Will we ever free ourselves of government schools?
If not today, when?
PS They used to be known as public schools where kids were happily learning many things under the guidance of caring, knowledgeable teachers.
The only way to free ourselves from "governmental schools" is learn how to "objectively observe, participate to discover various outcomes for reasoning then being able to explain your findings to others" as edu (= bring forth forth from within) and cate (= communicating it to others). The means of doing that is to "objectively" consider everything you have learned in any form of school (= conditioned to follow leadership even to one's own demise) to be in error and explore for oneself to determine if it is.
Only 1/3 of parents surveyed say they prefer to send their children to our government run schools. The schools have morphed over the years into the indoctrination arm of the Democratic Party. School Choice is the answer. The Left is for choice in everything under the sun except education. To the Left the schools are a jobs program and brainwashing centers. That is why we don't have School Choice already even though 67& of parents want it. What happened to 'We the People'?
A fundamental reality is the need for EQUAL education opportunity, otherwise your plutocratic reasoning will find only the wealthy handfull attending the best school so that all the rest are relegated to the one room school house.
No way, I fight the Right as needed to prevent them from introducing feudalism to America
That seems to be a common mantra of the liberal crowd: everyone must be at the bottom so as to be "equal". Extra effort may not be applied to better ones self or ones children.
It seems a pretty sure fire method of producing mediocrity. Or worse.
Facts are facts: socioeconomic class is a STRONG FACTOR in what type of education a child will get. The poorer classes, with some exceptions, will receive the most inferior education while the affluent classes will receive the most superior education.
Agreed. If someone wants to send their kid to a better school, they already have the right to pay for a private school.
In a democracy, public means equal.
Here we go yet again. The government doesn't owe us anything. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the PARENTS or GUARDIANS to provide the best possible education for their children. To put it BLUNTLY, if parents cannot provide for their children socioeconomically, then DON'T have children. Why do poor people expect EVERYONE to take care of them when it is THEIR responsibility! This argument is beginning to become old. If one sees that h/she can't provide for children emotionally, intellectually, financially, & psychologically, then DON'T HAVE CHILDREN PERIOD- SIMPLE ISN'T IT!
... apparently, we just can't understand what happens when we have sex.
Even you advocate for free sex. Yet slip-ups occur all the time. I ask you, gmwilliams: Is it so hard to abstain until one WANTS and is willing to take care of a child?
One has to be intelligent & responsible when having sex. There is such a thing as preventives. There is also such a thing as planning & using contraceptives & other protectives until one can afford children. However, this information is wasted upon the poor & less educated in America. They are mindless & believe in instant gratification, not being in the least concerned of the ramifications of their actions in the future. More affluent & educated people, however, are quite cognizant of the benefits of family planning & waiting until opportunities are in sync emotionally, intellectually, mentally, psychologically, & socioeconomically before having children. Poor people just don't care, they just BREED while middle class & above plan very carefully before having children- also they have SMALL families while poor people have LARGE families.
And yet they WILL have children. Children they cannot afford to house, feed or educate.
And the children will pay the price for that inability. Is that what we want, where we are as a nation? Unwilling to provide for small children that really ARE incapable of doing so for themselves?
You are correct that a lot of welfare queens have children. I find it a sad statement that a certain class of young women all seem to be competing to see how fast they can have a baby before they turn 18, and their mother's are condoning it.
However, think about the established couple who can afford to have children. They happily have a couple of kids and all of a sudden their world comes crashing down. He loses his job and she gets cancer. I hope you are not speaking of people like them.
Back in the 1960s, the subject of overpopulation was on most thinking people's minds. It appalled many people when Luci Johnson Nugent (President Lyndon Johnson's daughter) flaunted her wealth by making the statement (after having her 4th baby) that she and her then-husband, Patrick, could have all the children they wanted because they could afford them. Many people were struggling to bring their own two replacement humans up at the time, and thought it was very unfeeling and arrogant to make such a statement.
Money talks- the only way that one can afford private education is to be at least solidly middle class & above. No poor parent can afford school choice as better public schools won't accept children from certain neighborhoods. Poor parents have to be content w/the quality of education that public schools provide.
It ISN'T public schools per se. It is all dependent upon many factors & variables. Public school in middle, upper middle, & upper class neighborhoods have superior facilities, books, & educators whereas in lower, working, & lower middle class neighborhoods, public schools have inferior facilities, books, & educators. Poorer neighborhoods have WORSE schools while affluent neighborhoods have BETTER schools.
And this is because, if the other states fund education like my state does, the per capita funding per child is not equal throughout the state. The areas with the most money have the most money to spend per child. In Arkansas for many years the wealthier school districts were in the counties with electric generating plants (nuclear and coal) and in a couple of counties that had oil. Now you conservatives should appreciate that since you advocate the rich keeping the money they earned, so it is kept in the areas in which it is earned. In the counties with the most poor populations, the schools basically "root hog or die" as the old saying goes. But it is kind of ironic that the wealthiest public schools (which are usually the highest rated) also have the most population who can afford to send their children to private schools.
I haven't researched it lately to see which counties have the wealthier school districts.
You want government free schools? They already exist. They're called private schools. Feel free to participate in one.
I know where I grew up the one available had low test scores, minimal acceptance into accredited universities and colleges and lack luster performance after graduation but it did allow parents to rail gleefully against public education. So, there was that.
LOL. I assume it was profitable, so the owners were gleeful too.
I shudder to think what the world would be like without government funding of education.
The more affluent can afford private education for their children. Government schools will be the province of lower income parents who can't afford a great education for their children. With lower income people depending upon public schools, public schools are going to become...…..MUCH, MUCH WORSE-GET USED TO IT!
I must disagree with the statements made by the two Republican capitalist thinking people whom I just read. I agree that when schools became integrated, the opportunity for black children should have paced them up with the white children rather than bringing the white children down to their education level. I am NOT being racist because I heard a black principal at a local high school say the same thing, and I'm just agreeing with him. He was lamenting the fact that public schools had deteriorated educationally in the last half century or so.
If only private schools, or non-government-funded schools, had existed then, my siblings and I would not have gotten much of an education. There are more people like me in the U.S.A. than there are people who can afford private schools. And as far as "conservative-value" school vouchers go, that is just another way of getting the government to pay for their religious indoctrination private schools. I'll bet it would be difficult to get vouchers to send your children to Montessori school or other schools of that type.
Thanks, this reality as you explain it goes over the heads of most conservatives
Yes, I think most of them are just sour-graping the fact that public schools aren't allowed to indoctrinate the children with their one-sided religious views like Creation science, sex education taught as abstinence only, and even some bible classes. I see posts lamenting that prayer has been removed from schools. However, when it was mandatory to have a five-minute bible reading and prayer session (when I was in school) most of the students sighed and ignored that five minutes. It was time misspent because the children did not appreciate it. My peers were children from Christian homes, not Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or Vudun or the like.
To reiterate, socioeconomic class is a strong determinant as to what type of education a child will receive. Public schools in lower income areas provide inferior education while public schools in affluent areas provide excellent or at least a superior education. Affluent parents can also send their children to PRIVATE schools while poor parents CAN'T...…...
"Teachers' unions in the United States are very opposed to school choice. School choice measures are criticized as profiteering in an under-regulated environment. Charter authorization organizations have non-profit status; and contract with related for-profit entities with public funding. Some reports indicate that the New Markets Tax Credit allows double returns on charter school related investments. Reports indicate that charters create organizational arms that profit by charging high rent and that while the facilities are used as schools, there are no property taxes. Other reports indicate bankers, hedge fund types and private equity investors, gathered in New York to hear about opportunities at Capital Roundtable's conference on "private equity investing in for-profit education companies" which involve the collection of an individual's property taxes. Walton Foundation has also held charter school investment conferences featuring Standard & Poor's, Piper Jaffray, Bank of America, and Wells Capital Management.
Public school entities are chiefly concerned that these school choice measures are taking funding away from public schools and therefore depleting their already strained resources. Other opponents of certain school choice policies (particularly vouchers) have cited the Establishment Clause and individual state Blaine amendments, which forbid, to one degree or another, the use of direct government aid to religiously affiliated entities. This is of particular concern in the voucher debate because voucher dollars are often spent at parochial schools.
Some school choice measures are criticized by public school entities, organizations opposed to church-state entanglement, and self-identified liberal advocacy groups. Known plaintiffs who have filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of state sponsored school choice laws are as follows: School Boards Associations, Public School Districts, Federations for Teachers, Associations of School Business Officials, Education Associations/Associations of Educators (unions for public school teachers), the American Civil Liberties Union, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and People for the American Way.
There is evidence that school choice programs reduce housing prices, and that they do so in high-performing districts more than in low-performing districts."
"The role of the federal government in education is limited and indirect. Direct control of education is a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly give the federal government authority to regulate education.
HOWEVER any public or private school that accepts educational funding from the federal government, including participation in collegiate federal financial aid programs (such as Pell Grants and Stafford Loans), by accepting the funds or participating in a particular federal program, subjects itself to FEDERAL JURIDICTION to the extent of that participation.
The United States Department of Education supervises the role of the federal government in education.
Direct regulation of public, private and parochial schools is done by state and territorial governments, in Washington, D.C., by the District Government.
Broad regulation of public schools is typically accomplished through a state education agency and a state department of education.
There is usually a state superintendent of schools, who is appointed or elected to co-ordinate the state department of education, the state board of education, and the state legislature itself. Statewide education policies are disseminated to school "districts" or their equivalents. They are associated with counties, or with groups of counties, but their boundaries are not necessarily coterminous with county boundaries. The intermediate school districts encompass many local school districts. The local school districts operate with their own local boards, which oversee operations of the individual schools within their jurisdiction.
In most states, the county or regional "intermediate" school districts merely implement state education policy and provide the channels through which a local district communicates with a state board of education, state superintendent, and department of education. They do not establish county or regional policies of their own.
Local school districts are administered by local school boards, which operate public elementary and high schools within their boundaries. Public schools are often funded by local taxpayers, and most school boards are elected. However, some states have adopted new funding models that are not dependent upon the local economy.
The Seward School, Seattle, Washington.
Public schools are provided mainly by local governments. Curricula, funding, teaching, and other policies are set through locally elected school boards by jurisdiction over school districts. The school districts are special-purpose districts authorised by provisions of state law. Generally, state governments set minimum standards relating to almost all activities of elementary and high schools, as well as funding and authorisation to enact local school taxes to support the schools, primarily through real property taxes. The federal government funds aid to states and school districts that meet minimum federal standards. School accreditation decisions are made by voluntary regional associations."
"The Constitution grants the federal government certain powers, and the Tenth Amendment reminds us that any powers not granted to the federal government 'are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' " Wikipedia
Enter Common Core!
"The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an educational initiative from 2010 that details what K–12 students *throughout the United States* SHOULD know in English language arts and mathematics at the conclusion of each school grade." wikipedia
"The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and seeks to establish CONSISTANT educational standards ACROSS the states as well as ENSURE that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit-bearing courses at two- or four-year college programs OR to enter the WORKFORCE."
I agree, if she, (and her husband) wanted to have children and could afford them, why not?
I don't think she was arrogant. Just giddy with good luck.
Because, THINK ABOUT IT, the worry then was world overpopulation. Today 50 years later, the worry is about the world running out of food and resources. Think of how many descendants those extra children are going to add to the world. How many more mouths to feed, how many more children to educate, how many more children to be consumers.
BTW, I worked with a lady who was helping her grandmother celebrate a milestone birthday. At the family reunion, the genealogy count was that this lady had 1,009 direct descendants, possibly a record for a living person. These descendants included her father's 19 children. She was the oldest, and the rest were by his second wife, all 18 of them. He owned his own business and made an enviable living, but the family still qualified for welfare. Get my point?
If course, Republicans always defend the rich. They never think about how sometimes the rich do fall from grace and join the ranks of the common people or even the poor. The Johnson family has not yet done that, but if they ever do, how many people are going to have sympathy for them?
Usually, the family members from these homes thrive and help one another. The children absorb the work ethic from their parents and others such as relatives, teachers and employers. In turn, they are more likely to become teachers, managers and business owners who educate, hire and train others.
And how dare you use the terms "Common People" and "The Poor." Everybody knows these terms indicate static CLASS distinction. In America, we are free of class distinctions, due to equal opportunity as provided by laws /The US Constitution.
People have their economic up and downs; especially in the beginning. Thankfully, once one is up (and the longer one is up,) the road toward success and prosperity takes a steady course. It takes self-discipline and the unwavering determination of personal motivation and ambition. Naturally, a positive direction, once established, continues in a positive direction.
But in the ensuing climate, the government could derail We The People with over-regulation, over-taxation and socialistic policies/ideologies of robbing the rich and handing over to "the poor." In these ways, government tyranny could rob us of the motivation and momentum which comes from step by step progress.
She was in a position to have as much bed-romping as she wanted.
Unmarried females (or those with no nest) ... not so much.
A NEST and a consistent inflow of M O N E Y is required before having any kind of sex whatsoever!
Girls need to demand more FOR themselves
and demand more OF themselves.
Ideally, until the US government takes it's grubby controlling hands off education, we should refuse to bring forth any more children. Why have a child just to hand it over to the government?
W H Y ? ? ?
And from whom are they going to demand this?
Themselves first, their significant others second,
and the government third.
It is illegal for the federal government to control or have any say whatsoever in regards to public education, as per the tenth amendment.
We need to get RID of the US Department of Education.
Trump needs to get on this:
https://wtop.com/education/2018/03/bets … d-its-not/
Its a matter of $$$$$ funding.
The Common Core Curriculum web is sticky evil and needs to stop being spun. Every child a fly.
ESSA, Every Student Succeeds Act, became the new FEDERAL education LAW of The Land:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/bl … eft-behind
"As the President has said, education is the civil rights issue of our time. Every American deserves an equal opportunity to succeed, so every child in America -- regardless of zip code -- deserves a fair shot at a great education."
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/bl … eft-behind
Now our education system is detrimental to the psyches of children and teachers alike.
http://www.institute4learning.com/2018/ … s-schools/
"Parents who care about those things, ("reading for pleasure, the formation of character, the defense of civilization, immersion in classics, piety within a tradition, and learning for the joy of it – the very things that have no cash value in Gates’ educational universe,") have opted out of the school system being leveraged and controlled by persons like Gates.
They have decided there is a rich heritage they should pass on to their children, that a life well-lived is more important than economic productivity, and that enriching character matters more than economic wealth.
"Its a pity that children in our public schools won’t get the same care; rather, they will be exploited in an “evolving” system that serves entrenched interests but not the students."
https://www.philanthropydaily.com/gates … mmon-core/
"the federal government is taking control away from the states and centralizing educational decisions at the federal level. This power grab removes decision making from states, local school boards, and ultimately from parents. It’s about controlling the agenda, and the agenda is more than reading, writing, and arithmetic."
https://heav.org/virginia-homeschool-la … -part-one/
by kashannkilson 8 years ago
Are public schools still important? Are charter schools and privatization the future? Does it even affect the country's role in the world economy?
by preacherdon 8 years ago
With the entertainment and sport industries making multimillions of dollars each year and the education industry losing funding and shutting down programs and laying off teachers, should the education of our children be privatized? City budgets are no longer able to provide adequate funding for...
by Sheila 10 years ago
Should grade schools in the US be more challenging academically and creatively? Are you satisfied with what your kids are learning at school?
by dragonrider32 9 years ago
1. There is no way on earth that all the kids in public schools now could be placed in private schools/homes. There are no where near enough places for them. If you don't provide for all of them...what are you setting the American future up for? Disaster.2. Private schools have waiting lists. If a...
by Georgiakevin 10 years ago
When "No Child Will Be Left behind " began I was invited to several meetings. The main speakers said that education should be like private industry. It was also said that Japan & Germany were leaving us far behind. We were told that educators focus should be on getting all children in...
by TheBlondie 8 years ago
Religious people often think the teaching of evolution should be banned, and vice-versa for non-religious people. What id your opinion? Should evolution, creationism, or neither be taught? Why?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|