Discussion in 'Education' started by Modbert, Jul 11, 2011.
Braun: Advocates of privatized education want to end public schools | NJ.com
Oh well, at least they'll drive independents right into the Democrats waiting, open arms
I consider myself a libertarianish conservative and I see a need for public schools. The current model however, is far from perfect.
Schools need to get away from social engineering and concentrate on the basics. They should also identify students by ability and try to focus them on areas that interest them or the educators see as viable paths for the student in the future.
We have gotten into the cookie cutter method of education, with everyone trying to teach everyone the same thing, regardless of their ability to learn it. Schools have become a combination of a daycare system and a self esteem factory, and have lost thier primary reason, to educate people for the adult world.
Education from 1-3 should be used to identify academic minded students, and those that need additonal help. by high school specialization should begin preparing students for further education, or start aiming them at a trade.
Before people get into classism people in trades with ambition and effort can make more money than people with an academic background. It would be to thier advantage to start early. If they want to later go to school to learn about business and such they can do it later.
Another dishonest Doggie thread.
You couldn't think for yourself if your life depended on it.
Do tell how this is dishonest.
More and more people are speaking out against the public school system because it has become incredibly expensive and is failing at its responsibility. Does that mean we should get rid of public schools? No, but they need a major overhaul and any time anybody tries to change the status quo the "educrats" and the unions take to the streets with their scare tactics.
That's what makes it so refreshing to see someone like Chris Christie telling them to stick it up their asses.
Representative of rightist extremism designed to create a de facto class system where those who can afford to educate their children (read: worthy) can, and the poor go with no education. The dogma is predicated on the fallacy that parents faced with the prospect of their children receiving no education will prepare themselves better and work harder to ensure their children might go to school.
Such a plan is morally reprehensible and potentially un-Constitutional, see: Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (1972).
What a crock of shit.
Returning education to the realm of fee-for-service will merely call for parents to bear the r-r-r-r-responsibility of educating their kids, just like they already do in feeding, clothing and housing them.
What's morally reprehensible is shaking down those who, for whatever reason, don't want -or worse can't have- children to pay for the breeders.
Separate names with a comma.