to get a good job (which is private).

        Japan is the PERFECT example of why public schools are nonsense. The kids get to middle school around 6 in the morning (they have clubs, which they need to take part in to prove that they are good High school material... high schools are private in Japan), and then, after their afternoon clubs they run to the privatized (it's called Jyuku) schools and learn what they need to get into highschool / college. The kids come home at 9 pm, and then they study their jyuku material until 2 am (at least the kids who want to have a good future do). Rinse and repeat.

        Public Education is as horrible here as it is there.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Public Education is as horrible here as it is there." Except public education here is not like the Japanese model you described.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            it ain't far enough off to ignore it.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well, some public schools in the US do serve as "big, publicly paid for, baby-sitting place[s] where no one learns a damn thing."

              But most of our schools aren't like that, and there are some that excel.

              "Japan is the PERFECT example of why public schools are nonsense."

              I'd say, "Japan is the PERFECT example of how not to run a public school system."

              Our public schools are a mixed bag. The ones in Detroit are failing, and have been for an inexcusable length of time. But the district I attended, a mere ten miles from Detroit, was, and remains, an excellent place to learn not only college prep stuff but also vocational skills* (Though there really wasn't a way to do both while I was there...scheduling.)

              *This is a problem in our school system and in America in general: we tend to devalue skilled manual labor, and therefore discourage smarter kids from taking shop classes. But really, most skilled trades are un-offshoreable. Sure, they can make car parts for cheap in Mexico or China, but they sure can't build, wire, plumb, insulate, roof, or paint your house over there. My dad was a pipefitter/plumber, and he was no dummy: he showed me the blueprints he drew up for this apparatus that simultaneously solved a fluid routing problem for his plant and saved the company a bunch of money. I didn't fully understand it at the time, but dang. It takes some brains to be a skilled tradesman.

              I'm starting to drift, though.

              Perhaps there's a hub in this....

        2. Rafini profile image82
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The Japanese system is quite different than the American School System.  If you think about it, Japan has been highly successful since WWII...why?  I wouldn't choose the Japanese School System, but it seems to work for them - so, is it really all that bad?  Just something to think about....

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            it isn't "so bad" - but all the actual education takes place outside of public school.

            The people are paying for public school and private schools - but they only are getting a private school education.

            1. Rafini profile image82
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not interested in the Japanese way of life, politics, or school system.  All I can say is - it seems to be working for them, if it didn't they would change it.

  22. ambersagen profile image88
    ambersagenposted 6 years ago

    I guess my point about home schooling was that many Americans do survive volentaraly outside of the public school system. And It's statisticaly true that people who have been home schooled, when entering college level education, have higher ACT and SAT scores. All teachers at the college level that I have talked to have told me that their students that were home schooled are more articulate and care more about class work. Just saying.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Look, homeschooling works for some folks. There's no reason to pooh-pooh it across the board, and there's no reason anybody should be forced to send their kids to a public school.

      At the same time, it's important to get the proper context for the statistic that ambersagen quotes. Those home school students that get the higher SAT and ACT scores, they're the ones that have been homeschooled throughout their school careers? As for the public school students (who statistically score lower), are we counting all the ones who only started going to public school after their private schools booted them for low academic performance, or whose parents changed their mind about home schooling after discovering that it was harder, or that their kid was learning more slowly, than they'd expected?

      Home schooling works great for some folks. But when it doesn't, where do those students end up? Usually in a public school, where they discover that they're behind their peers, and it takes them a while to catch up, if they ever do.

      Just saying.

      1. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Home schooling works great for some folks. But when it doesn't, where do those students end up? Usually in a public school, where they discover that they're behind their peers, and it takes them a while to catch up, if they ever do.


        This is my observation also, from different sources.

        1. 0
          Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          A big problem with this thought is that homeschoolers don't necessarily follow the same scope and sequence as public schools.  Even public schools may vary in that respect from state to state.  Sometimes, if they enter a public school, they may be "behind" in some areas and "ahead" in others.  Grade levels (and all that is within them) exist nowhere but in schools.  They have no purpose outside of the system, only to scientifically sort and organize students.

          Public schools go by the one-size fits all method - because they have to group kids by age - asserting that every 3rd grader should know X, every 4th grader should know Y, etc. for THEIR convenience and not the learning needs of the children.   Homeschoolers, liberated from such trappings, will assert that the student is right where he/she needs to be at that time in terms of his/her individual development.

          For example, my son was slow to learn to read.  Something started to simmer around "2nd grade" and he could labor through a Chapter book (Secrets of Droon & Junie B. Jones level).  There he stayed for a while - almost all the way through "5th grade."  Then BING!  "6th Grade" he picked up books like The Hobbit (unabridged).  He never had the pressure to catch up, the sense of feeling "stupid."  He never felt "behind."

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, public schools can vary within the same city. hmm  (ex: my daughter went to more than 1 high school. Due to moving she didn't have enough credits to be a senior and was placed back in with the juniors & would have had to complete a 5th year of high school had she not dropped out)

            Public schools were organized according to what 'experts' felt the majority of children 'should' know by certain ages.  A little behind or a little ahead - the students help each other (one way or another - similar to the ideas of global Interdependence rather than strictly independent countries)  (ex: my son was the 'classroom tutor' throughout elementary school - helping others with their math after he finished his)

            Special Education students receive what is called an IEP. (Individualized Education Program)  I personally would like to see something like this for all students as I don't believe all students should have to suffer through all 'enlightenment opportunities' (meaning sports, music, art, etc. - after a certain age, unless interested or has the talent)


            ps - glad your son finally took to reading.  He must have found something he really enjoyed!  smile

            1. 0
              Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "glad your son finally took to reading.  He must have found something he really enjoyed!"

              I'll just say, having taught my kids to read and having worked in a bookstore - there is really very little of interest for boys at the beginning reader level.  At least on the shelves in my store, the number of girl-interest titles far outnumbered the boy interest.  Of course, my son is a picky reader and would rather re-read something he really enjoyed that just read something for the heck-of-it.

              If public schools were to be overhauled - it would have to be in a major way.  Minor tweaking will do nothing.  But, a complete change will cause the machine to collapse.  Perhaps that would be a good thing, allowing something very different to emerge.  I don't see that happening, though, as people can't seem to agree on the actual purpose of school (anywhere from basic academics only to complete government child and health care).

              If it could be revamped, I would like to see grade levels done away with altogether.  You'd start at the beginning with basic reading, writing, 'rithmetic skills and move on when you pass.  Instruction would come less through lecture in most subjects, but more through an individual research project approach.  For example, in the subject of science, perhaps the students are given the topic of  "Whales" on Monday.  Then it's up to the student to research - compare and contrast the different types, methods of eating, migration patterns...then they can share and discuss what they've learned on Friday - or whatever time period is reasonable.

              I do agree with your idea that kids should maybe have more choices in their electives as they get older - that there should be more opportunity for self-driven interests.

              This type thing can and is done by some homeschoolers who have managed to free themselves from a lifetime of government school training and by some private schools. 

              But, like I said, I don't see this degree of change happening in the schools - the powers-that-be (and all of the industries that have been created by and profited from the school system) will never let it go.

              1. Rafini profile image82
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                ----But, like I said, I don't see this degree of change happening in the schools----

                I don't know...revolutions can happen pretty quickly if there's enough stamina. big_smile  And I'd say the stamina has been building for a while now. big_smile

                Maybe this recession will do us some good in this area?  lol  With less money to spend on the latest technology maybe someone will get the idea to make other societal improvements...

                1. Misha profile image76
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It definitely will. You likely will not have any money at all neither for public education nor public health nor wars. smile

                  1. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lol  I'm not sure if I should agree with you, laugh with or at your ideas, or just let it slide...lol

                2. 0
                  Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  We definitely need a "school revolution" - but then there's still the issue of people not being able to agree on what schools should actually do.  Of course, if government schools and the idea of forced schooling were ousted, then there might be a rise in many different educational options.

                  Bottom line, though, people have to get past disagreements over curriculum, school programs, funding (in truth, learning does not have to be expensive) - those are distractions from the deeper nuts-n-bolts problems.

                  1. Rafini profile image82
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Where I live we have many school options, (high school level only) for those who are motivated.  But the problem comes down to how children would be educated if there were no public education.  (if you consider the cost of other forms of education)

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      While you were being home schooled, did your parents have to pay for public education? Or did they get rebates?

    3. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think I would agree with you, although I don't know anyone personally who was home-schooled.  I can only go by my own experiences in Public School.  On the flip side, though, could America survive without the Public School System?  I don't think so.

  23. Research Analyst profile image79
    Research Analystposted 6 years ago

    If public schools were eliminated too many people would be affected and that including teachers, principles, library staff, cafeteria staff, all those jobs lost and the bus system would be affected, more is involved when trying to discuss this, you will have people taking a stand for both sides of the issue but the bottom line is " what would be the domino effect down the line".

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ah, the domino effect. Such nonsense.

      You know, when the EVIL Henry Ford invented his mass production of cars, THOUSANDS of horse breeders lost their jobs, THOUSANDS of street cleaners lost their jobs(those horses had to use the restroom and didn't care where it was located), THOUSANDS of "horse food producers" lost their jobs, THOUSANDS of horse show makers lost their jobs, THOUSANDS of horse keepers and horse groomers lost their jobs...

      ... and yet there was no recession.

      WHY?!?!!?

      Because, yes they lost their jobs, but others were created elsewhere. Needs still needed to be fulfilled. Horse cost (let's say) $5,000/year to maintain, but cars only cost (say) $3,500 to maintain. Thus, even though all those people lost their jobs, everyone else was able to save up more money and spend it elsewhere, which created new demand for supplies, which created new demands for jobs, which reduced the unemployment.

      The domino effect is complete and utter nonsense. I could have done this with just about any other thousands of lost-job-industries over the millennia. -- Candle makers (vs lightbulbs), live bands (vs stereos), pencil and pen makers (vs type writers), typewriters (vs computers), etc etc.

      1. Research Analyst profile image79
        Research Analystposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Everyone has a right to their own opinion and that is just what it is.

      2. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The domino effect Research Analyst refers to is only a fraction of the whole.

  24. ambersagen profile image88
    ambersagenposted 6 years ago

    As far as I know my parents never got any rebates for home schooling. I just think it's a pity that if we can prove that we are getting a quality education we should still have to pay into a system that we simply don't use. From my point of view that would be like buying organic produce from a whole foods store and still being forced to buy gas station corndogs just so the gas station can stay in busness, only we often don't even get the use of public school sports teams, facilities, or discounts. So we pay for it and get punished for opting out of the parts that just don't work.

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Society as a whole benefits from the Public Education System, that's why society as a whole pays for it.

      Benefits include: less homeless, lower unemployment, more businesses to choose from,  less families on Government Assistance (that society as a whole pays for)....there are many benefits.  And what's the cost?  For me, it's less than $3.69 per month.  For a homeowner in my area, it's less than $1,500 per year.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You benefit from having an educated population regardless of whether you use the public school system or not, just as you benefit from the existence of the interstate highway system whether you drive on it or not.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        i also benefit from everyone being fed whether I get fed or not - it sure would be hard to find a tax-collector if everyone were dead of hunger.

        ...

        and yet food isn't socialized, but education is? in fact, every time food production has been socialized, life ended up sucking for everyone involved.

        and yet we can't seem to see the connection to this and education and roads...

        ... does not compute...

        1. Rafini profile image82
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ???  nope, does not compute   is right!!

          Food isn't socialized?  Restaurants, cafeterias, dinner parties, diners....

          I'm not going to list all the food production companies out there - but let's think about how many people are employed by one or two, okay?  Oscar Mayer and  Sara Lee.  Now let's think about how much socialization happens in the workplace, especially on breaks.  Are you sure you want to say it isn't socialized?

  25. 0
    Baileybearposted 6 years ago

    My son has special needs (is on autistic spectrum and has many syndromes).  Private school didn't want him because of this (they cherry-pick students).  He is not coping at public school - his stress has risen so high that he is now physically lashing out at other students.  He is a bright cookie, but because of the stress from his disabilities, he hates school. I am now considering home schooling.

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I wish you the best of luck - I know I couldn't have survived had I attempted to home-school my son with Aspergers.  smile

    2. Research Analyst profile image79
      Research Analystposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Home schooling just may be the best option for many at this point.

  26. thisisoli profile image66
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    Of course every argument here could just as easily be applied to national healthcare!

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      big_smile  Are you trying to start another argument??  lol   jk  big_smile

  27. Lifeallstar1 profile image61
    Lifeallstar1posted 6 years ago

    I know people that went to public, private and at home schooling and they all have their good points and bad.

    America could survive without public school since if its not available you find another way. Its not the best education for all. I went to public schools and as in any school teachers are people and their style of teaching could be your education downfall or you could advance in such a positive way. I've had all different types of teachers and some might be good for some people are horrible for others. Its just not about the subject anymore. Teachers need to educate children in a more grade level appropriate way. I'm not sure how some could teach like they didn't care or teach as a college professor would which a 9th grader is not going to be able to handle.

    I was injured and the school could not accommodate or even try to so my mom took over and home schooled me while trying to rehabilitate me at the same time. I did miss the social part of school with others since that's important as well. I just did it in a different way. I needed the one on one to get better while still learning. I have friends that were all home schooled and are very well rounded.

    I know people that went to private school and I learned the teachers don't always make as much and your paying more for it but your tax dollars do not go there so the education can be worse unless you go to the private schools that cost as much or more than some colleges. The catholic schools were the worst. They charged a lot but the education was not as good.

    I'm just going by my area but you would expect the best although it wasn't the case. If I could not send my child to a great public school when the time comes I'm still too young to think about that but after what I know I would home school if public wasn't up to scale and give them the best education as they deserve and I would know they have it. I've seen it and it works well.

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's all about having the freedom of choice, isn't it?

  28. Disturbia profile image61
    Disturbiaposted 6 years ago

    I think everyone should be homeschooled.

  29. strutzas profile image61
    strutzasposted 6 years ago

    Public schools in America are there to DUMB US DOWN!

    Public Education:

    1. Makes the children confused. It presents an incoherent ensemble of information that the child needs to memorize, to stay in school. Apart from the tests and trials that programming is similar to the television, fills almost the whole, "free" time of the children. One sees and hears something, to forget it again.

    2. It teaches them to accept their class affiliation.

    3. It makes them indifferent.

    4. It makes them emotionally dependent.

    5. It teaches them a kind of self-confidence, which require constant confirmation by experts (provisional self-esteem).

    6. It makes it clear to them that they can not hide, because they are always supervised.

    If you are not yet familiar with the work of John Taylor Gatto, I suggest checking out a couple of these vids http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jt+gatto

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol

    2. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol

    3. 0
      Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm in the middle of his "The Underground History of American Education" and just recently wrote a hub in which I used much of his research.  It's absolutely eye opening and incredibly well researched and documented.  I read "Dumbing Us Down" many years ago.

      It's really made me more passionate about the topic - people have no idea the history of education and its driving forces!

      1. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But is it the educational system that's 'dumbing down America' or is it the media and other influences?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          LOOK OUT!!! THE MEDIA!!!!

          1. Rafini profile image82
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol  That's my choice!!

        2. 0
          Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'd call it a combination.  Just people are willing to consider the media, but not the education system as the culprit.  We've been raised well...

  30. TMMason profile image75
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    What this country needs to do is de-federalize the schools and return them to local rule.

    Also, fire every last member of the N.E.A and then get rid of all the leant leftists twisting our kids minds in our institutions of higher learning.

    The indoctrination must be stoppped, or there will be no one who loves America and the constitution, left in the United States.

    They are, and have been now for decades, turning your children against your country, your religion and beliefs, all in the name of progressive liberalism.

    The NEA should have been removed from the schools a long time ago.

    1. 0
      Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well said!  Enough is enough!

  31. aware profile image69
    awareposted 6 years ago

    my baby can read . first five years   were wasting it on finger painting

  32. 0
    Doodlebirdposted 6 years ago

    Me thinks a lot of us should be writing some hubs about all of this. smile

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      smile cool lol hmm smile  Not a bad idea....lol

  33. 0
    Baileybearposted 6 years ago

    A lot of private schools aren't all they're cracked up to be. Too concerned with maintaining a carefully contructed image and cherry picking students so they look good.  A private school didn't want my son with Asperger's.  I thought they were a bunch of snobs.  I am considering homeschooling, but I doubt I will cope.  I am looking at changing public schools to one that has a special needs unit.

  34. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    hey all,

    Ok, this will be my last post on this subject: I've said all I have to say.

    1- Education can not be a right because an education requires the efforts of others.

    2- Federally funded public education is actually unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment.

    3- Public Schooling is actually a very new thing - only about 100 years old. Somehow everyone (born before 1900) got by without it.

    4- Any socialized industry will be corrupt and grossly inefficient. This is simply due to the fact that people aren't responsible for turning profits*, the managers are spending other people's money and not risking (much of) their own.

    *(profits, despite being considered evil, are actually wonderful things that tell everyone what industries and businesses deliver goods and services well)

    5- Public education costs about $130,000 from K-12. IT IS NOT FREE!!!!!!! Sure, the costs are socialized, but that just means it's unfair: why should an (for lack of better word) infertile and poor couple have to pay for other people's children's education? It's just simply not fair.*

    *(before you say "but everyone benefits from a public education", this might not even be true. But if it is, doesn't everyone benefit from a well-fed population? so, by the same logic, we need to have socialized food production... that doesn't work well).

    6- many people (i'm not quite ready to make this argument) make the argument that schooling is nothing more than training programs for "good citizens" who learn how to respect authority.

    Here's one of such people making their case: http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm

    Anyway, Thanks for listening, i'm out!

  35. Eric Calderwood profile image84
    Eric Calderwoodposted 6 years ago

    Edison comes to my mind immediately after reading your question.  He had little education but self taught himself, and I believe he holds 1093 U.S. Patents.

  36. Rose West profile image89
    Rose Westposted 6 years ago

    Hey everybody... I guess I've missed out on some of the action on here... When I posted this topic, I didn't realize that it would spark so many conversations. I'm glad I did though, and it's been interesting to read everyone's opinions, even though I have cause to disagree with some. Obviously, the education of children is something that we are all passionate about, and that is a good thing. So, I just wanted to say thanks and hi and I'm not dead, just been busy smile

  37. MarlonFulo profile image60
    MarlonFuloposted 6 years ago

    common guys, public education is the government's responsibility to  its citizens, taxpayers or not. Let the government do its part. Private educational schools are merely and generally intended for profit, public schools are based on the moral obligation of the welfare state to promote the welfare of its citizens. If the country has difficulties in sourcing out taxes, perhaps it should innovate ways to collect revenues, and not jeopardize education.

  38. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    Who are common guys?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ROTF!lol

    2. MarlonFulo profile image60
      MarlonFuloposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      hi misha, sorry for the typo error, its not "common guys" but "come on guys", no bad context intended.

 
working