Is throwing money at schools really the solution?

[Conservative Libertarian]

Because it is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. The bottom, say, 25% of children (in terms of income) not being educated would be absolutely devastating to this country. Not to mention, I personally find the abolishment of public education to be morally repugnant.

And this is all taken care of at the state level, so it would end up being each state's decision.

I guess you're responsible for the education of poor children for the same reason the right says you are responsible for providing Iraq with a police force. It is good for the country.

Are they being properly educated now with the present public school system? If they were, this discussion probably wouldn't be occuring.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Because it is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. The bottom, say, 25% of children (in terms of income) not being educated would be absolutely devastating to this country. Not to mention, I personally find the abolishment of public education to be morally repugnant.

And this is all taken care of at the state level, so it would end up being each state's decision.

I guess you're responsible for the education of poor children for the same reason the right says you are responsible for providing Iraq with a police force. It is good for the country.

I am not responsible for the "nation as a whole." Theoretically, military action in Iraq and elsewhere (this is not a justification of the Iraq war -- that remains arguable) is in defense or protection of our rights. That military force is a government-citizen responsibility is another discussion but pertinent and I'm more than willing to have it. It is far different from education which does nothing to preserve or protect my natural rights.

To address the first part of your statement, where is the "best interest of the nation as a whole" part of my responsibilities? Is it written in the Constitution, the Declaration? You seem to be telling me that my interests and my rights are second to the needs of the nation. If this is true,it connects to quite a bit more. For example, the conservative arguments that gay marriage is detrimental to the family and the nation gain legs. The rights of gay men to marry are, like all rights, subordinate to the needs of the nation (or state).

Your assumption that the bottom 25 percent would not be educated is also just that, an assumption, and I should think a wrong assumption. My folks were there in that category while I was in school. They paid and worked extra to send me to a private school, which was inexpensive in comparison to public education.

[Susanna]

Before there was a public school system, communities still often hired a school teacher - and her class room was often the church.

[Sir_WilliamXI]

Before there was a public school system, communities still often hired a school teacher - and her class room was often the church.

Don’t tell that to the libs, they might go into convulsions.... Wait; on second thought...

[Dreamer]

I read a pretty ridiculous article recently about kids who are getting paid by the hour to study. What is this world coming to....

[Fantasy Chaser]

Because it is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. The bottom, say, 25% of children (in terms of income) not being educated would be absolutely devastating to this country. Not to mention, I personally find the abolishment of public education to be morally repugnant.

And this is all taken care of at the state level, so it would end up being each state's decision.

I guess you're responsible for the education of poor children for the same reason the right says you are responsible for providing Iraq with a police force. It is good for the country.

First of all, most of those bottom-25% aren't doing that badly. Second, homeschooling has been mentioned. Third, the arguement could be made that public education is an oxymoron. Fourth, the Feds have their unconstitutional finger in the pie. Fifth, unlike education, foreign policy is the prerogative of the federal government.

Are they being properly educated now with the present public school system? If they were, this discussion probably wouldn't be occuring.

No s---!

[candygirl]

I will say that the Department of Education should be abolished and hand over complete control of the schools back over to the states.

[Registered_Democrat]

First of all, most of those bottom-25% aren't doing that badly. Second, homeschooling has been mentioned. Third, the arguement could be made that public education is an oxymoron. Fourth, the Feds have their unconstitutional finger in the pie. Fifth, unlike education, foreign policy is the prerogative of the federal government.

No s---!

I would not be opposed to education controlled completely by the states. You wouldn't catch me in a state that didn't have public education, though. I doubt that any state would adopt such measures anyway.

And as for homeschooling, let's assume that many of the people who would be homeschooling in a system without public education would be doing so because they could not afford school. It is also likely that the reason they are not making as money is because they are less educated. So now they have to work 2 jobs (assuming 2 parents) and then educate their children in their "spare time." And they might have just scraped by and gotten through high school, yet they are somehow supposed to prepare their children for college?

It would lead to a huge gap in knowledge, and children would be the ones to pay the price. The system as it is may not be perfect, but knowledge and education are things which are fundamental to modern society and the human experience, they should be available to everyone.

[Fantasy Chaser]

I would not be opposed to education controlled completely by the states. You wouldn't catch me in a state that didn't have public education, though. I doubt that any state would adopt such measures anyway.

And as for homeschooling, let's assume that many of the people who would be homeschooling in a system without public education would be doing so because they could not afford school. It is also likely that the reason they are not making as money is because they are less educated. So now they have to work 2 jobs (assuming 2 parents) and then educate their children in their "spare time." And they might have just scraped by and gotten through high school, yet they are somehow supposed to prepare their children for college?

It would lead to a huge gap in knowledge, and children would be the ones to pay the price. The system as it is may not be perfect, but knowledge and education are things which are fundamental to modern society and the human experience, they should be available to everyone.

1. Abraham Lincoln was born dirt poor, and had little formal education. His mother taught him to read under circumstances in which people had to do real work, and Lincoln's own hunger to learn took care of the rest.
2. I do not believe that in most (if any) cases both parents would need to be working full time. And a lot can be accomplished with study and self-reliance substituting for some of the instruction. If they're too lazy to put forth the effort, then their parents ought to motivate them better.
3. Ed Heinmann, who designed a number of successful Douglas (later McDonnell-Douglas) attack planes for the Navy (including the outstanding A-4 Skyhawk) never went to college.
4. The system as it is is going to pot. The public schools are educating less and less, and indoctrinating (often against the will of the parents) more and more.
5. The opportunity for education should be there for those willing to work for it. Not just put it on the taxpayers' backs so that incompetent or agenda-driven skunks can get tenure and not get fired for things that no one would last ten seconds in most any other kind of job.

[Susanna]

I can't see the 2nd page on this thread.

Edit: this is weird, I changed the # posts per page, so that there is only one page. But before that, it showed 18 posts, but the last 2 were 21 & 22. When the extraneous posts were removed, the posts weren't renumbered, and it seemed to confuse the system. There were fewer than 20 posts, (I was using 20 posts/page), but the post count seemed to indicate that there should be 2 pages, and it didn't display any post higher than the #20.