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

[TragicMonkey]

Oh, whatever. I had forgotten you get upset when anyone challenges your ridiculously unworkable notions with the suggestion that they might be unrealistic.

So prove me wrong by setting up your wunderskool. If it lasts a whole month, I'll owe you a Coke!

 

[gnome]

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

I'm not looking to rewrite anything. I'm looking for an institution (government or otherwise) to provide a service currently offered by state-run public schools. You have offered an alternative, I am examining how well it fills the same service.

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.

Alright... so you are acknowledging that admittance is not guaranteed. This is one feature that your system lacks that public school systems have.

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.

I don't think it's anyone's ideal to force a school to retain people who are actually violent or interfere with others' learning. I am not so interested in making sure that they are included as I am that students who have committed no offense have access.

By the way... I found the idea that only contributors get to drive the curriculum interesting. I'm not sure in a "community" school system such as proposed here how people that could not afford to contribute would fare--but the idea could translate into the current public school system a little better. It might solve the "freeloader" issue with user fees--anyone wishing to "opt out" of a certain portion of their taxes, because they do not have students in public school, can... they just lose the right to vote for school board members or participate in any policy-steering organization.

Would that work?

 

[TragicMonkey]

By the way... I found the idea that only contributors get to drive the curriculum interesting. I'm not sure in a "community" school system such as proposed here how people that could not afford to contribute would fare--but the idea could translate into the current public school system a little better. It might solve the "freeloader" issue with user fees--anyone wishing to "opt out" of a certain portion of their taxes, because they do not have students in public school, can... they just lose the right to vote for school board members or participate in any policy-steering organization.

I don't know. The same reasoning behind the childless paying for the schools would apply to the policy-steering of the schools; if I have a vested interest in the next generation's being educated at all, then surely I have a vested interest in the nature of the education provided. If I were to opt out, I would lose my contribution to ensuring that the public schools don't go Intelligent Design or turn into a madrassah or start doing Art in the Nude.

But I'm already sold on the vested interest business and willing to pay, so I don't know how any opt-outers would feel. It does seem unfair that people not paying in should have a say in what goes. Heck, if they have kids in private schools, it might actually be in their interest to elect a crappy school board with bad ideas, so their own kids will appear better competitively when it's college admissions time!

 

[shanek]

I'm not looking to rewrite anything.

Well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(UK)

"The term "public" (first adopted by Eton College) refers to the fact that the school is open to the paying public, as opposed to a religious school, which was open only to members of a certain church. It also distinguished it from a private education at home (usually only practical for the very wealthy who could afford tutors)."

So it is not the case that a public school must let anyone who wants to come in for free in order to be a public school.

Alright... so you are acknowledging that admittance is not guaranteed.

This is life. Ain't no guarantees. But if that's a problem, the parents of the children who aren't admitted are free to start their own. Parents of the existing school who aren't satisfied are free to join another or start their own as well. These are aspects that aren't there with government schools.

I am not so interested in making sure that they are included as I am that students who have committed no offense have access.

Again, they would have every incentive to do so, and even if they didn't there would be other options for parents. Those don't ecist now.

By the way... I found the idea that only contributors get to drive the curriculum interesting. I'm not sure in a "community" school system such as proposed here how people that could not afford to contribute would fare--

I somehow don't think that parents who had their children in the school, even if they weren't contributors, would tolerate it.

It might solve the "freeloader" issue with user fees--anyone wishing to "opt out" of a certain portion of their taxes, because they do not have students in public school, can... they just lose the right to vote for school board members or participate in any policy-steering organization.

Would that work?

It's interesting, although it may make the elections a little weird. You'd basically have your status as a school taxpayer in your voter registration info, and school board elections would then have a separate ballot you would get.

It could be done, but there'd be some weirdness. What if someone paid the taxes for part of the year but not all?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(UK)

"The term "public" (first adopted by Eton College) refers to the fact that the school is open to the paying public, as opposed to a religious school, which was open only to members of a certain church. It also distinguished it from a private education at home (usually only practical for the very wealthy who could afford tutors)."

So it is not the case that a public school must let anyone who wants to come in for free in order to be a public school.

Lol. Wow. Shane, you are a treasure.

 

[shanek]

I don't know. The same reasoning behind the childless paying for the schools would apply to the policy-steering of the schools; if I have a vested interest in the next generation's being educated at all, then surely I have a vested interest in the nature of the education provided.

Then contribute to the school.

Maybe you could have a certain amount you could put up to be a "contributor," which would be less than the amount you would put up to be able to have your children attend.

In the private/public system I mentioned, maybe some schools would do it one way and some would do it another. Then you could pick and choose, supporting the schools you think do the best job, or even contributing to the schools you don't think are doing so well so you can have a voice in how they are run, hoping to improve it.

Heck, if they have kids in private schools, it might actually be in their interest to elect a crappy school board with bad ideas, so their own kids will appear better competitively when it's college admissions time!

Good point, although I doubt enough parents would do that to become a problem.

 

[Bjorn]

Lol. Wow. Shane, you are a treasure.

Notice the (UK) behind his link. On the very same page you'll find this, which he didn't quote:

In Scotland, Australia, the United States and most other English-speaking nations, a school which does not charge tuition fees but is financed and/or controlled by the government, in contrast to a private school (also known as an independent school); here the word "public" is used much as in "public library", i.e. to mean "provided to the public at public expense."

 

[TragicMonkey]

Notice the (UK) behind his link. On the very same page you'll find this, which he didn't quote:

I know. I was commenting on the audacity of using the term in the British sense, knowing that it means the opposite of what the term means in America, site of the hypothetical schools in question.

 

[gnome]

Well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(UK)

"The term "public" (first adopted by Eton College) refers to the fact that the school is open to the paying public, as opposed to a religious school, which was open only to members of a certain church. It also distinguished it from a private education at home (usually only practical for the very wealthy who could afford tutors)."

So it is not the case that a public school must let anyone who wants to come in for free in order to be a public school.

I don't care whether a dictionary says you can call it a public school... what I care about is whether it performs the same service as existing public schools. Existing public schools are open to all resident children in its designated district.

This is life. Ain't no guarantees.

A funny think to say when you propose removing an existing guarantee.

But if that's a problem, the parents of the children who aren't admitted are free to start their own. Parents of the existing school who aren't satisfied are free to join another or start their own as well. These are aspects that aren't there with government schools.

Those that are free to, may not be able to... nor may they necessarily be able to adequately provide for their own children, due to conditions not their own fault. What if most local school "groups" choose not to admit handicapped students, and there are only two handicapped families in the area... neither of whose parents feel qualified to teach their kids themselves?

Again, they would have every incentive to do so, and even if they didn't there would be other options for parents. Those don't exist now.

I understand your goal and how this would achieve more options for parents--what I am trying to assess is what is given up, so that I may compare. One item given up is guaranteed school availability.

It could be done, but there'd be some weirdness. What if someone paid the taxes for part of the year but not all?

Well, I think of it as a negative-option deal... you start out automatically as a contributor... but can choose to opt out, in order to get a qualifying discount on your taxes. Whether you've paid becomes a matter of tax law, your level of participation determines what you owe.

I don't know if I really am behind this anyway... my general philosophy is, universal education provides a distinct, though non-separable service to an area, and everyone who lives there to benefit from it bears a responsibility for the cost.

 

[Tmy]

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.

Say Shane, arent you just describing the history of the US school system? Your senerio would just evolve to what we have today.

Your hypothetical parents would soon realize that they could use the goverenment as a cash cow for their kids education instead of footing the bill themselves ( just like the pro voucher people), The govt comes in and the ball starts rolling.........you end up with what we have now.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

And who certifies them? The gubmint? President (LOL) Badnarik? "Dr" Harry Brown?

 

[HarryKeogh]

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).

This part actually seems very workable and would give homeschooled kids more interaction with children and allow parents with expertise in different areas the opportunity to share their knowledge with other parents' children. For this to be illegal is absurd.

 

[shanek]

Say Shane, arent you just describing the history of the US school system?

Up until the government took over and things went downhill, yes.

Your senerio would just evolve to what we have today.

Except for the fact that in my scenario the government doesn't take over and ruin it.