dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: so naive

Ours is much far wackier, but on the other side of the spectrum that schools have no business "teaching".

You admit that the state-run school is out of control, but you still want to cede your sovereignty to the government and roll the dice with your kids' education?

We've had generations of "reform", and it only gets worse with each passing year. There is no "fix".
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: so naive

So the town government isn't the government? What are you smoking? Right now, AFAIK, in every state except Texas, schools are run by individual towns. Which are governments. They just have a wide variation in how good of a job they are able to do in educating.

We have to have a strong public education system in order to have an educated nation and a strong economy. There is no other way.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: so naive

I don't smoke, thanks. Do you?
Your assumption is misinformed. I won't claim its the result of public school, but I'm tempted....

No, "in every state", schools are not (all) run by individual towns, unless you consider "greater" Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City to be "towns". The "town" of Los Angeles operates a school district that spends over $25 Billion annually on some 600,000+ students.

I agree we need an educated populace, but we don't have one, and the trendline is going further downhill with each passing year.

Why would you want to continue to punish children and force them to attend the government monopoly school, rather than giving them a choice?
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: so naive

Fine. Cities. You're splitting hairs, because they are still local control, as opposed to state level control.

People can go wherever they want... no one forces them to go to public school, but we should have a strong public education system, since most people don't have the big dough to send their kids to a private school.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: so naive

Not meaning to splitting hairs, just addressing your AFAIK statement which appears to be misinformed.

Regardless, it doesn't matter to me, whether it is the "state", "State", "town", "city", County, Parish, or "district" as we have here.
All of them need to be abolished. The occasional exceptional district school can reform itself as a competitive, private entity.

People are forced to send their kids to school.

In the case of LAUSD, they're spending $25K-30K of our tax money per student per year.

Why would you oppose giving a subset of those funds as vouchers to parents who "don't have the big dough", to choose a private (secular, if you must insist) school for their child?
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: so naive

No one is forcing anyone to go to public schools. They can go to a religious school, or a private school, which many do. I went to public school, and I don't really like the idea of private schools, but this is America and people can do whatever they want.

However, the backbone of a good education system HAS to be a good public school system.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: so naive

People cannot "do whatever they want", much as I think, in America, they should be so allowed.

The law requires that you send your child to school. If you live in a lousy neighborhood, in a lousy school district, your child is forced to attend that school and reap the consequences.

I'd rather we remove compulsory education and leave the responsibility solely to parents, to pay for it. But the law in 50 states remains that the taxpayers fund schooling, and children must attend - and apparently you prefer to leave them with no choice but to waste 12 years in the government monopoly system.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: so naive

People can choose to send their kids to private schools. WHAT? Eliminating compulsory schooling is INSANE. You'd have people with no education at all, not even basic high school!
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: so naive

No, people can NOT choose to send their kids to private schools. They are required, by law, to send their children to school, but only one option is funded.

That's why we have millions of poor kids held captive by the government monopoly.
And the outcome from that equation is what is insane. We'd be better off without.

While I'd rather parents didn't have kids if they can't afford to take care of them, and I'd rather we didn't have compulsory education, nor have the public paying for it, so long as we do - the children should not be punished for the politics of the adults, and they should not be forced to attend schools run by the government.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: so naive

Then we need to fix the system. You can't just get rid of the public education system. Letting kids not go to school makes ZERO sense. It's crazy talk.