School Vouchers > Logan Utah, Cache Valley, Bridgerland, Local Community Forums, News and Information > Bridgerland, Logan Utah, Cache Valley Utah

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search Members

Forums > Local Personal Posts > IN DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION

Subject: School Vouchers

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Author

Messages

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/26/2007 9:18 AM
This is in response to some good arguments brought up agaist vouchers. "I have yet to see a VALID, FACT BASED, argument against vouchers." That is because you refuse to consider all that is and has been said if it disagrees with your premise. You want what you want now regardless of the consequences. You can smoke and mirrors it all you want, but vouchers are a government subsidy. Ultimately it all comes from taxpayers' pockets. Vouchers EXTEND government control, not reduce it. Look at the countries where there are private school subsidies (vouchers). They are really government schools that are privately owned. The government controls the curriculum and those who are certified to teach. At least now the private schools are independent. They won't be for long if vouchers are implemented. Private schools will not be able to NOT take the voucher to remain independent either, because of COMPETITION! Tuition will increase, because supply and demand will dictate it, as others have said here. So the poor will not have any help after all. Until the government steps in, private schools will only take those students who make them look good. The rest, particularly the more expensive students, will be left in the public ed. system, making it look worse and decreasing support for it. It is already hard enough to get support as it is without doing that. Yes, it will hurt the truly American experiment in educating ALL students. Yes, public education was started by the pilgrims in the 1600's and laid the foundation for a population willing to fight for freedom. The rest of the children not accepted into private schools will grow up in a system that will have lost support, since the rich and powerful can pull their children out. When these kids get old enough to vote, our country will be in BIG trouble. Public education was one of the pillars that our country was built on. Destroy it and you destroy our form of government. I have struggled with a lot of the things you have brought up and I realize that vouchers aren't the perfect solution but it the best solution that the public will accept right now. Are you familiar with the history of education in Utah before public schooling? In the days before Utah was a state the LDS Church set up a great education system which had a very low tuition. Then the protestants from the East set up missionary schools. They had college educated teachers and many of the LDS abandoned their own schools and went to these missionary schools. This later led to the formation of public education, which was a requirement for Utah to become a state. I do disagree that public education is essential to our form of government. Why did the founders not include it in the Constitution? In fact the 10th amendment prohibits the federal governments involvement. If you read the Communist Manifesto it is one of the essential points to that government. Now, if you didn't notice our country is in big trouble. The public school system is not only failing the populace in general but it is destroying the faith of many. It isn't as bad in Utah yet but in other states homosexuality is openly taught as being acceptable and sex-ed is often very graphic. Kids with standards are ridiculed by both faculty and peers. Kids are no longer taught freedom and what our founders envisioned this country to be. In fact they are openly taught to live off of the government through welfare like programs. Schools are failing also as far as what is being taught. To many schools are becoming a government daycare. Many of the students have had their love of learning destroyed. Just look at most people in the nation. They lack the skills required for critical thinking and forming a decent argument. They are uninformed as to what is going on in the world. They may know what the headlines say but they do not have the skills to analyze the contents or question the bias of the newspaper. Very people are even involved in their government. I think this is because they are uneducated. Now, you mention the pilgrims having public education. Please explain. Was everybody in the colony forced to pay for it? Was faith allowed in the schools? I agree that this may extend government control into the private sector but the reason I support it is that it starts to break up the virtual monopoly of the public school system. What is going to happen to it? I personally hope that it disappears all together and we go back to a system which really teaches people how to think and learn. David, I hope that you can see that our form of government is being destroyed on so many fronts and public education is not protecting us but is somewhat encouraging it as the wrong things are being taught in the public schools.

Fiery Darts
Posts:135

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/26/2007 12:26 PM
There are a few points worth making here (at least that are off the top of my head). Why did the founders not include it in the Constitution? Schooling has almost always been a local issue. To this day, school districts, while regulated by state and national governments, are organized and run within cities and counties. The national Constitution doesn't mention schools because it was and is outside of its scope. I find Mr. Mulholland's argument that eliminating public education will improve the education of the public to be intriguing. It certainly is counter-intuitive. I can see strong corollaries to public health care, where the level of care received is almost universally reduced by providing it to everyone. The comparison fails, however, because while almost everyone will seek out some medical care when they are truly in need of it, most people don't seek out education when they are truly stupid, nor would a private education system have a requirement for schools to provide emergency teaching to critically dumb people. There are other solutions than to subsidize private educations for wealthy students. In Europe, students are sorted about the time they enter high school, with college bound students sent to one kind of school, and other students sent to schools aimed at vocational or technical careers. This idea has some merit, but would be difficult to implement in the US, partly because it would be seen (correctly?) as being elitist (even though it could be based on aptitude rather than income) and partly because it would be undemocratic. The net effect of such a system would be that college bound students would be in something more akin to a private school, and the rest of the students would be able to focus more on practical learning rather than preparatory groundwork for further education. Ultimately, I strongly support public schools. In reality, Mulholland's complaints are either unfounded or else they reflect the will of the people in education. Valid arguments exist for teaching children frankly about sex and tolerance. Discrimination against religion is still prohibited by the Constitution (although individuals will still mock those who they disagree with), and civics is taught with more passion in schools than it is on this board. That many students don't remember what they were taught is unfortunate, but probably unavoidable. I, for one, remember my civics lessons in the 4th grade. I remember setting at lunch in high school talking about comparative politics with Mulholland and others. My education was not at all lacking just because I was trapped in a public school system, and I think that our schools can provide this for everyone. I hope that you can see that our form of government is being destroyed on so many fronts and public education is not protecting us but is somewhat encouraging it as the wrong things are being taught in the public schools. Public schools have been critical to protecting our way of life and our form of government, and they will continue to do so. How else will we prepare the next generation of citizens? Our nation is more than land, or even government. It is an idea, and at the core of that idea is the belief that all people in our nation should be a part of it. Providing education to all children in this country is just one way that we preserve that idea.

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 2:07 PM
On the comparison of public schools to public health care: The comparison fails, however, because while almost everyone will seek out some medical care when they are truly in need of it, most people don't seek out education when they are truly stupid, nor would a private education system have a requirement for schools to provide emergency teaching to critically dumb people. So??? If people choose to be uneducated, don't they also choose the consequences that come along with that? Should we prevent the natural consequences from happening? This reasoning does not equate being insensitive or uncaring. We should allow people to use their free agency. Who am I (or you, or anyone) to force someone to do something, even if I know it would be good for them? For those who want to get an education but are held back financially, why can't we have some type of private charity system such as existed in the early days of our country? This would provide opportunity for the willing, while eliminating any compulsion on either side. Public schools have been critical to protecting our way of life and our form of government... How else will we prepare the next generation of citizens? Ridiculous! What we should do is allow parents to do their divinely-appointed jobs of choosing how to raise their own children. Let the free market handle education instead of government so the people can get what they want. Let the parents choose whatever type of school suits their values and needs (or do the job themselves) and TRUST in them, just a little... to do what they think is best. Not all of them will measure up to your standards (or mine) but, so what? Again, who are we to decide? We need to get over the idea of regulating people -- this is America for heaven's sake.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 3:06 PM
Welcome Carissa. Well said.

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 5:02 PM
If you read the Communist Manifesto it is one of the essential points to that government. Guilt by association is a fallacy. The Communist Manifesto also bans child labour - should we then restore it, simply to not be like the communists? It isn't as bad in Utah yet but in other states homosexuality is openly taught as being acceptable So is being black, being poor, and being disabled. I think what is being taught is tolerance for things people don't choose and have to live with. Also, I crossapply the other thread here: Your arguments continue to lack both real-world harms and philosophical consistency. and sex-ed is often very graphic. Or, as in Utah, is basically nonexistent. Kids with standards are ridiculed by both faculty and peers. I am not sure what you mean by this. Kids are no longer taught freedom and what our founders envisioned this country to be. I can only go off of my experiences, but I was taught a fairly neutral interpretation of American history: People believe X, some people believe Y. The debtae has been like Z. I was allowed to make my own interpretations. In fact they are openly taught to live off of the government through welfare like programs. Do you have evidence? Many of the students have had their love of learning destroyed. I can see how this would happen: I know that school makes me want to tear my hair out over how inane it is I think this is because they are uneducated. This is because logical argumentation is something that is fairly difficult to teach to people. Most people, on some level, are intuitively aware of some logical fallacies (For instance, the argument "Seattle is not the capital of the United States because you are a poo head!" would likely be recognised by most as invalid, even if the contention is correct), but formalising and expanding this knowledge is difficult, especially if the teacher himself is not aware of logic. You would basically need someone to specialise in it. I've spoken with others about this, and they give the argument that since ultimately all beliefs are held by desire (its just that some people desire to be logically consistent and others dont), logic ultimately cannot be "taught" since it must first be wanted. Next year, as Novice LD Captain(tm), I will have an opporitunity to teach logic, which I intend to pursue fully despite the above argument. Do you have any recommendations? I personally hope that it disappears all together and we go back to a system which really teaches people how to think and learn. I do not think that a wholly private system will allow for this. civics is taught with more passion in schools than it is on this board. My own experiences show this to be highly questionable. I remember setting at lunch in high school talking about comparative politics with Mulholland and others. Realise that this is the exception, not the norm. If people choose to be uneducated, don't they also choose the consequences that come along with that? There is the philosophical issue of consent that can be raised: If they are uneducated, then they are by definition not informed, and thus the question must be raised as to whether they have enough knowledge to actually make a decision. Should we prevent the natural consequences from happening? Of course we should. All other philosophical considerations aside, it is simply bad policy to allow people to not be educated: Imagine if we had pursued this policy when the Soviet Union launched sputnik. Would we have been able to overtake them, had people not even gone into the education system? With the meteoric rise of India and China as competitors, we would be overtaken so quickly if we simply allow people to not be educated, because they will continue to force their populations to be educated. Within a short amount of time, our public school system would entirely collapse and our higher education system would continue to rely on importing foreign students. We should allow people to use their free agency. Free agency depends upon informed consent. If I go to the doctor with a growth on my head, and the doctor informs me that the growth can be removed through surgery with absolutely no risk to me, and I accept, and then the doctor proceeds to decapitate me...do we say that I consented to this? In a superficial sense, I consented to the doctor operating on me, but since I was not properly informed as to the consequence, few people would say I had given consent in this case (Indeed, legally, I had not given consent) but are held back financially, why can't we have some type of private charity system such as existed in the early days of our country? Because the resources of private charity would be wholly overwhelmed by the hoardes of people seeking education. Furthermore, suddenly "education" could be tied to political interests, or to racist interests, or what not: As well, our education system would splinter into many different systems: Perhaps the school in rural Mississippi, being funded by the Church, decides to teach that evolution is blasphemy. A school in New York decides to teach black supremacy. We'd see "All-Mexican" schools or whatnot, and the cirriculum would collapse. Education would become extremely class-dependent, and eventually we would see a diminishing of social mobility in the United States and a sharp increase in inequality. Ridiculous! This is an assertion, not an argument. What we should do is allow parents to do their divinely-appointed jobs of choosing how to raise their own children. I rather think we should do what is best for the children, not simply what the parents think is best. Let the free market handle education instead of government so the people can get what they want. The free market is widely recognised to fail to bring about the most social good in a variety of circumstances. Education is one of them: The free market has few incentives to teach, for instance, the humanities at all. The free market has little incentive to teach the poor, or whatnot. Indeed, the free market has little incentive to teach truth: If there is a market for a widely popular lie, the free market dictates that such market will be exploited eventually. Free market mechanisms would skyrocket the costs of education at basically every level. You realise that we've already tried this to some degree: Prior to the civil war, the North tended toward having more compulsory education, and the South tended toward not having such education. In the South, it eventually became that education was a privledge of the aristocracy, and the South had apalling levels of human development because of it. Let the parents choose whatever type of school suits their values and needs (or do the job themselves) and TRUST in them, just a little... Many argue that the state of parenting in the United States is apalling. I'm not inclined to "trust" parents when it comes to our national security. We need to get over the idea of regulating people -- this is America for heaven's sake. Then we will see increasing class stratification, decreasing levels of education (as it is no longer the case that everyone is educated), divergent cirricula (One area teaches evolution, the other one doesn't. Which are is more likely to produce biologists or chemists or anything like that?). China, on the other hand, will continue to provide education to its billion plus people, continue to emphasise that being educated is the only way you can become worth something to society, will continue to produce engineers and scientists and even philosophers at a far greater rate than the US, and will eventually use the capital that is flowing throughout the United States to enter American markets and then begin impacting OUR education system. Thus, we see a situation where: 1. China starts to overtake the United States in innovation, because they are producing far more educated people. 2. This makes China richer. 3. China then uses its vast capital reserves to begin to buy out interests in American education corporations. This would be absolutely disasterous for the United States, I'm sure you realise. What if the "private charity" for the poor comes in the form of the People's Republic of China providing cheap or free education for the poor? What if the higher education systems, no longer recieving government funds in the slightest, now eagerly accept Chinese donations? How about lower education? This is a free market after all: If China wants to set up schools, or invest in schools, here in the United States, that is the dictate of the free market. Basically, wholly privitising the system would result in domination by our foreign competitors and enemies. This is not a particularly good thing. Whatever other philosophical consideration we have, the need for the United States to remain at least competitive far outweighs them.

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 6:28 PM
Zasch, it is simply bad policy to allow people to not be educated It is simply worse policy to take away their agency and the natural consequences of their actions (which helps them to learn and grow). the resources of private charity would be wholly overwhelmed by the hoardes of people seeking education Hmm... you mean society will be overwhelmed by hoardes of people seeking education when they have complete freedom to choose? I thought we couldn't trust them to do what would be best for themselves.

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 6:39 PM
I, of course, note that you have failed to respond to a massive number of arguments. But I am getting used to that It is simply worse policy to take away their agency and the natural consequences of their actions (which helps them to learn and grow). The outcome of the "informed consent" debate is paramount, but setting that aside, I have already detailed how, as a policy consideration, not as a philosophical matter, it is not good for the strength or future of the United States to transition to a private education system (and again, I note that you failed to respond to this). Hmm... you mean society will be overwhelmed by hoardes of people seeking education when they have complete freedom to choose? I thought we couldn't trust them to do what would be best for themselves. You seem to be vastly underestimating the number of people in the United States. If even a fraction of them pursue education, private charity will be quickly overwhelmed. If they do not pursue education, then the harms that I have outlined will make themselves apparent in an even stronger fashion.

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 6:41 PM
our education system would splinter into many different systems: Perhaps the school in rural Mississippi, being funded by the Church, decides to teach that evolution is blasphemy. A school in New York decides to teach black supremacy. We'd see "All-Mexican" schools or whatnot So what? Everyone gets to have what they want. Are you threatened by that? Are you threatened by the idea that we will not all conform to some standard or fit in some mold? There are laws to prevent crime and anarchy already in place. Let the people work out their differences naturally and be subject to the laws. Our nation won't fall apart because we are diverse. It is okay for us to have different beliefs. If I want someone to respect mine, I have to respect theirs. As to the rest of your argument, I have three words -- speculation, speculation, speculation. The option I support may be full of speculation as well, but I would rather err on the side of giving people back their freedoms. Especially when it comes to raising their own offspring. You seem to value "the welfare and progress of society" over personal liberty. Personal liberty is what has made America so great in the first place. Why take that away?

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 6:51 PM
I rather think we should do what is best for the children, not simply what the parents think is best. Do what's best for the children, huh? Best as decided by who -- you? The parents are the ones who should get to decide what is best.

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 6:57 PM
By the way, if you are so concerned about the United States being competetive with other nations educationally, please tell me how public education is currently doing a good job of that because it is my understanding we are pretty far behind.

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 7:27 PM
As to the issue of vouchers, I am neutral. I do share the main concern expressed in the article provided in the first post (more government control over private schools). I am glad that the issue is opening up debate, though. Obviously, I favor option #3 -- getting government out of the business of running schools altogether. Here are some interesting points made in the L.A. Times today: "...one of the surest ways to leave a kid "behind" is to hand him over to the government. Americans want universal education, just as they want universally safe food. But nobody believes that the government should run 90% of the restaurants, farms and supermarkets. Why should it run 90% of the schools — particularly when it gets terrible results? What about the good public schools? Well, the reason good public schools are good has nothing to do with government's special expertise and everything to do with the fact that parents care enough to ensure their kids get a good education." http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg12jun12,0,4683079.column?coll=la-opinion-center

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 9:45 PM
So what? Everyone gets to have what they want. Are you threatened by that? Are you threatened by the idea that we will not all conform to some standard or fit in some mold? This is not a matter of "rugged individualism" versus collectivism. What I am threatened by is that people will not have the necessary knowledge to compete in today's global economy, and thus the US will be overshadowed by other powers. I have three words -- speculation, speculation, speculation. A. You have not altered the probability of anything that I have said: I have made various predictions and given the logical support for those predictions, and thus you need to display why my expected harms will not occur for your argument to continue to be valid. The fact that it is speculation means nothing - of course, if we are going to talk about changing policy, we have to speculate on the effects of it. B. We already have an example in American history to look at: The pre-war South. C. Even the mere risk that the US education system will be bought out by foreign competitors is large enough, in my mind, to indicate against implimenting your plan. Personal liberty is what has made America so great in the first place. Why take that away? Because A. Education is the "great equaliser" - state-sponsored education allows everyone to get quality and cheap education (especially in the state university system) which helps to take advantage of talent that simply did not get born into the upper classes. B. "Personal liberty" is not unlimited - for instance, it is an infringement upon personal liberty to have a police force, or taxation, or a military, or a government. Perosnal liberty, when taken to the logical extreme (That is, 100% personal liberty) is anarchy. Do what's best for the children, huh? Best as decided by who -- you? Generally the educated in the society who have studied these things (education, learning, etc) , with democratic approval. The parents are the ones who should get to decide what is best. Let's say that I think sending my children to a Wahabi madrasah is best. Should this be allowed? Perhaps I don't think that women deserve an education, and thus I relegate my daughters to the level of servants in my house. Should this be allowed? Maybe I think that society is godless and thus I lock my children in their rooms until they are 18. Ought this be lalowed? There is nothing intrinsically more correct about "parents" than anything else - children should be allowed to become educated enough in order to be able to form informed consent about their lives. As well, children should be given the tools so that they can interact in whatever manner they please with society, even if they decide not to use those tools. By the way, if you are so concerned about the United States being competetive with other nations educationally, please tell me how public education is currently doing a good job of that because it is my understanding we are pretty far behind. Oh indeed, the public school system is failing to educate many, and we are falling behind, and we are starting to see the effects of this. This can only serve an argument for public education: We see what happens when our children are not educated, and thus we ought not to allow it to happen on a wide scale by abolishing the public education system. The present problems with the education system are structural and cultural. Americans simply don't place as much of a value upon learning (I would argue that they don't place much value on rational thinking, which is the primary problem) as people of say, India or China. As well, the administrations of various schools are often inept, and so much emphasis is now placed, for instance, on college attendance that schools have begun to suffer from massive grade and cirriculum inflation. I really do favour the path that many European nations take: At a certain point, some students begin academic training whereas others begin vocational training. This would probably be a far more efficent distribution of human capital, since it allows the quality of college education to improve (no longer shackled by those who "just need that degree") and allows people to excel at what they are more naturally suited to be. We need to start getting children to actually learn meaningful things at an early age, mostly so that we can prepare them for the far more expanded cirriculum of high school. Expectations on students need to go up, rather than expectations on schools. Grade inflation needs to be eliminated, though I'm not sure how to go about doing this, since once inflationary pressures begin, it would harm students to try to "go against the current". Wages for teachers need to go up, so that there are both more of them and those who enter are more skilled. I'd probably then say that most problems are cultural: There is no push for academic success. Reform this, and most other things would follow: The problem is that you cannot legislate a reform in culture.

Fiery Darts
Posts:135

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/12/2007 9:59 PM
Carissa, it's nice to have another voice. We don't have a lot of libertarians at this site. By the way, if you are so concerned about the United States being competetive with other nations educationally, please tell me how public education is currently doing a good job of that because it is my understanding we are pretty far behind. There are a lot of differences between the education systems in the US and other countries. Some of them artificially inflate the other countries relative to the US (or, if you prefer, artificially deflate the US compared to other countries). One key difference is that in most other countries, college bound students are in a different secondary school system than their peers. This has a lot of effects such as raising their averages in their high schools (versus vocational schools). I'm not sure how I feel about the differences, but I think that it is reflective of the American spirit that our schools are provided more evenly for all students than schools in other countries. In any case, there is no way that removing public schools and the requirement to attend school will result in a higher overall standard of education. I would be especially concerned because the job market has been moving towards having a higher percentage of jobs requiring significant training. This is not the right decade to start raising a generation of hillbillies.

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/13/2007 7:55 AM
This is not a matter of "rugged individualism" versus collectivism Actually, I think it is. Many people are passionate about this issue because they want more freedom and more choice. Parents are sick of someone else deciding what is "best" for their children and then seeing the poor results. What I am threatened by is that people will not have the necessary knowledge to compete in today's global economy, and thus the US will be overshadowed by other powers You have a basic distrust of people so you want to force them to do things for the greater good of us all. I completely disagree with this philosophy and it is incompatible with the principles America was founded on. you need to display why my expected harms will not occur for your argument to continue to be valid I certainly don't. I don't base my decisions on all this speculation. I base my decisions on the principles I believe to be correct and let the consequences follow. That's enough for me. If a free people in a land of opportunity with many incentives to do so, decide not to pursue higher education and make themselves eligible to compete globally, then they don't deserve the benefits that come along with that. I personally believe many people would rise to that challenge, but my speculation evolves from a philosophy you don't agree with so you will never accept it. If we were to agree on a philosophy, speculation might not be such a waste of time. We already have an example in American history to look at: The pre-war South And the early days of our republic, before compulsory attendance laws were enacted, when the literacy rate was very high. According to the Journal of Education in January 1828: “Our population is 12,000,000, for the education of which, we have 50 colleges, besides several times the number of well endowed and flourishing academies leaving primary schools out of the account. For meeting the intellectual wants of this 12,000,000, we have about 600 newspapers and periodical journals. There is no country, (it is often said), where the means of intelligence are so greatly enjoyed by all ranks and knowledge is so generally diffused among the lower orders of the community, as in our own.” The American people seemed to be doing just fine on their own. Education is the "great equaliser" Sounds like the propaganda used by the educated elite who aggressively promoted public schools back in the mid 1800's. I don't buy it. "Personal liberty" is not unlimited - for instance, it is an infringement upon personal liberty to have a police force, or taxation, or a military, or a government The constitution gives us a good guide for this. The government has the power to do some things which are necessary for the existence of the government and to adequately protect the people. Beyond that is where the infringement starts. Controlling education is not mentioned in the constitution. It is left to the people and the states. Maybe I think that society is godless and thus I lock my children in their rooms until they are 18. Ought this be lalowed? There are already laws against child abuse, you would be subject to those. Beyond that, you can raise your children however you want. There is nothing intrinsically more correct about "parents" than anything else Intrinsically more correct? What are you saying exactly? Do you not acknowledge that parents are the ones most responsible for taking care of and raising their children? Unless they are abusing that obligation, parents should be the ultimate authority as to what values are taught to their children and how they are raised. Where could the government or the "educated in society" claim to get the authority to displace the parents' role? Certainly not from the constitution. Again, if we don't agree on the rights of parents to make decisions for their children, we won't get anywhere. I think that is fundamental. Government exists to protect those rights. Oh indeed, the public school system is failing to educate many, and we are falling behind, and we are starting to see the effects of this. This can only serve an argument for public education Not for me. Public education has had the chance for years now to justify its existence. True education is a personal matter. There is no "one right way" to maximize the potential of every child. Everyone is individual and unique and we can't expect to press them all into the same mold the way our schools are set up to do. The brightest ones are held back by the system, and the ones who need the most time and attention are often left behind. Certainly the schools are the "great equalizer" in this sense -- but that's not a good thing. there is no way that removing public schools and the requirement to attend school will result in a higher overall standard of education Let's try it and see! This is not the right decade to start raising a generation of hillbillies. What?

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/13/2007 11:18 AM
Actually, I think it is. Perhaps for you, but not for me. I completely disagree with this philosophy and it is incompatible with the principles America was founded on. This is empty rhetoric. While I realise the rhetorical nature of the statement, I also feel compelled to bring up the examples of the United States Electoral College and the United States Senate, both bodies being concieved to help insulate government from democracy, because no one was really sure if it would work or not. . I base my decisions on the principles Then allow me to ask: Was the secession of the CSA moral in your mind? Do you oppose taxation? A national military? What are your thoughts on the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution? Your deontologist philosophy is interesting, but ultimately I do not think that it will ever achieve particularly widespread support: Most people are very concerned with the effects of a policy decision upon the nation when deciding whether to support it or not. when the literacy rate was very high. Largely because, in the New English and Middle colonies, those who emigrated were already established families, often quite wealthy. Especially in the New English colonies, there were strong religious pressures to attend school (for some - not for all, of course) because these colonies often operated like theocracies. You will notice, for instance, that education was compulsory in Massachusetts since the 17th century. As well, the United States government specifically planned out land for education resources (schools and such) when dealing with territorial expansion. I'm sure you will also take notice that, despite the number of colleges in the United States at the time, the graduation rate for even high school was extremely class-divided. Controlling education is not mentioned in the constitution. It is left to the people and the states. And, as far as I can tell, the states have organised public education systems. There are already laws against child abuse, you would be subject to those. Beyond that, you can raise your children however you want. But as a philosophical consideration, ought these parenting strategies be allowed? What are you saying exactly? The right or wrongness of some parenting strategy should be debated soley on its merits, and given no special consideration simply because the biological parents will it to be. Certainly not from the constitution. Again, as far as I can tell, the states are acting on this matter themselves. Unless there is a section of the Utah constitution that prohibits these things (Note: There isn't. Please see Article X Section 1 which provides for the establishment of a public education system and a higher education system), Utah is acting fully within its constitutional rights. The brightest ones are held back by the system, and the ones who need the most time and attention are often left behind. I don't particularly see how things would change, except perhaps in that smaller classroom sizes (due to lack of availibility and such) might allow for increased attention to be paid (though "needy" students likely are needy for a reason, and thus would be left behind) Let's try it and see! Feel free to lobby your state representatives.

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/13/2007 12:19 PM
Was the secession of the CSA moral in your mind? Do you oppose taxation? A national military? What are your thoughts on the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution? Haven't studied the civil war enough to answer this... I am opposed to the Federal Reserve but believe some taxation is necessary, we are a military family on active duty right now -- so no, and I believe the constitution is a wonderful inspired document that would serve our nation well if we would more strictly adhere to it. Your deontologist philosophy is interesting I had to look that word up! Never heard of it before. You will notice, for instance, that education was compulsory in Massachusetts since the 17th century. As well, the United States government specifically planned out land for education resources (schools and such) when dealing with territorial expansion Actually, that's not entirely true. With the help of Horace Mann, Massachusetts became the first state to pass compulsory school attendance laws in 1852. Common schools did exist before then with the government paying for the land and building only. Even in these common schools parents still paid tuition which allowed for local control. There were many private schools and charity free schools as well. Wikipedia (under Horace Mann)says: "The practical result of Mann's work was a revolution in the approach used in the common school system of Massachusetts, which in turn influenced the direction of other states." A revolution? Things must have operated quite differently before this, no? He was met with some fierce opposition to his Prussian ideals of what education should be like, but obviously his influence was strong enough with politicians. And, as far as I can tell, the states have organised public education systems And the federal government never interferes, right? The right or wrongness of some parenting strategy should be debated soley on its merits, and given no special consideration simply because the biological parents will it to be Debated by whom? So can I, as a complete stranger (with qualifying credentials of course), come over to your house with a commitee and debate your parenting strategy while you have no special advantage or say in the matter? Please... where is this authority derived from? You have the right as a parent to teach the values that you want to. What if these "educational professionals" all agree that research shows children perform better with religion in their lives, isn't the athiest entitled to his freedom to raise his children without religious influence if he so desires? No one can constitutionally take away his right to do that.

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/15/2007 12:12 AM
I don't have much time, so: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/%7Ecfrnb/masslaws.html The Federal Government does interfere, but not decisively on the big issue we are debating about: Compulsory education and public education. And yes, ones ability to parent can come into question all the time and investigated.

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/15/2007 12:58 PM
state-sponsored education allows everyone to get quality and cheap education It claims to provide this, but in reality it doesn't. Not all public schools provide a quality education. You yourself said "the public school system is failing to educate many, and we are falling behind". The cost may appear to be cheap, but is actually very high and so much money is spent inefficiently. I truly think the free market could do a better job than the government. For example, this is my first experience with active duty (government sponsored) health care and although it is "free" (yet I'm sure the cost is enormous) the quality is much lower than I've ever experienced. I think this is partly because there is no real incentive for them to compete for my business, and because of the tremendous amount of oversight and regulation they are constantly dealing with. If the government has an interest in an educated citizenry, why can't it set some standards and then allow the people to meet those standards through the method of their choice? Why must it create a monopoly (which everyone is forced to support) and stifle the competition?

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/15/2007 1:34 PM
the quality is much lower than I've ever experienced. In this area, you are the victim of "crony capitalism": Instead of either the government or private services providing your medical care/whatever, the government and select private corporations collude to maximise profit. There is basically no incentive to reduce costs or increase quality or anything on basically any level. This has been a problem plaguing the military for a long time, but especially under the Bush Administration. As I demonstrated in the other thread, universal healthcare cannot be classified as a failure, or even a "bad thing". If the government has an interest in an educated citizenry, why can't it set some standards and then allow the people to meet those standards through the method of their choice? It does. You are free to homeschool your children or send them to private schools.

Carissa
Posts:14

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/15/2007 1:51 PM
It does. You are free to homeschool your children or send them to private schools. Yes I am, but if I do I must still pay for public education at the same time. It's hardly an easy choice for many people who can't afford the double cost.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > Local Personal Posts > IN DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION > School Vouchers

ActiveForums 3.7