Slashdot Mirror
Why One Woman Says Sending Your Kid To Private School Is Evil
theodp writes "Slate's Allison Benedikt is ruffling some feathers with her recent manifesto, If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person. 'Not bad like murderer bad,' Benedikt writes, 'but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation's-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what's-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.' If your local school stinks and you send your child there, Benedikt explains, 'I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.'"
I say that sending your child to public school is akin to child abuse.
Sounds like an really cool place.
If I give money to a private school I am positive that they will do everything in their power to use the money wisely.
Really? Some statements are just too stupid to be taken seriously
Thanks for telling me up front that you don't know what you're talking about so I got to save time by not reading the rest.
Don't Bogart the fish sticks
Click here for a refutation of her argument.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
then your local government school doesn't stink. They must all be good -- or at least adequate.
where most schools are private, and the public ones are more prestigious than the private ones.
If my kid would have a better life going to a private school and that was feasible, guess what wold be happening.
Screw you and your latest batch of "do this for the greater good." Greater good arguments can be applied to taxes, not to setting your kids back for life.
Why send your kids to school at all?
I bet if you sent your kids to the ghetto, you'd do everything you could to improve it!
States are fictitious entities, and what exists in reality are individuals. There exists a need to make both private and public institutions as good as possible, and that can only come about through honesty on everyone's part. One example would be private schools that are affordable and do not set unrealistic entry standards to intentionally keep out what the management perceive as unsavoury segments of society. And on the other hand public schools should also improve their standards and not merely serve as a last resort for the lowest segments. Altruism is needed to some extent whether in public or private life. Otherwise we get evil/incompetent corporations and evil/incompetent governments and there's not a whole lot of difference between the two.
In Minnesota, money comes from cities to pay for schools. The quality of the education in the schools is mainly based on who pays the most property taxes. If I live in a crummy neighborhood, I wouldn't want to send my kids to the local school. Why not make the schools funded by states instead of cities? That would be a better way to improve the quality of schools. You're not going to make the school better by sending your kid there. You probably have a full-time job and don't have time to have a large impact on the system.
When I bought my current home I chose the school district I wanted my child to attend before I started shopping for a house. If I lived 3 blocks further north my kid would be in a school district which is perennially underfunded. Sure, home prices are 10% lower and taxes also a bit lower but graduation rates and college admission levels are also much lower. Even now with a much different employment situation I would not consider moving even though my commute 5 times longer.
The fundamental issue is not private versus public.
But if you have only one school system, then it's a monopoly, and the lack of competition leads to bad schooling.
Of course there are good teachers in a public system, same as they are bad ones. But a monopoly guarantees that the system will be bad.
I really hate people that tell me I'm a bad person because I do what I think is best for my kids. They still get my taxes to pay for public education so why the hell should I be a bad person for sending my kids to a better school?
She's just another damned collectivist who thinks that they should have the right to control another aspect of my life.
Bill Gates: " If they [my children] had to go to a general inner-city school, I would do anything I could to avoid that being the case, because as a parent, I particularly see the potential in my kids that that wouldn't unleash," Gates said.
President Obama: President Obama reopened Monday what is often a sore subject in Washington, saying that his daughters could not obtain from D.C. public schools the academic experience they receive at the private Sidwell Friends School.
Matt Damon: Damon told the Guardian there were no longer public schools progressive enough for his family so private was the only choice in their new home of Los Angeles.
Sadly (and really only generally speaking - there are exceptions), private schools' quality is driven by market forces whereas public school policies are driven by politics. School officials obtain and maintain decision making positions and power by there connections. There is little to nothing even a group of parents can do to address this. When they do, it gets taken away.
For example, in my city, parents organize "booster clubs" to raise money for their local schools and improve the quality. But parents in poorer sections of the city are often genuinely unable to do this. For example, they have a disproportionate number of families with a single parent who barely makes ends meet and works too many hours to have time to invest in a booster club. Since this is unfair, the school system is working to take money from the booster clubs to distribute to the poorer areas. So, the parents have the incentive removed and, disheartened, give up. The school system has decided, essentially, "If those schools are going to fail, it's only fair that all schools fail."
The parents can't do anything to fix their public school, so the ones who can afford it take their kids out and put them in private schools. Ms. Benedikt is correct that there are Bad Persons at play. She is dead wrong about who those Bad Persons are.
And it still won't help under the sheer inertia of the entrenched system.
My grade school district was a fucking joke. There were some decent teachers, but the majority of them were misanthopic whack-jobs, including the school principal.
My mom did everything in her power to change the system. It didn't help.
So, if you're a parent who has the chance to:
A: Make your kid suffer because you were stupid enough to send him to a shitty public school because you thought you could actually change something.
B: Send them to a private school that'll fit themselves to your kid's educational needs and will foster learning in a better manner.
Anyone with the cash SHOULD pick option B.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Of course, placing the long-term benefit of the community before ones own is something that requires altruism, or for those of simpler spirit "patriotism". The latter is often claimed, but rarely lived.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The national motto is "IN GOD WE TRUST"
In reality, since you invented neoliberalism, the Washington Consensus, Ayn Rand and the Chicago School,
it really should be: "BUGGER YOU JACK, I'VE GOT MINE".
Larry Correia (multi NYT bestselling author of Monster Hunter International) did a point by point slam on this article:
Fisking Slate over Public Schools
Naked link to same article:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/fisking-slate-over-public-schools/
The woman who wrote the slate article is married with 3 kids in New York. Strangely, last year she wrote in Slate about how happy she will be to stop paying $5000/month on private preschools.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
"Reading Walt Whitman in ninth grade changed the way you see the world? Well, getting drunk before basketball games with kids who lived at the trailer park near my house did the same for me. In fact it’s part of the reason I feel so strongly about public schools."
These three sentences pretty much sum up everything you need to know about the article.
Your primary duty is to your child. I promise you, responsible parents agonize about the best options for their children. Sometimes private, sometimes public.
We started private and then left. The early years at private were probably worthwhile. I tell myself that. They were expensive.
But we've been delighted with the quality of our public schools. They operate from one third the budget of the private school (per pupil). The buildings and landscaping are dramatically tougher, but we're happy with the change. The teachers have been high quality, highly dedicated to the job and responsive to us. My kids are engaged and enjoy their schools.
You have essentially no control over the private school or the public school. In both cases, you will monitor your kids' work, talk regularly to their teachers, meet their friends and their friends' parents. Your recourse in both cases is to find a different school.
No one should demonize a parent for trying to do the best they can for their child. Your first duty is to your child. Social welfare and activism should come after family.
Yes, those who doubt massive, growing, and all-encompassing government, and don't wish to be pwned by it, are morally suspect.
Dictators throughout history could not be more pleased useful idiots are trying to build this meme.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
School is a fundamental part of a childs life. If the school district I lived in was awful I wouldn't waste potentially years of my childs life trying to improve it when the chances of me being able to improve it on my own are less than 1%. I might spend their school age trying to improve their public school while they wallowed in it. Even if I did improve it then they would be out or almost out in which case my work did nothing to benefit my child.
So yes, I would send my child to a better school, even if that meant private. See if more parents did this then when schools started losing students in droves it would get changed, and that change would come a lot faster than me just bitching about it. You want change in schools? Then you have to effect their public image and money.
Besides, its not my job to be the parent for every kid in my school district. My job is to provide the best I can FOR MY CHILDREN. My kids are my priority so I worry about them first, myself second, and everyone else in order of importance last.
Sounds like this douche bitch needs to shut her cake hole and worry about her own kids.
Many moons ago when I was in high school I attended a slightly less than average school. The parents couldn't care less for the most part when it comes to districts such as that. Most of them graduated high school and that was it and those that went to college either struck out in the work force, didn't graduate or majored in communications or culinary arts (or some other useless major for the vast majority of the people that pursue said subject). Most parents whose children are attending poor school districts are not interested in fixing the system, particularly when it comes to having to pay more taxes to do so which is always the proposed cure. Sure, you get your handful of activist parents who try their best to make a difference but when it comes to actually improving school education and conditions they are faced with the uncaring mass of people who just don't care what you are trying to do.
You cannot say on the one hand that we can't have control over our public schools and then on the other hand that we have to be sent to them.
And yes, we've tried to reform our public schools but they won't let us do it.
How hard is it to fire a pedophile teacher? Nearly impossible. How hard is it to fire a bad teacher? How hard is it to put in hiring standards for teachers?
We've tried to put this in place for decades and the schools, teacher's unions, and politicians have stopped us. So fine. You don't want us to have any control over these schools. Mission accomplished. But why would I feel morally compelled to stay in the system if you're made every effort to systematically marginalize me?
You cannot have both. Either you let me have influence over the system... and I will change it so that I find it acceptable... OR you do not get me in the system.
Choose. Effectively, either the teacher's unions need to get neutered or you can expect intelligent parents to choose other schools when public alternatives are unacceptable. We are not sacrificing our children on the alter of your corruption and incompetence.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I changed my son to private school this year!! I tried working with the public school he was in. We met with teachers, with the principle, with the 504 councilor. Nothing, I mean NOTHING changed. The public school system is not interested in helping a child that needs help with his reading or spelling skills. Excuses at every turn and no one was willing to help. SO, now he's in private school and building his confidence that he can do the work in his classes.
There are no private schools in Finland. Turns out, when you make the kids of the rich and powerful go to the same schools as everybody else, those schools turn out to be decent. Here's an article on how Finland outperforms the USA in education.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
where I live in Arkansas, if you send you kid to a private school, you are considered a racist.
I REALLY think we in the US should have a hard look at Finland's education system - #1 in the World.
And we need to get away from this "school is to educate workers" mentality that American business sneaked into our collective conscious.
Our education system was for having an educated electorate - not for free training for Wal-Mart and McDonald's.
That mentality has to change and we need to basically tell American business that if they want trained workers, THEY need to do it themselves and stop passing their costs onto the public.
They bitch and moan about taxes and then bitch and moan about the education of the populace - American business has the this horrible case of entitlement and have the nerve to put the blame on the average citizen when THEY have the power to change things.
I agree with the sentiment she is expressing. If we are all invested in the system then we'd fight to make it better.
But while I'm living in the US I'll be sending my kids to a private school. I went to public school in the UK and hated every second, if I can do something for my own kids such that they can actually enjoy waking up every day then I'll do that, bad person though it makes me. Not to mention quite a bit poorer.
In the small town in New Zealand where we lived for the last few years the choice between public and private was much closer, more the flavour you enjoyed than misery vs happiness.
If you can afford to send your child to a better school, doing any less is selfish.
"Sorry son, I could have given you a better education, but I didn't think you were worth it"
Indeed concrete individuals should take priority. I think she's approaching from a kind of categorical imperative. Hence her statement, "Whatever you think your children need—deserve—from their school experience, assume that the parents at the nearby public housing complex want the same. No, don’t just assume it. Do something about it." Or, again, her rather annoying, "ruining-one-of-our-nation's-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what's-best-for-your-kid bad." In other words, she would prioritize the needs of the "nation" over those of your "spawn" [her word, not mine]. After all, wouldn't it be wrong to put your own children before the common good? Isn't it selfish to secure for your own what humanity is often denied?
This kind of thinking always puts me in mind of a passage from the Brother Karamazov. In the passage a woman declare to Elder Zosima her great love for all of humanity, but her apparent inability to actively love an individual. Zosima replies:
Loving and caring for abstractions like humanity or the nation is comparatively easy. Humanity, nations, or the people are objects which can be loved without fear. They will never leave or reject you. They can be readily idealized, so one never doubts the worthiness of loving them. And since they're abstracts, one needn't have to worry about them remembering those times you didn't particularly feel like caring for them. It's also very rewarding. In some cases, all we need to do is vote the way we think best, and then we can hold our heads up high, even regarding neighbors in scorn who have failed to see our good sense.
Loving and caring for concrete individuals is quite hard. They are sometimes ungrateful--in the case of infants and teenagers, it can seem almost constantly so. They have bodily needs which require unpleasant cleaning. They have wills of their own and cannot be idealized. They can remember your bad days. They can suffer and you may feel responsible, even when you're not. They can break your heart. They die.
This, I think, is at the heart of the preference many have, particularly among the educated and white collar, for giving priority to abstracts. A person such as Benedikt can hold you in contempt, for she prioritizes the higher ideal of the national good, while you privilege your "spawn" by giving them the
This appears to be another of those broad, sweeping, statements made by groups with an axe to grind. Doesn't whether you send your kids to public school, private school, or home school them depend a lot on circumstances? What schools are available to the child? What can the parents afford? What is the child like? My grandson has public school available to him. He has two different private schools available. Home schooling is a possibility, since my wife (his grandmother) was a public school teacher, then got a doctorate in teaching teachers to teach (!). There are other home schoolers around, which means some swapping of things is possible.
But our daughter choose to put him in public school. Why? He is an extremely social creature, and needs the time with other kids his own age. That probably has a severe impact on the success of home schooling him. The local public schools are clean, and the teachers appear to treat the students with respect. They seem to have a genuine concern for the students' success. Frankly, we can't afford either of the private schools.
A number of years ago, our two kids went through a mixture of private schooling, home schooling, and public schooling. The circumstances and the kids were different.
Before we totally slam public schooling, private schooling, or home schooling, let's carefully consider what is availabe in that area, and what the kid(s) is/are like.
If every single person took public transportation, would public transportation improve?
If every single person lived in public housing, would public housing improve?
If every single person was on food stamps, would food stamps improve?
History indicates that way of thinking doesn't work out well.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Maybe also tangentially relevant. (Yes I know it's not entirely on topic but neither was it where I originally posted it - in fact, now I feel I posted in in the wrong discussion.)
It's the parent's prerogative to send their children wherever they see fit. It's also the parent's prerogative to prepare their children the best they can for "real life". Some parents are well equipped to actually fully participate in their children's environment, try to make it better, implicate themselves, do activities, vote, give time, money, opportunities and trying to make the school a genuine good place for their children to be.
Not everyone is able to do that. My parents were able to do that. They were able to actually send me to alternative (and public) school, to participate fully in the school's life, always be there for me. It was a hard choice for them, not only needing to drive me an hour every day, then go to work, but also participate many nights and even some days to school life. Even for them, they eventually gave up one such school, and went to another one because it was plainly too demanding. So I wouldn't expect everyone to give the dedication to bring their prized school up to par to their expectations. Some parents are just able to pay up, are not able to speak or talk adequately, or they don't have time to dedicate themselves to such hard work, and we have to respect that. Alas, today in this world where parents are paying premium and expecting their young bastard children (exaggeration intended here) to do well, and screaming to the teacher (instead of screaming at your own children) whenever they don't have straight As is the norm, I expect the school system to remain crooked.
In the end, people are voting with their attendance. If your school system is bad enough to fear for lives just by attending, I'd expect people to try to move away from these places. There's preparing for real life and there's plain madness... and I'm truly sorry for the dedicated teachers giving their lives and soul for these schools; my mom is such a teacher (nearing her last working years now), giving her life to people with learning disabilities (or missed opportunities); her and many fellow teachers are giving what they can, but sometimes, it's not enough to convince parents.
On my side, I actually moved to a place where active outdoor life is adequate, near good quality schools (not the best - but in the >75%), and I plan my children to have a good chance in life, using neighbourhood friends, public school system, dedication, caring and be with my (future) children for anything they might need. That's where I decided to give my money, that's where my vote is going, even if I have to take the train and public transportation 3hr every single work day.
tl/dr:
It doesn't work if you put your country before your family or your family before God or your Country before your God.
Volunteer to help your community. Help the schools. Feed the sick. Wash the feet of the poor. Who's stopping you? Do those things AFTER you take care of your family's needs. Anyone who looks out for their community BEFORE their family is dangerous to his community and his family.
God:
Whether I believe in your God or a God is not relevant; this is just the phrasing of the idiom.
This means "duty to self" to be morally correct--that is to say "maintaining myself as an instrument for good". Not as "looking out for number one"--(looking out for #1 is exactly the opposite!). It doesn't mean that I get to set myself up as a moral absolute and ignore everyone else's needs in order to satisfy my superiority. This comes first solely for the obvious practical reason that in order to do good, I must first be good or at least not particularly evil at that moment.
Family:
Once this instrument of good exists, the first I must serve is my family. This needs no further explanation.
Country:
A little thought tells me that I have a greater duty to those closer to than farther from me in this large community we call country. I cannot save the world. So I am responsible to do good where I can. I must help my neighbor before an arbitrary person on Earth (or off of it, I should be so lucky). That person has neighbors as well. In this area is of course Military Service, which also needs no explanation.
My community's schools fall under the rough grouping of Country, more specifically somewhere between "Neighbors" and "any other sophonts in the universe" or "All God's kids" if you prefer.
Way after Family.
These priorities are in that order for a simple practical reason: The results of screwing up the order suck:
History is full of examples: Good party members who rat out their family or neighbors for love of Country. A father who does things he knows are unethical in order to provide every luxury for his family. Nationalistically motivated genocide perpetrated by people who know *exactly* what "thou shalt not murder" means.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
It seems that you've never seen a headline before.
School reform and improvement takes time. It takes more time than the 3-4 years your kid will be in the school. Heck even if it took 1/2 the time your kid is in school, your kid would still be behind. Then rinse/repeat at the next school. Parents , in bad schools, have to decide if they are going to sacrifice their kids to the school system in hopes that the kids after them will have it better. One of the US political parties pushed for vouchers that let kids in bad school move to other schools. Motivated parents in bad schools liked it. The other party opposed vouchers because all the motivated parents would move their kids to better schools. It leaves the bad schools even worse. I understand the logic of opposition but I don't see how the anyone can look mid-poor parents in the eye and tell them that they have to keep their kids in crappy schools that may get better some day. People with money just pay and move.
...if every single parent sent every single child...
if we assume the power to influence such large groups of diverse people; what other, more efective, statements could we make in this fashion?
1) if every single voter refused to vote for a politician that lied...
2) if every single american got a sedan instead of an suv...
3) if every single nazi, had actually been a teddy bear...
there are people out there who would rather send their kids to a good school and live their lives rather than spend their spare time trying to make a crap public school better. The activist mindset where people expect other people to take on their own cause(s) is the height of arrogance. So public school suck. Fine. That doesn't mean we all have to send our kids there just for the sake of motivating us to try to improve it; there are people whose paying jobs it is to make those schools better.
Studied in England.
In a small prep school: quite good, but awful mathematics teacher (shame as that was what I liked).
In a £30k/year (current) moderately well-known private school: meh.
Final year in a state school: maths teacher really on the ball.
tl;dr No type of school will guarantee you anything, except maybe nicer meals and smaller class sizes. Good and bad teachers are everywhere.
So the plan is to have no accountability at all? There has to be some objective measure of performance. If the tests don't measure what is important for the kinds to know then change the tests.
... that I don't send my child to the local collectivist indoctrirnation camp.
This doesn't even pass the giggle test.
When it comes to educating my child the way that I want, this is pretty much the top of the list of freedoms that I will fight to preserve.
One of the benefits of capitalism is competition. Allowing the state to have an uncontested monopoly on education strikes me as a "Bad" idea.
We have a broken system... how do we fix it? Oh I know, let's use it more!! GENIUS!
It was ruined long ago back when ketchup was declared a vegetable, to cut school catering costs and when some kind of pidgin English called "ebonics" was suggested because it would be cheaper than teaching children English.
The results of that include such things as "naturopaths" and other confidence tricksters being considered more trustworthy than scientists and anti-vaccine weirdos being considered more trustworthy than doctors. It's a poor outcome for society in general instead of just for individual children. It's going to get far worse before it gets better due to the anti-intellectual attacks being used to justify denial of changes in climate - we're creating a pack of luddites.
So the question is not how to stop the damage but instead how to reconstruct and get it so that children today are able to understand things like those 1970s TV specials for kids about the Apollo program that have resurfaced on youtube - the sort of stuff that a lot of young adults can't follow today but should be able to. You can't sustain a society at a high level if you aim for the level of unskilled Walmart shelf packers at one end and unskilled party dudes that think all it takes to lead a company is shouting at the other end.
What power does anyone have to get a school to change, in any way?
They key aspect, teachers, CANNOT be modified from the outside. Or even really from the inside.
An outside agent might be able to get slightly nicer books or equipment but just because if I try REALLY hard I get to chose some of the flair on the crews uniforms, I still don't want to send my kid off on the titanic.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How many of our congresspeople, both state and federal, send their children to public schools?
I've often thought, were there a law requiring public officials to send their children to public schools, the school system would suddenly and remarkably have a much higher priority.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Public or private, school teachers need to please their customer: the student. Don't pay teachers through the municipal, provincial/state, federal system for education. Public elementary, high-school and university teachers have forgotten that they need to please the student since they are the customer and the customer is always right. Public/Private schools alike can put on a good show for a day in each semester for the parents and for the rest of the year teacher class presentations could be mediocre when the parents aren't around.
To correct this problem, the best way is to ensure the teacher understands who's the boss: the student is. Make the students aware how much each teacher salary is. Make the students aware how much the admin staff salary is. Make them aware how much their parents' salaries are. Ask them if they think they are getting their monies worth.
The students have every right to make the changes necessary to get the most bang for buck. They can organize and hire alternative sources to get their pragmatic education. If the teachers are under-performing/not helping you to understand the curriculum, not protecting you against bullying, then just don't pay them or simply fire the teacher or take the same course elsewhere with another teacher. That is the student's right since he/she is paying for it. The students themselves should directly pay the teacher bi-weekly in order for the teacher to understand who is paying his/her salary. It's not some abstract government boss that is paying his salary; it's the student. That money can get transferred to another teacher anytime the student wants; this is as it should be. The current problem is that the parent is doing all the paying right now; this is a problem because the student has no control his teacher. If the student at least had monetary power over his teacher, the threat of taking his revenue elsewhere would provide sufficient motivation for the teacher to perform his duties as the student perceives and not as some rule or regulation stipulates in some abstract manual hidden away that only adminstrators hold the keys to. The administrators should be the students since they are paying for the courses and curriculum. They should be the ones deciding what they want to take and when. Not some abstract school board which isn't in touch with the times teaching their classes as if it's still the 1960's.
Students are the ones paying for the school to run. Make them aware that of their capabilities to make that change in the system. Don't let the school admin tell the students how it's going to run. The students are the customer and the customer is always right because they are the ones paying for the system in the first place. Nothing in fact is public. Everything is paid for in every system. The students should be the administration in fact. If enough students assemble, the change will take place. Don't let teachers unions scare the students. It's not in the teacher unions best interests to dispute with student unions because they will lose big time because all the money is truly in the students pockets and they can find their education elsewhere and the internet is starting to look much more efficient to be quite honest. There are many good wanna-be teachers out there that know much about their specialty that would be happy to share their knowledge given enough monetary motivation as a means to survive and they will offer a better bang for the buck.
Certification is not the be-all and end all. Experience is. Find those with experience to teach you stuff you want to know.
All very good, but very simplistic and ultimately unworkable. The worst criminals have families too, and it's usually far better for those families and everyone else for them to "rat them out" to the country.
As American society becomes more culturally, linguistically, religiously, etc. diverse, public schools are one of the few things holding it together. The U.S. is the great "melting pot" that takes people from various backgrounds and melds them into a somewhat coherent society with certain shared values. The free-to-enroll public school is one of the things that made that possible, teaching the majority of young people a common national history, a shared understanding of science, and so on.
But as education becomes increasingly factionalized, with Catholic schools teaching that contraception is evil, Fundamentalist Protestant schools teaching that evolution is a lie, charter schools endorsing the cult of the Market (which is their reason for being), home schools teaching who-the-hell-knows-what, and each one editing history to support their individual agenda, that commonality is being lost. Families who once insisted (in the face of racially-integrated bussing) that neighborhood schools were essential to the healthy social development of children are now driving their kids miles to the education outlet whose curriculum and student body matches their preconceptions (and their racial, religious, and economic standards). When you look at survey or poll results and wonder "how can these people believe that?", or looked at the legislators elected by people of other districts, the answer is that it reflects whatever they were taught to believe, at whatever school they attended.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I assume she only goes to the county hospital, too. Otherwise, wouldn't she be evil for ruining that institution?
To generate page views, of course.
Well, if one kook says it's bad then it must be bad. It'll be harder to indoctrinate kids if they don't go to public schools and their liberal state-controlled lessons, but they've managed to contaminate and alter textbooks enough so it's hard to avoid their idealistic progressive teachings.
The American right wing is just pro-corporate and pro ruling class.
Not even American.
That's the definition of right wing in a political context.
That's why the examples of right wing we have to point to are Monarchy and Fascism/Nazism.
It sickens me no end that there are people living in America with the contempt for themselves and this nation as to actually describe themselves as right wing when our major defining wars (the revolution and WW1/2 were fought against the right and the right are always portrayed (and often actually are) complete fucking monsters.)
There is one major flaw with her logic. People who send their kids to private schools still pay taxes that support the public schools. By not sending their child to the public school, there is actually more revenue per student enrolled in the public school, unless the state legislature does something like reappropriate it elsewhere (which would make them evil, but again, they are politicians).
So, if people pay for the public schools but don't cause an increase in the variable cost of running the public schools because their kids are in a private school, that is evil how?
If your local school stinks and you send your child there, Benedikt explains, 'I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.
Unless you're sleeping with or are a school board member, you have no power to make a public school better.
I went to a public primary school, but private high school. I grew up in a small country town and while the high school wasn't bad, the opportunities I wanted, such as music and languages, were not available and would not become available for only one or two students. So it depends on your situation - choose the school that will provide the opportunities your children want.
Just because Obama sends his daughters to a private school does NOT mean he's evil. Maybe he just wants them to get a decent education.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
There are successful public schools and there are poorly performing public schools. There are successful private schools and poorly performing private schools. On the surface, it would appear to be funding, and while a basica amount of funding is necessary, the real difference is parental involvement/interest.
If parents view school as the place where the kids are dropped off/cared for during the day, kind of like extended day care, those schools will have poor records. It doesn't matter whether those schools are public or private. OTOH, if parents value a good education and are engaged in the education process and take an interest in what their children study/learn, those schools tend to be much more successful.
The problem is, it's not upto individual parents to set that standard, but the community as a whole. In many college towns, particularly where the local university is one of the major employers, there tend to be good public schools. Why? Because people who work in academia tend to value education and it is reflected in the public school system.
OTOH, if the community doesn't value education or views education as a method to indoctrinate students in social norms or to act as surrogate parents, well, that is what you will get, but the educational component will lack.
Now, private schools, while they exist in the larger community, have their own micro-community and usually that micro-community values education more highly, why else would they pay so much for it if they didn't? In the end a community gets the exact quality of education that the community values. To be fair, many people in the community and the public school system do value education, but in many states, there is a state board of education that sets programs and requirements, further removing the local community's values from the mix.
But, it is quite simple, really. If you want successful schools, you need to first need to define what that means and then you need to get the community to value it (which is different than merely supporting it). Private schools have a huge advantage there. They have a defined and usually focused purpose and mission. People who agree with it send their kids there. People who don't look elsewhere.
Oh yeah, the left were just angels. Stalin and Mao were model leaders.
I now anxiously await your belabored response spouting that Stalin and Mao were really right wing.
It's fascinating how heated up people get when someone criticizes the way they raise their children. The Slate author was provocative on purpose, to get people thinking. Should you patronize inner city groceries so that people with fewer transportation options can get fresher, better food? In this case, many people would say, yes, I'd like to do that, so long as I'm not inconvenienced too much. But talk about the kids and boom. Lots of angry comments. Personally, I send my kids to both, so I guess I'm evil. But I've been called that before.
Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
Thank you very much--this is *precisely* the example I was hoping someone would feed me. Consider that you have a duty higher than that to family.
To be a silent witness to crime is to be an accomplice to it. In your example, your family member is the "worst criminal". Not someone whose "crime" you don't find to be particularly evil--"stealing" mp3s, or driving faster than the posted maximum speed. In your example, the crime to which you would be an accomplice is "the worst"--murder, rape, genocide--whatever it is, it's that thing that you find most morally repugnant.
There are many ways you can address the issue. Turn them in to the police. Remove from them the ability to commit their crime--perhaps by having them committed under a physician's authority. Kill them and then turn yourself in to the police. It's up to you how you handle it--or fail to. And you'll be held accountable for that, too.
There is a duty higher than that to family. Your duty here is very clear. It's just not *easy*.
You have moral priorities, whether you like it or not. When you can't please everybody, who do you please? The priorities I cited are fairly well known and quite successful at producing societies populated by generally happy people. But they're by no means the only ones. I can't comment on the priorities you proposed because you didn't propose any.
It's not really *that* complicated, and that, I believe is why you take issue. You know what you need to do; you just don't want to do it. It's a lot easier to debate away your duty with complicated BS than admit the simple truth that you *have* a duty. But if you must, take solace in the abundance of books, preachers, teachers, prophets, enablers, self-help gurus, lawyers, partners-in-crime, and a panorama of religions ready to convince you that whatever you want to do is the right thing to do.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
My kids go to a private Christian school. No amount of reform or improvement in the public school system is going to produce a public Christian school.
For those who value a Christian education, there is, and can be, no public option.
> If your local school stinks and you send your child there, Benedikt explains, 'I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.'"
At which time, you find that your influence is exactly zero. (Speaking as a father of a special needs kid, who, after fighting with the school system for three years, finally and regretfully pulled his kid out.)
The school system don't cotton to no outside influences.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Let's say I'm a middle class earner, and a certain amount of my taxes goes to the public school system. I choose to put my kid in a private school, paying tuition for that, while also continuing to pay my taxes. There is now a prepaid seat in the public school that can be filled by another kid, or that funding could be used to improve the experience for the remaining students.
Remind me, again, how this is evil?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
So many people use the old "liberal" and "conserative" labels wantonly, when they don't really correctly identify a modern division.
Statist is a word that does correctly distinguish the major division of our times. Are you primary for, or against the state supporting each and every person, to the extent that some (or all) choices are removed at the directive of the state?
The people falling on one side or the other are both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives.
So instead of stopping reading, you should read more carefully when you encounter the term as it's someone who realizes there is more depth to the matter than the classic labels that would otherwise be shallowly applied.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Any belief that forcing public schools on everyone is seriously misguided. Nothing ever gets better when it's forced on people. The best schools in the world are in Finland, where a voucher system forces public schools to compete with private schools.
Uh, wrong. There are no private schools in Finland. Everyone gets the same education, and the results seem to be exactly what the author of TFA is suggesting.
That is fewer people than in my neighborhood, whose school systems supports 120 different languages in the class room.
I was with you until your last sentence and then you showed your true colors. So you lost your argument by showing that you are nothing more then a prat.
Imagine my concern.
I agree 100%. I actually moved to a better town to get my kids into a better school. The local school from my former home town had a crackhead blow his brains out on the playground. The kids found him the next day inside a playground feature. Allison can eat a bag of dicks.
And hey! If you really want to have a better school experience for everyone - take 5% of the defense budget and put it into schools. It would probably be 100 times the money they're used to having.
Garbage in, garbage out. So forgive me if I don't feel like playing. I'd like my kids to wind up better than the baggy pants wearing drug addled dipshits from my previous home town.
And good luck to you. I hope you get your children into the best place they can be.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
But you can't, because by their very nature, public schools are a lowest-common-denominator compromise, subject to political whims, fads, and union interests. Any kind of change is going to take longer than for your kids to graduate.
And people can't even agree on what "better" means? Does that mean taking a critical view of climate change? Does it mean teaching that religion is inherently good, or being critical of religion? Does that mean turning kids into little capitalists, little socialists, little Christians, or little anarchists? And why is it even good that all kids be educated to think the same way and believe the same things?
The public school system is to schools what public toilets are to your bathroom: a choice of last resort. And we should treat them as such and roll the public school system back so that people can vote with their feet and money for the schools they actually want.
Remember Soviet citizens, you must stand in line for this scrap of mouldy bread which our Gracious Leader has got for you! Anyone who is caught using the "black market" in food is an Enemy of the People, and will undergo "correction". Buying food through private channels undermines our wonderful Soviet institution of agriculture. All faults (not that there are faults) are due to insufficient resources in the Department of Bounty.
"If your local school stinks and you send your child there, Benedikt explains, 'I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.'"
:) As a parent, your kid is - or should be - the most important in your life, and if it so, then why the hell would you make him/her suffer during one of his/her most important period in life? School lays the foundations of what your kid will grow to be, does anyone think the quality of the school is not important? If so, then you'd better shut up and bury yourself 'cause we're not interested in your idiocy.
No. If I know the local school stinks, I will do everything in my power to avoid it, at all costs, no matter what. I think I can't put it any more clear than that
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Because you really need your kid to spend his or her critical years getting bad education and lousy social interactions at a failing dump while YOU fight to make it better.
Uh, the article you are linking says Finland has a small number of private schools. And they are completely funded by the state. Finland is not forcing anyone into public school, instead their public schools are so good, that almost nobody wants to go to a private school, even when private schools are free.
Jan
Why should we listen to this one woman?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Demolishing the public school system and the stupid arrangement of local governments or authorities at the base of it would both be excellent ideas. And the caring anbd capable people completely separating fron the rest is also a good trend.
I have no obligation to sacrifice my child's well-being so that someone else may or may not benefit. My kids will go to the school that I believe will benefit them the most. If that's private school, then they're going to private school. And if that means contributing to the decline of public school, too fucking bad for public school. It's not my responsibility to save a failing institution.
I contribute to different charities.
I'm already doing all that's in my power for public schools (and for hospitals, roads, etc), it's called "paying my taxes". Then if everything public sucks, the fault is somewhere else.
... would you stop equating every public service to communism? You're becoming quite ridiculous.
There surely are areas in which the public schools are quite adequate and safe for kids. But that simply is not true in other areas. In truth we live in an era in which kids are known to shoot school mates just to get their sneakers. Whether we are talking about seniors or kids there is a certain nagging truth that the poor are sort of dangerous. And some areas have more racial and ethnic conflicts than others. At my old high school it is really not safe for any white students now. And I do strongly suspect that these conflicts will deepen. There simply are no easy answers. We just had a student severely beaten by three other students on a school bus. The primary reason for the attack was that the victim had refused to buy drugs from the three that attacked him. They robbed him during the attack as well. And we now see a judge putting the three 15 year old attackers on probation. It makes me want to scream. Those three deserve a 30 year prison sentence. Certainly they could be put into a youth facility until they are 18 or so and then be transferred to an adult prison. Who wants a kid to be in school with students already caught in major felonious crimes? Public policy towards offenders is way too lenient in many ways. And you can bet that of those three young criminals at least one of them will continue to commit crimes. I would say putting your child in a school with that type of person is child abuse in itself.
OK, so I know I'm not supposed to read the fucking article. But for some reason I clicked. I don't know why, I just clicked, and I read it, and I'm sorry. I understand now. I understand why we must never, ever rtfa. Because it's just mindbogglingly retarded.
Seriously, though, did anyone else read that? I'm trying, I'm really trying to just type a well-reasoned response based on logic and rationality. But there's a big part of me that just wants to grab this blithering moron by the shoulders, shake her very hard, and scream loudly in her face.
OK, to briefly summarize her position, basically she says that anyone who cares enough about their own progeny to send them to private schools is a bad person because by doing so they deprive everyone else's children of what is apparently their fair share of the love and support these bad people shower upon their own kids, and are therefore impeding the development of her utopian vision of the public education system of the far future. To make up for their misdeeds, these bad people should immediately enroll their children in whatever public school exists in their area, where the children will receive a significantly worse education for generations to come (I shit you the fuck not, she actually says it's a good thing for current private schoolers to be given a shit education for generations to come, says the kid's grandchildren should expect a poor education, but it's all for the children of the distant future, which is a new tact: fuck the children, it's for the children). Her, ahem, logic for all this is that by shaming parents (she's explicit on that, she doesn't want to ban private schooling, we need a "morality adjustment" to make people look down on it) into dumping their kids into substandard schools, it will force parents to work to make public schools "better" (a term she doesn't qualify, but based on the overall piece one can assume better means everyone learns what she thinks is right. God help us all...).
Now, I don't think she could summarize her own point that articulately, because, as she mentions with an air of pride, she is poorly educated and doesn't read, and she clearly has no talent as a writer. But that is what she says. There's a lot of attempts on her part to show solidarity with people who are in genuinely horrific schools (the kind where you can fucking die) by pointing out her own hardships (apparently there was no soccer team).
OK, so as to a solid refutation, lets start with the core concept. She assumes that full participation, every parent sending their kid to the local pub school regardless of how shitty, and participating in booster clubs and bake sales and pta meetings, will, over what she estimates to be at least four or five generations, result in some miraculous, perfect public school systems for everyone. There are lots of stupid ideas here, so let's look at a few. First, whose idea of perfect? Has our dear author not noticed that the education of children is a somewhat contentious issue? That not everybody wants their children to be imbued with the same worldview as their neighbor's kids (like, for example, the notion that once upon a time there were people who sent their kids to private schools, and they were Bad People, or don't want their kids taking civics classes that teach them that everything is as it should be and America perfected government in 1776 and never looked back, or want a decent selection of language classes, or who care more about how effectively teachers use the technology at their disposal instead of just how much tech is at their disposal, or any of a million other conflicting one-or-the-other issues)? How does our dear author plan to resolve this contentious issue? If there are an endless array of opinions as to what and how to teach, how will the system eventually evolve into the perfect system that pleases everyone? Well, it won't and can't, but that's not an issue, because our dear author only wants it to teach how and what she and her chosen authority figures say it should.
Never accuse parents of being bad parents. Even if they are.
So parents should be expected to sacrifice their child's education because the public school in the area is bad? Yeah, no parent is going to do that.
I'm almost 100% sure my children will go to public schools, because that is the norm in my country. Instead of private school, families here will move to ensure their children are in the catchment area for good schools. The consequences are obviously more or less the same as what Allison Benedikt warns against, namely "ghettofication" of schools, where the poor schools get worse for losing children of resourceful parents.
I understand her point and I would suggest that if your local public school is reasonably safe and you yourself are resourceful and educated, chances are you can ensure a decent education for your children regardless of some shortcomings in the local school. If you're working extra hard to provide the income for a private school, then that extra time at work may be better spent at home tutoring your children. To use examples from the articles, what is the point in working an extra half hour a day to ensure your children learn about Rosa Parks and read the Iliad in school, when you yourself could spend that half hour teaching them about Rosa Parks and read the Iliad with them?
In this case, it would be better for everyone if you stayed, put your children into this school and worked to improve it.
Up to a point. School age children are not old enough to decide to make major personal sacrifices in order to improve the world and I don't think it is right for me to make that decision for them. If putting them in a particular school carries a massively inflated risk of ruining their life and education then I'm failing them as a parent. If the school is actually dangerous, contains large amounts of drugs, etc. then the risk in staying behind to improve it is too great.
(As it turns out. TFA itself is more balanced and uses the word "bad" instead of the more loaded "evil", which Slashdot just had to throw in there).
That's why I'm a governor at my kids' school. And always use the NHS not private medicine. And vote in all elections where I'm eligible.
Things can improve with determination. Almost certainly nothing to do with my tenure, but the school's reputation is on the up and we have waiting lists for almost the first time ever.
Gated communities of any sort are likely to be a mistake IMHO, and I work amongst some of the smartest and richest people on the planet in my day job.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Of course they were. For very large values of 'right'.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Isn't capitalism about doing whatever you want with your money? And more money means more means to do whatever you want.
If you don't like that then I guess the USA isn't the place for you. Either change the USA through democratic means, or move away or shut up about it.
The said, I can state that in the two education systems I known of, lower mediocrity is target. If you do not fit the bill then you're unfortunate and you wind up having fights with teachers and principals. Yep, too dumb, too smart, too technical inclined are all reasons for you not to fit in the system. If you are in that position and you can afford it then go for the private school. If you can't afford it then be glad some will and, of those, some may understand where you're coming from.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Benedict is full of shit, because if it was the case the schools wouldn't be in bad shape to start with.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Private schools are about choice. I want the freedom to send my kids to private schools, public schools or even homeschool. Why is it considered bad if I choose not to support something I believe to be bad for my kids? This reminds me of those people who push me to buy "American Made" cars - just to support a company that refuses to change for the better. The freedom of choice - choosing what's econ
For most of us in the US, a significant portion of the local public school budget comes from property taxes. I was asking a realtor in DE how they deal with public schools with such a low property tax basis. The answer wasn't surprising... The majority of the populace sends their children to private schools for their elementary education but still go to the public high schools. They feel the major advantage is that the private schools compete (and therefor excel) at educating and that citizens do not pay continuously high taxes after all their children have left the school system. They still feel that their public elementary schools give a decent education because they are smaller and more manageable (thus less costly). I don't know whether this is the prevailing feeling in DE, but it seemed appropriate for this thread.
Society does not exist for one particular individual. And almost all individuals would fail/die without the society to sustain them.
The problem with our society is that we have allowed the corruption to get too bad and it is not functioning well anymore. All the money that should be used to regenerate the tools of society is being siphoned away for the benefit of a subset of the society.
It is unfortunately a competitive environment out there and everybody tries to provide themselves with an edge.. As long as it's the case, nobody can blame parents for sending their kids to private school, if they can.
But at the end of the day, your abilities and your drive gets you where you want to go and that has nothing to do with the type of school you attended.
As far as I'm concerned, while, certainly children are not all equal and some do tend to have more academic inclinations, it is also the parents duties to inspire their kids to better themselves and to apply themselves in anything they do. Including homework.
Fair enough, but personally I'd merge what you've put for "God" and a lot (not all) of "Country" because a lot of morality is doing the best thing for society and a well run country at least tries to match up with this. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the way you phrase it because the list would fit in very well in Iran and even far less enlightened places, and it makes me think of honour killings and other horrors where family is considered far more important than individuals or society. I do get your points though even though they've been misused by others plenty of times.
I was delighted to escape my public school and attend an excellent private boarding school.
Good riddance to a Hellmouth and the bottom-feeder shitbags who infested it. It was a well-funded Hellmouth, BTW.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I think if you can send your child to a private school or home school them and they get a better education then you are doing what is best for your child. Despite what the article says I think that public education has almost become a lost cause in some places. It is highly politicized and agenda driven. Your child does not come out of the system educated as much as they become indoctrinated. That is in the public colleges as well, I have seen that first hand. There are some excellent educators who work in the public schools and they do make a difference. Even if everyone put their children in public schools it would not really improve things...even over time. Not the ways the schools are run now. They keep demanding more money from the taxpayer and turn out even more ill prepared students each year. The parents play a large role in the individual success of the student. The teachers can only do so much with 40 students in one period. The educator does not have the time to work with students who are struggling. As much as the public says blame the teacher when the student is unsuccessful I argue that the system is currently set up so that your child has more potential to fail than succeed. If the child is not a self starter or a self learned the parent needs to ensure the child stays on track and studies. The teacher does not have the time or resources to do it. Distractions like video games and sports need to go away until the child can prove that he or she can study on their own and keep up with the program. Parents seem just as susceptible to the social pressures that their children are dealing with and sometimes make the wrong choices that allow their kids to be "cool" in the eyes of their peers all the while put them in the position to fail academically because the time is not being put into study. The generation coming up now seems to be raised by big kids instead of solid adults from what I have observed. That is not true for everyone but it certainly seems to be a lot of them. In closing if you choose to educate your child through private school or home schooling you are doing them a favor if you can afford it. It is not your responsibility to help educate your neighbors kids with your hard earned tax money or supposedly make their education better because you put your kids in public school as well. Do what is right for your children and let those responsible for others take care of themselves.
The detrimental effect of Private schools on the public education system is mainly an artefact of how schools are rated. Let's say you have a public school with relatively good test scores. A private school opens nearby and 20% of the best students switch schools. The result is that the average test scores at the public school take a big drop. The district looks bad; the administration looks bad; and the teachers look bad. But, are the students that remained at the public school receiving any different education than they were before all of the better students left? Has any individual student's test score dropped? It's kind of unfortunate for the better students that couldn't afford to move to the private school, but their education is no worse than it was the proceeding year.
My reply would be that anything radical usually ends in a lot of bloodshed. I prefer my governments with a dash of moderation.
And yes, I'd prefer a moderate left to a moderate right. Though I prefer a more complex model than that rather simplistic left-right model. More than one dimension would already be a boon.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Humans ANIMALS like to believe they are above their biological urges, but in reality they are not.
I may not beat you down for your food (because that weakens the tribe) but I'll steal food from your children so mine gets more... In other words, I'll help my child survive and not yours; other than the minimum to maintain group cohesion.
Fighting human nature and biologically rooted tradition is NOT an easy task.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Article's author lives in a bubble of fantasy of utopian communism. The reality is that parents who care enough are going to choose the best option for their kids if they can.
Some public schools are just shit, and a lifetime of effort cannot fix them.
My fucks given? None.
That's why the examples of right wing we have to point to are Monarchy and Fascism/Nazism.
That's a profound misunderstanding of fascism. Mussolini started his career in the socialist party and at the moment of his death was the leader of Italy's socialist party. Fascism advocated universal employment, free health care and free education. It was far, far further left socially than anything proposed even by the Democrats in the US. It's idiotic to compare fascism to any monarchy. Militarism is a staple of every leftist movement. Their idea of negotiation is the right surrendering and becoming leftist. The last truly right wing republican in the US was Eisenhower who opposed US dependence of foreign oil precisely because it would lead to over-militarization. The first Republican President to "compromise" was Nixon. If you think corporotization leads to over-militarism, then you'd have to explain why China became less millitant as it became less Communist and more corporate. Trade stops wars. The rest is details.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Change a public school? How? You have a firmly entrenched teacher's union that is not going to let you replace poor/bad teachers with good ones. They are not going to reward teachers who are better. They are not going to punish/fire bad ones. The only time they will agree to a contract change is if it gives them more money and/or power. This woman either works for a union, has lost touch with reality, or has never tried to change a public school. Most of the non exclusive private schools have long line of people waiting for an opening to get their kids in for a reason. They are better and operate on less money per student than public schools and there are many that are not expensive to attend. They also turn out motivated kids who learn!
You can put effort into improving the school system while at the same time sending your kid elsewhere. People manage to volunteer, do social events, and such there is no reason why you couldn't do that for the public school you are so concerned about. That doesn't mean you have to punish your kids with a poor education while things get improved.
I can see two ways where sending your kid to private school could help, both kind of contradicting each other: you still pay your taxes so there is more money to go along for less students in the system. Smaller class sizes, more money for extra curriculars etc. The flip side if your community doesn't send your tax dollars to a school you don't send your kid too then the market can work and the public schools will have to try to improve to get your dollars back or go out of business and more and more kids get private or home schooling vs public.
moniker, she's all for an ideal that is currently unattainable, and offers nothing that remotely resembles a solution.
As others posters here have noted, changing the local systems is all but impossible. The apathy the majority of parents of school-age children have and the lack of support from them aside, the system, which got the way it is, thanks in part to the simple minded ideals Allison Benedikt is all for, have locked-out any chance of changing the simply awful public education system from within.
The lives destroyed by public education are innumerable, and mostly ignored by most of the people who were victims of that system. The few that recognize it and refuse to subject their children to it are now supposedly "evil" - the kind of language you'd expect from the religious extremists, I might point out.
I can count the good teachers I had in public school on one hand. I can count the effective ones that worked within that system in a single finger, and she was not a teacher, she was a LIBRARIAN.
If you are financially trapped into sending your kids to public school and upset about it - you SHOULD be ! And you should recognize the lack of commitment and apathy and participation of the other parents that feel the same way as THE SINGLE most contributing problem in reforming it.
Sending your children to an awful public school IS child abuse, and your kids may never forgive you for it; even if they turn out too damaged by the experience and stupid to even be able to articulate WHY !
This is slashdot. Would you prefer your kids got an off the shelf generic computer/education, a high end boutique computer/education or a DIY computer/education? I think most of us would take option 3, but option 2 is still better than the first. Now start poking holes in the weak analogy!
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
I, myself, only feed my child what the poorest kids in the world eat. How else will I stay motivated? My child may not have chosen to do this, but wtf, he's only an object in my self-motivational strategy, right? Tomorrow, I plan to shoot at him until all the worlds violence stops as well. I'm only thinking of the children. Well, all except the one I'm in charge of.
I sent my kids to a terrible private school, am I evil?
You find me a single published example of a teacher who is a pedophile who can't be fired in an American public school. Find me one.
Sure, a teacher gets accused and isn't fired right away -- he or she is placed on administrative leave and not allowed near a kid until more information comes out, perhaps even until the DA figures out what to do. Maybe even a trial. Sometimes the evidence is really compelling and the teacher is fired right away (or resigns).
Again, find me a single published example of a teacher who is a pedophile, the school system knows it, and isn't able to fire him.
You know, the nonsensical bashing or praising of public schools around here [along with nuclear power and a dozen other things] is foolish nonsense, but no big deal. Claiming that it is "hard" to fire a pedophile? Wrong, dangerous, extremely insensitive... just plain asinine. So put up or shut up, wouldja?
Elitism of all sorts is everpresent and it threatens the long slide back to oligarchy and exploitative institutions. It is susally most obvious in times of economic stagnation and decline. Market and elitist forces begin to take over and price and group descrimination begins to emerge which excludes groups of people or takes away resources that everyone should have access to.
The idea that education should be universal is relatively new, especially for high schools and higher education, and the problems of sustaining it are well known and much of the cause for Private Schools. But the fact that class and wealth can be used to separate people and deny many resources that would give them access to the benefits of society is why one could argue that private schools are evil; because they create elitism and the return to oligarchy and elitism. Not all elites, but most, fit on the right side of the political spectrum. Most Conservatives are first elitiist of one form or other. Most are wealth elites, but some are religious or race elites, but elitist nonetheless. They believe that they are better than most everybody else. Sometimes they wish to erect barriers to others entering their elite, but most often they think that they are better by birth or virtue and because of that will remain in their elite. This is what is evil.
In other words the bits that neither the competent countries nor Belgium wanted.
Did it end in a bilateral surrender.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The top 1% don't earn. They don't need to.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Social security tax now runs at 12.4%. That is NOT a "small social security amount", it's a HUGE one-eighth of wages, and a much larger portion of disposable income. The economic boom that would result if SS were terminated is beyond what most would imagine, and would easily mop up the people needing very quickly to find a job.
An immediate cutoff is not a good idea, because of the obvious injustice of not paying back what was stolen. But the system should be phased out.
Knowing that you have to provide for your own retirement would have a number of bonuses, one of which would be that people would treat their children better, knowing that they may have to rely on their children late in life.
More money available individually means more money donated to charity. That's another source of goods for those who don't provide for their old age.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My mother who was 40 years a public school teacher sent all her children to private schools. She did it for objective reasons. Now my brother who is also a public school teacher (and who went to private schools), thinks that not going to public schools is an ideological sin. My brother is an idiot, of course and my mother is within her rights and sanity to decide what she did.
This kind of ideological idiocy is basically what this article is saying also: it's a matter of religious faith and creed to attend public schools without regard to objective quality. Sorry that's stupid bullshit.
This is akin to liberals who would rather you be killed by a mugger than use a gun to defend yourself because you might kill or injure the thief. Basically again ideological fetishism that is THE PROBLEM, not the solution
You say 'collectivist' like its a term as familiar and concrete as say 'nazi'...
Only people who already agree with you share the same heavy emotional and psychological satisfaction from scapegoating 'collectivists'
So, let's hear it...what is a 'collectivist'?
Troll answers will get ignored...let's see a real, consistently applicable definition...one that has some grounding in the actual meaning of the word and use in academia would help immensely...
So how do you define 'collectivist'?
Thank you Dave Raggett
American "right wing" encompasses conservatives and libertarians.
Conservatives tend toward religion, and the Constitution because it's good and has worked well. Conservatives generally support corporations, but don't support giving them immunity from law. Conservatives oppose socially active government activities. Do not confuse confuse conservative with status quo; there are principlies involved.
Libertarians reject the propriety of a ruling class and are more suspicious of corporations. Libertarians oppose any government activity that can be performed privately without excessive grief.
In the American Revolution and WWII, Americans fought for the principles currently supported by most of the right, i.e. in opposition to oppressive government. I am less clear about WWI, which seems to me more of a general clusterfuck.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
See any problem here?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Thanks for telling me up front that you don't know what you're talking about so I got to save time by not reading the rest.
Dude, this is par for the course for slate. They post a link-whoring title and write a controversial and completely uninformed puff piece designed to generate floods of angry comments and even bigger floods of ad impressions and clicks.
I remember when the Internet made an effort not the feed the trolls, but those days are long gone. Trolling the Internet is Slate's bread and butter.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Every evil genius knows that you need a bit of flair and drama to be a real Evil Mastermind. Any thug can pop someone in the head. You want to be a thug? Heck we don't even hire out thugs, we get minions like any respectable arch villain.
Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.
Too bad there isn't much 'power' for parents. Your child has a really crappy teacher that has no idea how to teach? Tough. The teacher's union won't dare let that teacher be fired.
Hell, in our county a school tried to trim back teaching staff by not bringing back new teachers that had less than two years of seniority. Perfectly legal and completely within the school's rights. THEIR UNION STILL RAISED HOLY HELL AND FOUGHT TO GET THEIR JOBS BACK!
Until parents and administrators have some say over who gets the right to teach our children, this ladies 'manifesto' is a bunch of crap.
There is no way we can draw conclusions about their schools and apply them to the USA.
And your reasoning for that is?
Stalin and Mao were _not_ communists. They were fascists that happened to use communist rhetoric in their speeches and posters.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ummmno. Work happens. People with morals and work ethic (admittedly getting scarce) look for jobs when they don't have enough money to meet their needs. Before Social Security, did the nation have geriatric gangs running around committing crimes? No. Your entire premise is incorrect.
There's a difference between forcing a service on people (public schools) and forcing a service to complete with another service (voucher systems). People should always have a choice.
Educate yourself on the structure of the US education system before you sound off. Your post is simplistic drivel, and based on entirely inaccurate information to start with.
The Federal Department of Education has relatively little authority to structure primary and secondary education in the US. The DoE in recent years (largely since No Child Left Behind in the early 2000s) has used federal funding as a stick to drive standards of evaluation and curriculum into schools. The actual methods of achieving performance on these evaluations is left entirely to the local districts.
Organization and operation of schools in the US is conducted at the local level. The basic unit of organization is the school district, headed by a superintendent, and governed by a board of eduction. Depending on the state/county/municipality, school districts can be larger or smaller, although one district per county is a (relative) norm. The board of education (school board) is normally locally (VERY locally) elected. The school board normally hires the superintendent as the chief executive of the school district. Details vary - in many cities the school board and/or superintendent may be appointed by the mayor. In some places school districts may be tiny (as is the case where I grew up - 1 high school per district, more or less, many districts per county). Large county-oriented districts may have additional layers of internal governance (Fairfax, VA has school 'clusters' with locally accountable advisory boards (? details lacking... but something of the sort...?)).
So - no. It is not true that 'public schools are controlled by the Department of Education'.
Why the hell should I care if public schools are rotting? I should care about giving my kids the best education and social nurturing possible. I can't fix what's horribly broken on a national level. And I'm certainly not going to screw away my time and my kids' well-being so that some other people can feel better about their broken system. Doesn't make sense. If this article presents a valid argument, then by simple logic it's equally valid to argue that people who militate against private schooling are horrible because they are preventing a better system of education from developing to its potential. FYI, my kids attend a very private school at home, and we are constantly told how intelligent and well behaved they are. And they are. I couldn't give that to them if I sent them to a public school, period. I love my kids too much to sacrifice them for someone's sick experiment.
Conservatives want to pass their values and culture and mythology on to their kids. But, for many of them, public schools are an obstacle to that. The key problem in the conservative mind with public schools is that the melting pot has given way to a multiculturalism that creates a climate of fear regarding ones own culture - exactly the opposite of what people want.
This isn't just public schools, and it isn't about religion, its everything conservative these days - lower taxes are just a form of saying, "I disagree with the public direction, so I want no public at all." They are allowed to say that, and when the liberals call them selfish for it, the end result will be a hastening to this trend of withdrawal. Why participate in something that is detrimental to you, and you don't believe is good for the public overall?
The ironic thing is that, even though liberals talk up a good game about the commons, you'll find they are withdrawing from the public as well. Of course, its long been known that rich people send their kids to private schools regardless of their political stripes, but you'll see it in their spheres.
This is my sig.
There's a pretty large body of psychology that shows those 'participation' awards are a good thing. Teachers didn't start doing that for the hell of it, but the reasons have largely been buried. Basically, psychologists found that it took a lot of work to give people a positive self image, especially lower income people. The kind this stuff is most commonly targeted to.
Now, in and of itself you're saying: so what, who needs a positive self image? And you'd be right if you ignore the next bit of findings: people can't do things that they don't don't believe they can do. It sounds simple, but in researching it psychologists found it wasn't just that people failed, but that they actively sabotaged themselves. They would consistently do things that reinforced their negative self image of themselves, and that the only way to stop them was to force a positive self image onto them through trickery. Hence the 'participation' awards.
All of this is a complex thought that goes against common sense, so it's easy to attack and undermine it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Uhhh...no. The D. of E. does very little---as opposed to the equivalents in countries that regularly kick our figurative academic arse. (E.g.: the same lesson is taught on the same day in Martinique as in Paris, and you do not send your kid to private school---though, admittedly, there is jockeying-around for the best private schools.)
Someone once put it as: 'Programmes only for poor people end up themselves impoverished.'