For Shanek (or any other interested members): Public education

[gnome]

You have mentioned in the past that public education does not have to be funded by government. Unfortunately it usually does not get far past that before moving on to other points.

Could you describe such a plan? I'd like to see if the idea works for me...

 

[shanek]

Let's start off with homeschooling. So parents want to homeschool their children. They get the necessary certification etc. and off they go.

Now, we have a certain number of parents in a neighborhood who are doing this. They figure out that they're duplicating a whole lot of effort and decide to pool their resources. They also think their kids could benefit from interaction, and so they find a place, maybe one of the parents' homes, to school all the children together (this is actually illegal in NC, and probably many other states, too; so this isn't even allowed to go this far).

They start inviting other parents in, who join. They also go around to businesses and others seeking donations for the school. Pretty soon, they're able to take in children even if the parents themselves aren't paying directly. The more active parents become a board, and they may even raise enough for a building of their own.

Continue this trend, and you end up with a public school, voluntarily funded, no force required.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Let's start off with homeschooling. So parents want to homeschool their children. They get the necessary certification etc. and off they go.

Now, we have a certain number of parents in a neighborhood who are doing this. They figure out that they're duplicating a whole lot of effort and decide to pool their resources. They also think their kids could benefit from interaction, and so they find a place, maybe one of the parents' homes, to school all the children together (this is actually illegal in NC, and probably many other states, too; so this isn't even allowed to go this far).

They start inviting other parents in, who join. They also go around to businesses and others seeking donations for the school. Pretty soon, they're able to take in children even if the parents themselves aren't paying directly. The more active parents become a board, and they may even raise enough for a building of their own.

Continue this trend, and you end up with a public school, voluntarily funded, no force required.

Which operates very smoothly provided all the parents agree on everything. Chances of that?

 

[username]

Which operates very smoothly provided all the parents agree on everything. Chances of that?

Why would all the parents have to agree on everything? That doesn't occur in taxpayer funded public schools so why would it have to occur in privately financed public schools? The more divergent the views held by those voluntarily paying for the school, the more accomodating the school would need to be in order to retain the financing. It seems the effect would be greater inclusion and tolerance of differences, not less.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why would all the parents have to agree on everything? That doesn't occur in taxpayer funded public schools so why would it have to occur in privately financed public schools? The more divergent the views held by those voluntarily paying for the school, the more accomodating the school would need to be in order to retain the financing. It seems the effect would be greater inclusion and tolerance of differences, not less.

My point was that the scenario Shane laid out didn't include establishment of authority. If half the parents want strict Creationism taught, and the other half want science instead, which gets done? Suppose the science wins out by a single vote, but Miss Harris decides to spread the word of the Lawd instead. Who can stop her? Who settles disputes?

You'll have a very tolerant, very diverse anarchy is my point.

 

[Tmy]

Which operates very smoothly provided all the parents agree on everything. Chances of that?

HA! Ever go to a PTA meeting! Open school committee meetings?!

parents are the worst when it comes to agreeing on things. They are so obsesses with their own kids that they become irrational. Might as well try to heard cats.

 

[gnome]

After some thought, here is my primary concern: inclusiveness.

Would the parental groups have to take any student that wished to attend? If not, I don't see how it can be called a public school.... seems to me the first quality of a public school is universal admittance.

On the other hand, if all students were guaranteed attendance, it would seem to me that could only happen through force of law. More laws (or at least binding arbitration) would be required then to ensure equality. I believe the whole system would grow and begin to resemble what it replaced--except you have the waste of reinventing the wheel.

 

[SezMe]

After some thought, here is my primary concern: inclusiveness.

Would the parental groups have to take any student that wished to attend? If not, I don't see how it can be called a public school.... seems to me the first quality of a public school is universal admittance.

On the other hand, if all students were guaranteed attendance, it would seem to me that could only happen through force of law. More laws (or at least binding arbitration) would be required then to ensure equality. I believe the whole system would grow and begin to resemble what it replaced--except you have the waste of reinventing the wheel.

This precisely what is wrong with Shane's scenario and school vouchers in general (I guess I should also post in that thread, too). Shane's school would choose who could attend and who couldn't. It is school-choice, all right. The schools chose. And they won't take problem kids, poor kids, handicapped kids, etc. It won't evolve into a public school, it will evolve into a private school. Eventually they will need (want?) more money and will advocate vouchers from the gubmint.

So, Shane, can you provide a rationale why your scenario leads to "public" schools instead of "private" schools?

 

[shanek]

Which operates very smoothly provided all the parents agree on everything. Chances of that?

Hence the "board" I mentioned.

 

[shanek]

My point was that the scenario Shane laid out didn't include establishment of authority.

"Board"? Hel-lo???

 

[shanek]

Would the parental groups have to take any student that wished to attend? If not, I don't see how it can be called a public school....

Dick around with definitions all you want. You won't succeed in doing anything except rewrite the dictionary.

No, there wouldn't be any supreme government law that will rain down hellfire on them if they don't take any student that wishes to attend...but they would have every encouragement to do so.

And there's the flip side of what you're saying: if they're forced to take every student, then they're forced to also take the troublemakers, who don't want to learn, won't learn, and will only end up causing trouble. You can whine all you want about how it's unfortunate they won't get an education, but they won't get it anyway and your Socialist ideals in forcing them to be included will only make for a worse education for all of the other students.

seems to me the first quality of a public school is universal admittance.

A "public market" can throw out shoplifters. That doesn't mean it's not public.

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Board"? Hel-lo???

And who decides who gets to be on this board? And what is the apparatus for removing someone from the board? And what happens if the board makes decisions everyone else disagrees with? Or a majority disagrees with? Or a minority disagrees with? Are they democratically elected? How often? By whom? Can the board decide to dispense with elections after they are in power? Who makes the rules governing the board?

I know you're fond of your communist model school, here, but having "a board" of "the more active parents" doesn't really explain anything. In order to function perfectly, it would have to occupy a perfect world. I suggest that parents of school aged children are not going to be completely cooperative and rational in their dealings with each other and with education, and will in fact fight like cats and other cats.

 

[CFLarsen]

Dick around with definitions all you want. You won't succeed in doing anything except rewrite the dictionary.

No, there wouldn't be any supreme government law that will rain down hellfire on them if they don't take any student that wishes to attend...but they would have every encouragement to do so.

And there's the flip side of what you're saying: if they're forced to take every student, then they're forced to also take the troublemakers, who don't want to learn, won't learn, and will only end up causing trouble. You can whine all you want about how it's unfortunate they won't get an education, but they won't get it anyway and your Socialist ideals in forcing them to be included will only make for a worse education for all of the other students.

Political rethorics aside, you have no problems with people creating a pure-white school, then.

A "public market" can throw out shoplifters. That doesn't mean it's not public.

But that's after people have been caught as shoplifters. Will a "public market" ban certain people from entering? That's hardly "public".

Public is for everyone:

"exposed to general view".
"of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state"
"of or relating to people in general"

(Webster)

All the people, shanek. You are the one dicking around the definitions.

 

[username]

And who decides who gets to be on this board?

With one possible exception I am not seeing objections to Shanek's proposal that are unique to his proposal, they are problems for the current public school model as well.

The only objection I have seen is that the school might be more exclusionary than taxpayer funded public schools. It seems to me that this *could* be a problem, but the rest of the objections appear just as valid of Shanek's model as the taxpayer funded model.

 

[TragicMonkey]

With one possible exception I am not seeing objections to Shanek's proposal that are unique to his proposal, they are problems for the current public school model as well.

The only objection I have seen is that the school might be more exclusionary than taxpayer funded public schools. It seems to me that this *could* be a problem, but the rest of the objections appear just as valid of Shanek's model as the taxpayer funded model.

School board members are elected, at least where I live. (Is it different, elsewhere?) That supplies both authority AND accountability. Shane's model was "a board" of "the most involved parents"....what, all of them? Volunteers who decide they should be in charge? A direct democracy? Without authority, it will descend into chaos. (And no, I'm not an authoritarian--the authority would have to be accountable, otherwise what's the point of it? People would just leave.)

 

[shanek]

And who decides who gets to be on this board?

The parents.

And what is the apparatus for removing someone from the board?

Whatever the by-laws, that the parents agree on, say.

And what happens if the board makes decisions everyone else disagrees with?

Again, depends on their by-laws. Why are you asking me these irrelevant and unanswerable questions?

By the way, we know the answers with government schools: whatever the government says, which is what's going to be most politicially expedient, and not necessarily what's best for the kids.

I know you're fond of your communist model school, here,

Voluntary cooperation is not communism. Stop using weasel words. You're just looking for excuses to support your current world-view.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The parents.

All of them in unanimous agreement? A simple majority? Does each parent have one vote, regardless of number of children in the school?

Again, depends on their by-laws. Why are you asking me these irrelevant and unanswerable questions?

Because you posit these utopian situations, then refuse to explain how they could work in the real world.

By the way, we know the answers with government schools: whatever the government says, which is what's going to be most politicially expedient, and not necessarily what's best for the kids.

Yes. And it functions in the real world. Maybe not perfectly, but it functions. I'm suggesting that your school wouldn't.

Voluntary cooperation is not communism. Stop using weasel words. You're just looking for excuses to support your current world-view.

They say we always see our faults in others. You're the one who's not explaining how your school would work when there is disagreement and conflict. Why is that? Is it because you feel that these magnificent parents would always get along in blissful harmony, simply because they are untainted by the foul hand of Government influence?

Sorry, dude, but the more you post the more it seems that you advocate a Utopia. Utopias are nice ideas, but they can never work. To be of any value at all outside the abstract, you have to adapt your models so they can function in a fallible world. The choice is to either corrupt your ideal vision, or let it remain fluffy pink cloud fantasy.

 

[username]

School board members are elected, at least where I live. (Is it different, elsewhere?) That supplies both authority AND accountability.

What reason would there be for it to be different with Shanek's model? I think the electors would be limitted to those who participate in funding the school (mostly parents of the school's kids) rather than allowing all taxpayers to vote, but I don't see that as necessarily bad. Most of the time (where I live) the turn out for voting on school board members is really low anyway. I suspect that those without kids in school probably don't care much.

If a school following Shanek's model was headed by self appointed rulers it would be subject to market forces which would be the local folks with kids to vote with their dollars whether that was acceptable to them or not.

editted to add: it would be (I imagine) much like a public company where only the stockholders get to vote on the board members.

 

[Thanz]

Let's start off with homeschooling. So parents want to homeschool their children. They get the necessary certification etc. and off they go.

Now, we have a certain number of parents in a neighborhood who are doing this. They figure out that they're duplicating a whole lot of effort and decide to pool their resources. They also think their kids could benefit from interaction, and so they find a place, maybe one of the parents' homes, to school all the children together (this is actually illegal in NC, and probably many other states, too; so this isn't even allowed to go this far).

Nor would it, I suggest, even if it were legal. I don't plan on homeschooling, and I don't know anyone who does, but I just don't see the progression from homeschooling to a school like environment as natural. I have the impression that people home school to get away from a school like environment, not to try and create a new substitute one.

They start inviting other parents in, who join. They also go around to businesses and others seeking donations for the school. Pretty soon, they're able to take in children even if the parents themselves aren't paying directly. The more active parents become a board, and they may even raise enough for a building of their own.

I see this as mere fantasy. I have serious doubts that an adequate education can be funded merely by business donations. It would require tuition fees from the students, perhaps with some scholarships for underprivileged kids. But what you are describing is a private school, not a public school, as noted already.

Continue this trend, and you end up with a public school, voluntarily funded, no force required.

No, you end up with a new private school. Which isn't a bad thing, but it is not a substitute for public education.

 

[shanek]

Because you posit these utopian situations, then refuse to explain how they could work in the real world.

No; I'm positing a realistic possibility, and you're demanding that I show one way that it would work in each and every occasion.

Yes. And it functions in the real world. Maybe not perfectly, but it functions. I'm suggesting that your school wouldn't.

No, you're not. You're only slinging FUD.