-- Comment At Your Own Risk --
Make sure the gun is ready because that is the only way this plan is going to happen. The educrats will fight with their lives.
I can just hope it does come to that.
Difster, you're a man after my own heart. I'm in the middle of reading Gatto's Underground History (www.johntaylorgatto.com) and much of the stuff he found from his research is literally shocking.
Most telling was that a situation he noticed many times during his career, where good teachers were forced out of the system by administrators, was almost exactly like what happened to Mrs. Astro six years ago. She was a good teacher, but she didn't fit in the system, so she was pushed out by hook and by crook.
The worst part about the episode for me was that Mrs. Astro was pregnant at the time, and the stress from the situation almost caused her to lose the baby. However, this allowed her to go on early maternity leave, and that baby is now our beautiful and bright 5 year old girl.
Oh yeah...
Add to your list the elimination of compulsory attendance laws and anti-child labor laws.
The public school system needs to be de-funded, the property sold off and a good portion of the teachers executed. Ok, not executed, perhaps just a good Singapore caning is in order.
Aymayun, brother!
Saying the word "compete" around a socialist has the same effect as making Linda Blair bathe in holy water, during PMS.
Great post, btw. One of your better ones.
'Money For Schools!' has been the clarion call of the socialists for many decades now and things are only getting worse.
I seem to recall that, stastically, the worst school districts were paradoxically those that spent the most money per student.
Thousands of private schools would pop up all over the country
I would add the possibility of web-based schools popping up like weeds in addition to private brick-and-mortar schools.
The cost of private education would plummet
Back in 'the day', a discount broker was one who only charged 30 or 40 bucks commission per stock transaction. Now, with internet brokers everywhere, only the most expensive full-service brokers charge that much.
I envision a similar thing would happen with private schools.
Excellent post, Difster.
And Astrosmith is exactly right: Gatto's book is an eye-opener. I had no clue about all the Prussian ideology and whatnot behind the public school system.
Crazy stuff.
You also need to have a "school" just for kids who are going nowhere. You could call it elementary prison. When you get to be 13 or 14 years old, you graduate to junior prison. No teaching going on here. Just outdoor sports, weightlifting and watching the clock for the next meal.
Of course, you could leave this school any time you wanted by joining a different school and getting results. Otherwise you go back.
Also the teachers would get paid according to their abilities, not by the socialistic 'fair' scheme used currently that protects the incompetent and removes incentives to do better.
I think your conviction that costs would plummet is not as certain as you imagine. Especially if truancy remained an offense, private schools would be able to keep admission costs high; indeed they'd need to in order to cover those higher teacher's salaries. Consider the example of post-secondary education, which even though it's not absolutely required, nevertheless charges an arm and a leg. Student debt is astronomical now and I'd expect the same with private secondary schools. New loan products would develop, say like Legacy Mortgages, rather than lower prices.
Another consequence of school privatization is that many areas of the country would go unserviced simply because it is not profitable enough to do it. If you thought truancy is bad now, just see what it would be like under a wholly private system.
Sorry Difster. Privatization may be a solution for a lot of things but it isn't the solution to everything and public schooling is not everywhere as bad as you make out to be. My secondary education was just fine and I know there are many first-rate public schools out there.
You're brain-washed Ken. I will even go so far as to say that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are imagining all education, future and past, being as it is presently practiced in public schools. This is not so, nor should it be so. Public schools, all public schools are horrible models for educating a populace. There are better ways, many of them.
Please, go read http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/c...pters/
index.htm
After you've read that come back and see us.
Could be worse. in NH, they've ruled (state supreme court) that the state does have a responsibility to fund and provide an education to children.
That is directly and solely funded from property taxes. With the coming real estate bubble pop, things are looking to get pretty ugly pretty quick. Values go down, so the rate has to go up to keep level.
Dif, you say it well.
Astrosmith - you are SO RIGHT about the need to remove the compulsory attendance laws.
Wes, ay-yah on the word "competition"!
Serena got me started on John Taylor Gatto's books, and he nails the truth about schooling in America. I got a softcover copy of "The Underground History of American Education," and it took me a LOOONG time to get through it, it's just so packed with information that blew my mind. He's also got a collection of essays called "Dumbing Us Down," which is a great way to get people to look at education from a perspective other than the one that public schooling forces down our throats.
Athor Pel, I'm reading through the chapters of that book. I don't know if I should continue to read it out of fear of entering a deep depression.
Ken, you are just plain wrong and I wish you weren't.
I think your conviction that costs would plummet is not as certain as you imagine.
But it is. Without government schools to compel people to go to, there would be no compulsory education and no truancy. In my short post, I didn't account for such things as the abolition of truancy laws but it should be plain they would fall by the wayside if my plan were adopted. The whole point is about freedom and attendance laws are not conducive to freedom.
Haloscan ate the rest of that comment. GRRRR. Maybe I'll do the rest later.
Difster, right on, brother. There is no place in the constitution that the government has the duty to educate ( brainwash, or "Dumb Down") your children ("collective"). But what does that ancient, archaic document mean to the evil bastards running the show today, anyhow?
Even if you eliminate truancy, Difster, you are still going to have problems. Look again at post-secondary schools; if tuition is even a third of what post-secondary schools charge, you are talking about tens of thousands of dollars per child to get them from kindergarten through grade 12. Now, if you happen to be a middle class America and want to provide your child the advantages of the best private schools, it's going to be a helluva lot more than that. Factor in multiple children and you'll be breaking the bank in no time.
Moreover, without truancy laws, the bottom quarter to a third of this country won't even bother to educate their children, which eliminates any chance they may have had under the present system.
I support ideas like Alberta's charter schools (look it up in Wiki), P3 partnerships, private along the public system, religious-based schools, and so on. But, you just can't drop the public system. Whatever its flaws, and any human institution private or public will have flaws, it is a necessary evil. Best to work with it and make it better by being involved.
The lower classes are emerging from the public education ignorant and brainwashed. Besides which, you're forgetting charity schools. Anyone that really wanted to, that is, had the drive and ambition, could still get an education. Taxpayers should not have to pay to educate the lazy and voluntarily ignorant. The option of homeschooling would still be available as well.
Plus, if parents really cared about getting their children the best education possible, they would be willing to forego all the little expensive luxeries, like a new car every year, or cable TV. All that taxpayer funded schooling does is make it easier for people to be selfish, weak and lazy; this is the same problem with taxpayer funded welfare.
Education is not a right, it is a luxury! One which taxpayers should not be forced to provide to the masses.
The lower classes are emerging from the public education ignorant and brainwashed.
No more so, and actually less so, than if they didn't go to school at all.
Education is not a right, it is a luxury! One which taxpayers should not be forced to provide to the masses.
I would say education is a privilege and there are cases when that privilege could and even should be revoked.
As an educated citizenry is a desirable goal in a democratic society, I think it is fair to ask taxpayers to contribute to the provision of that education. I'm all for periodic assessments and reviews to ensure the money is used efficiently and effectively. I'm all for charter school programs and other forms of decentralized administration and curriculum review. But, ultimately, every child of any financial means ought to have the opportunity to attend school and, having graduated from secondary, be able to attend post-secondary schools commensurate with their performance.
I don't remeber it being in the Constitution, but it is in the Communist Manifesto. I guess that tells one where we are truly heading...or closely resembling.
If people have the ability to choose where their children go to school, and aren't paying out of taxes for the crappy public education as well, they can choose the school that best suits their requirements. This means, no enrollment=no money. Period. How can creating education as a competitive market be a bad thing? If your teachers suck, or your cirriculum is trash, if the students are unruly, you don't get my money. Someone else does. You go out of business, and the good school thrives. It's not difficult to understand, unless you never got beyond that crappy public education that you recieved. Good insights, Dif.
Eaglewood,
Unfortunately when the educrats do fight back, it will be with the cops on their side so it won't be as easy as it sounds.
Great post. It'll take a revolution to get the Education Establishment out of our childrens'lives. There's no way they'll voluntarily give up the indoctrination.
As a recent public school grad who's now trying to actually become educated, I think this is spot on. Too many of my friends have graduated without knowing how to THINK or learn on their own, they only know what was fed to them.
Ken said: you are talking about tens of thousands of dollars per child to get them from kindergarten through grade 12. Now, if you happen to be a middle class America and want to provide your child the advantages of the best private schools, it's going to be a helluva lot more than that. Factor in multiple children and you'll be breaking the bank in no time.
If all the money that these same families are paying in taxes stayed in their pockets then it wouldn't be that much of a difference. Plus it would teach people that you do what you can afford not what you think you deserve. Too many people walk around sure that they "deserve" something. This plan of Dif's would help change that... you aren't entitled to anything, you EARN those things.
Truancy? What of it?
The world needs ditch diggers too.
I agree, Alli. Americans sure act like we're all entitled to something, don't we?
Alli: I agree with the basic premise that an entitlement culture is not a good thing and it works against personal responsibility and achievement. In this respect, by all means, let's make changes or scrap altogether some welfare programs, public housing, some endowments for the arts, and other entitlements. Education, however, is not an area where we ought to adopt this approach, in my opinion. I am certain that a completely private program would have devastating effects on literacy and the economy with vast numbers of children no longer attending school. At present, there may be a lot of bad schools and a lot of dropouts but this will pale in comparison to the effects of a fully privatized system.
As for the costs, without doing a detailed analysis, I doubt the savings in taxes would be near the amount required to put your children through privatized school. Right now, I pay $822/month for my daughter's private kindergarten program; that's almost $7400 for a full year's tuition. Even if we accept Difster's premise that costs will go down--something I don't think will be the case--, it's doubtful that it would drop below $2500 or so a year; on the flip side, I could easily see it rising to $9000-10,000/yr per child. Either way, for most people, the education portion of their taxes won't cover that, especially if they have multiple children.
by all means, let's make changes or scrap altogether some welfare programs, public housing, some endowments for the arts, and other entitlements. Education, however, is not an area where we ought to adopt this approach, in my opinion.
What is the public education system other than a HUGE welfare handout? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know what you think the difference is?
Right now, I pay $822/month for my daughter's private kindergarten program; that's almost $7400 for a full year's tuition.
I've taught my 4 year old daughter to read at the level of an 8 year old for less than $100 in materials since her first set of flash cards. What's your point?
I'm stunned. You mean quality of education can't be guaranteed by throwing large amounts of $$ at it? It must be "instilled" in the student? Actually *gasp* taught?
We live in a society that runs on the whims of emotionally devastated women (read: feminists) who have turned every "government program" into a compensation for something not given to them. To throw logic at such a system is similar to pearls and swine or something like that.
I agree with your premise (sp?) that a free market environment would go quite a ways toward reducing the fat we all see in the Public Education system.
I just can't abide the thought of all the "It's not FAIR" squealing that would resonate from sea to shining sea.
Ken,
You're operating with so many false assumptions I despair of pointing them all out.
But the number one false assumption you seem to have is: that all children and by extension all adults do not want to learn anything, especially on their own. You seem to think that all people must be forced to learn things. This is the prime assumption of the public school system and it is false.
Just ask Difster how long it took to teach his four year old daughter to read and then ask him why she wanted to learn to read. Yes, ask why she wanted to learn to read. I say that because I'm certain Difster loves his daughter and would in no way force her to do something which she found painful.
It's the public schools that destroy our curiosity. Ask a first grader whether he likes to learn new things and be more like an adult, then ask a fourth grader. I think you will see exactly what I'm talking about.
Then you should wonder how this nation operated for about one hundred years without any public schools at all and for close to 60 or 70 more years without the majority of public schools being compulsory.
Read a newspaper from the late 1700's. See how easy it is to comprehend, most probably it will not be easy. Then realize that the vast majority of the readers of said newspaper taught themselves to read and that over ninety percent of that reading population read such like everyday, even farmers far from any city.
Difster and many others propose a future without compulsory public schools because they know it's been done before and done well.
Just ask Difster how long it took to teach his four year old daughter to read and then ask him why she wanted to learn to read. Yes, ask why she wanted to learn to read. I say that because I'm certain Difster loves his daughter and would in no way force her to do something which she found painful.
Good point Athor. She does love to learn. There are times I have to get on her case about paying attention etc. but after we're done and she can tell me what she learned, she's always excited about it. What's really cool though is when she realizes that she's talking to me about something that we studied a week or two earlier.
You all make excellent points but I truly don't understand Ken's opposition to my points. The government is horribly inefficient at education. I've got an on going discussion about this at another forum and the leftists there are echoing many of Ken's points albeit with venom and vitriol.
Someone there argued that I couldn't possibly educate a kid properly with only 2 hours of education per day. The truth is, I haven't. I have spent far less time than that educating my daughter. That will change as she gets a little older and her attnetion span( hopefully) improves.
I'm nearly forty and still pissed about my public education. My parents had no idea. They would now opt for private school if given a choice.
Interesting side: achievement test scores are going down in my state due to english-as-a-second-language students. Some schools have gone from 70% white-20% black-10% latino, to 80% Latin American-15% white-5% black and latino. This has happened within the last twenty years. Mass immigration ought to be the final nail in the public education coffin. Smart parents will remove their children ASAP, no matter the cost.
Hey Plumber, thanks for the inuput. How did you come across my blog? I haven't run across you on any of the other blogs I read.
I went from either-orr to kate's kafe.
I'm awefully busy and I tend read local and state blogs. Venturing out is a luxury.
I also go to socialist blogs. I've been kicked out of moveon and daily kos...with pride.
Ken fails to consider the fact that college tuitions are grossly inflated by the tremendous (or better... horrendous) influx of government money to colleges in the form of taxpayer funded scholarships, "in state" subsidies, and various other tricks. I read an article somewhere a few years back that attempted to show (quite convincingly) that increase in college tuition was directly proportional to the amount of government funding going towards paying student's tuitions.
As a college student (not for much longer thankfully) it's painfully obvious how much of my money is wasted on programs designed to use up those massive budgets public universities "require". Some buildings are renovated/overhauled/redecorated every other year. The school funds numerous "free" on campus concerts, events, speakers, movies etc. Everywhere I go there are fancy new golf carts sitting around for administrators to drive should they need to go outside their offices. Most professors are payed 60 to 120 thousand a year to teach 2-3 classes a semester, this totals up to 10 hours a week or so lecturing and another 5-10 hours a week holding office hours (times in which they're merely required to be availible to students), no professor actually grades papers, the school hires students for that. And finally, like the professors, the staff enjoys a very plesant work environment in which they're mearly required to look busy, I once observed an elderly man on the landscaping crew spend better than 15 minutes "watering" one large flower pot. He stood there holding the hose, barely moving as water poured out of what was now a large bucket of mud and flooded the sidewalk, forcing the vain amongst the passers-by to take a detour rather than get their shoes muddy. The grass is cut twice weekly, water fountains and such are drained and cleaned weekly, and the school hires people to nightly erase and clean all the chalk boards (professors can't be bothered with such things of course.) Finally and perhaps most infuriatingly, the school provides free taxi service to students. Anyone within a mile of campus may call and have a van pick them up and take them to anywhere else in that region they desire free of charge. I'm not sure anything infuriates me more than knowing my money is going to students too lazy to walk around and too irresponsible to arrange transportation for themselves.
It's ironic that one would point to colleges as evidence that privitization would increase costs, as I doubt there's many better examples of the incredible wastefulness and amotivation caused by public funding.
-Jake
Thanks for weighing in, Jake! I had a feeling that tuition costs were grossly higher than what they needed to be, but didn't have any actual insight to offer. Now we've got it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Er, not calling you a horse, of course. =D
Excellent write up Jake. I always suspected that was the case and it makes sense.
The privitazion of the school system and elimination of truancy laws leaves the possibility of creating an elitist society in which only those that can afford the cost (inevitably excluding the majority of lower income families) can recieve the benefits of an education.
Although it will foster competition and a rise in quality of education and competence of consequent generations, you must account for a rise in poverty and ignorant and uneducated lower classes (as well as portions of the middle and elite classes if truancy laws are eliminated). Society will split and form much like the archaic caste systems in place only a few centuries ago (and to some extent that exist still today).
The privitazion of the school system ...
I'm not talking about privitizing it, I'm talking about eliminating government support of it and letting it fend for itself. No regulation, no money etc.
...leaves the possibility of creating an elitist society in which only those that can afford the cost (inevitably excluding the majority of lower income families) can recieve the benefits of an education.
As I've already demonstrated, you can educate a child VERY CHEAPLY. Get out of the mindset that education must come from a classroom and must cost a lot of money.
you must account for a rise in poverty and ignorant and uneducated lower classes (as well as portions of the middle and elite classes if truancy laws are eliminated).
What are you basing that on? Literacy in this country was very high before we had public schools. If children end up uneducated, it's the fault of the parents.
ociety will split and form much like the archaic caste systems in place only a few centuries ago (and to some extent that exist still today).
The caste system had to do with property rights, not education. Yes, the lower class tended to be uneducated but culturally, they saw no reason to get an education. They had no books, no library no Internet etc. They were laborers and farmers; reading wasn't a necessity for most of them. Reading is a necessity today and learning to read is easy for anyone that isn't mentally disabled.
Come on back with some stronger assertions next time A.T.
Those folks over at the other forum seemed to have collective (collectivist?) IQs somewhere in the negative.
Now you know why I only post there when I want to stir up a crap storm.
Damn right on all points. Preach it!
Commenting by HaloScan
