Query
December 18th, 2006 | by Craig |Why is public education sacrosanct?
Specifically, why does any criticism of the current system brand one as anti-education?
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.
Recent Comments
- Walter Greenspan:Liberals need to procreate in
- Mark T:In theory ... speculation need
- dogette:WTF is wrong with people? she
- Neal:If not drilling makes sense, c
- Walter Greenspan:Speculation REDUCES price vola
- Mark T:So if I follow your logic, spe
- Steve:Congrats - Old Man!
- Walter Greenspan:On the issue of market specula
- DMerriman:We can only hope that: 1) 30
- Mark T:Right. Drill drill drill, baby
Liberty's Asylum
Recent Post
- Cracks Me Right Up, It Does
- Saith The Obamessiah
- New Montana Political Blog
- Applying the Democrats’ Energy Thinking to More Mundane Matters
- Denny Rehberg on Energy
- Seeing As How This Is A .44 Magnum
- This Should Be Interesting
- We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident
- Administrivia
- Intellectual Honesty
49 Responses to “Query”
By Shane C. Mason on Dec 18, 2006 | Reply
Craig, I can only assume that you are talking about Rick Jore. Rick Jore is not merely ‘critical’ of our education system, he does not want to ‘fix’ it. He wants to destroy it. You know these facts but I’ll repeat them anyway. They are from Rick Jores answers to the Project Vote Smart questionair:
* Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for higher education
* Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for high schools
* Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for elementary schools
* Rick Jore does not support increasing state funding for community centers and other social agencies in areas with at-risk youth
* Rick Jore does not support the Montana Meth Project and similar initiatives
This coupled with his statements that he will oppose any federal funding for public schools is a bit more than ‘critisism’, it is dangerous. You see, compare us with other countries in the world, over-education is not a problem in this country.
If someone wanted to put some solutions out on the table for discussion on ways to reform the problems our schools have, well thats fine. Do it, the debate will be good for us. However, this man would turn down federal funds fo our school system. This is bad medicine for education, which means anti education. Branded.
By Craig on Dec 18, 2006 | Reply
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.
By Colby Natale on Dec 18, 2006 | Reply
Perhaps wrong…
But Craig, giving the timing of this post, you had to realize that everyone would think you were referring to Jore, at least latently.
As an ex-teacher, I will say that public education is held in such high regard, at least for me, because it serves a duty to exposing children to information outside the comfort barrier of the home. Public education, precisely because it does not conform to one ideological set, forces children to face facts, opinions, beliefs different from those found in their families and homes, and that makes for better people and better citizens; more tolerant people if you ask me. Public schools can do a lot of great things, but being that they adhere to some ideology, they cannot do what public schools do best.
By TMM on Dec 18, 2006 | Reply
For what it’s worth (not quite 2 bits), I read your question and somehow presumed the following:
I attribute it to the absolute nature of our beliefs. I can’t be wrong, and in your challenging my beliefs you are challenging my intelligence. Besides, knowing I’m right makes me feel better about myself. Probably not what you had in mind, but interesting anyhow.
By Craig on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
Shane–
Sorry to be snarky; I shouldn’t comment when I’m hacked off at something else entirely.
Colby–
You say, “Public education, precisely because it does not conform to one ideological set.”
I would disagree with that. By and large, public education does conform to one ideology. I’ve got kids in school. My wife was a teacher, and I did a stint as a substitute teacher. I see it all the time. Schools are spending far too much time teaching kids what to think instead of how to think.
Look at the past, say, 60 years or so. At one time, we (as a nation) were putting out some of the best and brightest. We were innovating like crazy. Now? It seems like we hardly can compete in Math and Science, and I have to wonder why. Actually, I don’t. Public schools are now a political battleground where political correctness reigns supreme, and we seem intent on turning them into a grand social experiment. And that comes from both sides of the aisle.
When was the last time you had a clerk count your change backwards? Have you seen the look of befuddlement on someone’s face when you give them a twenty and a penny for a $14.06 purchase, then see the light come on when the cash register gives the answer? Have you read some of the stuff that is being passed off as writing? I’m no Hemingway, but I can write a memo that flows from A to B and at the end, you understand the point I was trying to make. I’d be willing to bet that a good percentage of high school graduates think that the Battle of the Bulge is a fad diet.
I love public education. I think it’s the great equalizer. Right now, though, it’s suffering from the Tragedy of the Commons, and needs a pretty serious overhaul.
By colby natale on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
I disagree that the current state of public education is a result of political correctness; when I was teaching, the need to be PC never came up. What did come up, daily, was the fear of losing our jobs or having our administration removed because our ELL and Mentally handicapped kids didn’t pass the exit exam in high enough number, putting us on a higher NCLB disciplinary step. It is that fear that is driving schools, especially in more populated states, to focus on what they do.
“When was the last time you had a clerk count your change backwards? Have you seen the look of befuddlement on someone’s face when you give them a twenty and a penny for a $14.06 purchase, then see the light come on when the cash register gives the answer? Have you read some of the stuff that is being passed off as writing?”
I completely agree, but I think the problem is related to what I said above. Teachers used to be free enough to motivate kids to want to read and write (and several other things). Now they are so worried and busy preparing for federally mandated tests, that they don’t have time to nurture and motivate anymore. I had a student of mine (a senior) ask me if I had fun in high school when I was there (93-97). When I told him that I enjoyed going to school, it didn’t surprise him; every adult he asked enjoyed high school, but none of his peers did. This was smart kid who loved to learn, but he felt there were no options, creativity, or motivation in schools anymore; just raw information that would probably be on the California Exit Exam.
Despite all of this, and I agree the system needs overhauling, public education still offers a relatively free forum of ideas that most private schools do not. I had many political discussions in my classes (always keeping an even conversation) about things like global warming and abortion. If they tried to talk about those issues down the street in the private Christian school, they had none of it - that wasn’t allowed.
That’s my point.
By Gman on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
Colby, we wouldn’t want our children embracing the same beliefs as their parents. Better get my kid out of Christian private school then….
Craig, great points in comment 5. Tragedy of the Commons is right on. I might add that public education is politicized. The education establishment exists to protect the status quo. First, they do it with compulsory union dues that is used to lobby the gov’t for even more money. Second, they do it by indoctrination from K-College.
It just makes me laugh that Colby thinks children are exposed to different facts and philosophies by public education. With all due respect, that’s a joke! When you take an economics class in high school or college, it favors statist economic philosophy (Marx, Keynes, Galbraith, etc.) over free market economic philosophy (Smith, von Mises, Hayek, etc.).
Without a doubt, our education system is teaching children what to think, not how to think. Fortunately, there are a few of us who have a strong enough thirst for the truth to counterbalance what we’re NOT taught in the public education system. This “remnant” is waning…
By Matt Singer, Proudly Educated by Public Schools on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
Craig, I think our current education system needs reform and am more than happy to discuss it. As for why public education as a theory is “sacrosanct” is because it has been the great leveller in this country for 150 years. It’s been a path where rich kids and poor kids sit next to eachother in class, where white kids and black kids first integrated a nation, and where opportunities really can be offered equally.
It’s not so much that it is sacred. It is that it has proven, in hindsight, to be a major, major success, kinda like Social Security.
As for Gman, I’m not sure the last time he’s taken an econ class in high school or college, but Econ 111 at UM is still just Intro to Microeconomics, a class that by its very nature has a pretty libertarian bent (turns out that Keynes and Galbraith were the fathers of macroeconomics). Tom Power, the chair of the UM Department and a frequent target of criticism from conservatives, is actually a pretty avowed Smithian. He’s just followed a number of free market principles and come to some fairly “liberal” conclusions about keeping the state out of the natural resource extraction business in Montana when the industry isn’t viable.
The horrors.
By colby natale on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
Gman said:
“It just makes me laugh that Colby thinks children are exposed to different facts and philosophies by public education. With all due respect, that’s a joke!”
What makes you so sure? I taught for three years and my classes definately discussed views and ideas that many, if not all, of the kids had not yet had. Perhaps your view of public education, or at least the manner in which you stereotype it together, is inaccurate.
Furthermore, I take issue with your comment “we wouldn’t want our children embracing the same beliefs as their parents”. I want children to grow up into the people they want to be. If that happens to mimic their parents, then great, but I do not believe in indoctrinating children into their parent’s worldview automatically, as if having a child gives you a right to force views upon them. Public education places children in a location with different views, just due to the fact that the other kids know and believe different things. That is great, because it allows children to develop, not be fed, belief systems.
By colby natale on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
let me clarify one thing, I am not saying that public ed is perfect at teaching children different ideas and viewpoints, just that by design, it is far better at it than private school. In public classes, the teachers try to let everyone’s views come out and into discussion. In private schools, the entire institution tends to operate with certain assumptions: “Jesus is our savior”, for example. “Abortion is morally wrong”, for another. Don’t try to tell me that institutions with these assertions are more welcoming to differing viewpoints than are institutions that do not make suce overarching claims.
By Matt Singer, Proudly Educated by Public Schools on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
Gman says things like that all the time. I’d be awfully surprised to find out the last time he set foot in a public institution.
We can only thank the heavens that there are a few who survive these re-education camps? Honestly, Gman, when did America begin resembling red China and why are you such an alarmist?
Even Craig, who I respect greatly, started this discussion with the most hollow of strawmen that I’ve seen constructed in some time.
Whatever. Happy Holidays.
By colby natale on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
Man, the strawman thing comes up all the time. In fact, I am starting to think the ’strawman’ claim is itself a strawman.
By JP on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
I think the public education system is primed for a class-action lawsuit on behalf of above-average students and exceptional educators who were forced to ‘dumb down’ to the lowest common denominator.
When you have a gifted science teacher who could be teaching quantum physics or the like forced to grind through remedial science for a group of 12th graders that have failed every class before, and are going to fail this one too - not because of some learning disability, but out of pure spite and apathy - that does a disservice to not only the bright students who lose out on a great learning opportunity but to the truly developmentally challenged kids who need that one-on-one help and genuinely want to learn in spite of their obstacles.
In the words of Judge Smails, “The world needs ditch diggers, too.”
Coming from not only a public education, but the child of a junior high teacher, I’ve been exposed to some truly inspiring educators in my time. Sadly, due to what I can only assume is the structure of the current public education system (and this predates NCLB, although I don’t think that helped a bit) these dedicated education professionals are hamstrung by bureaucracy and the unfortunate mission statement du jour that every child should go to college.
Well, right or wrong there are some folks that have no business being in college - but would flourish in a trade school. They might hate the sheet of geometry or algebra in front of them, but when they’re using that framer’s square and checking the plumb and square of a house frame or cabinet carcase in the trade school, they’ll be able to grasp that a^2 b^2=c^2.
Any child that *wants* to go to College should be given the opportunity (repeat: opportunity - it’s his or her ball to carry or drop, not an entitlement) and if they want to go a different route, then so be it, and provide the opportunity for them to learn a journeyman’s trade. Lord knows there’s plenty of demand for electricians, plumbers, carpenters, masons, and other trade skills.
How do we get there? I’ll think on it and pontificate later. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Er, sorry… old habits die hard.
By Matt Singer, Proudly Educated by Public Schools on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
Montana way overstates the value of four year higher education — just heard some numbers on that last night. The overemphasis on 4 year degrees nationally is bad enough. In Montana, it seems to be worse.
As for my remarks on Craig building a strawman, I think his statement “Specifically, why does any criticism of the current system brand one as anti-education?” clearly qualifies.
Craig also lapsed into passive voice here (something he did a while back on a post on racism), as though “branding” just happens spontaneously through a decision of the them, who meet twice yearly and everyone gets branded as a result. If we’re going to build bogeymen, I’d like to know at the least who we’re discussing.
(Craig, let me note that I’m being critical because I know you can handle it. I generally think quite highly of your writing if not your ideology
— just think you missed the mark here. Still, nice work spawning a discussion.)
By Shane C. Mason on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
Schools are spending far too much time teaching kids what to think instead of how to think.
Straight up. Could not have said that better myself. The job of schools is to teach critical thinking skills and methods of inquiry. We have replaced that with just-enough-facts to pass the no child left behind mandate and morality lessons. Not the job of the school systems. I can agree with you on this now even more than in the past as I have been having my own battles with discrepencies between what my daughters teacher believes and what I believe.
By Shane C. Mason on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
One more quick point. TMM rephrased your question as:
To be critical of X does not make you anti-X. If your platform is, however, -X (or (X*-1)) then you become anti-X. Even if your platform approaches -X from the top or bottom, you are effectively anti-X.
By TMM on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
I think I need some X-lax
By Craig on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
What if X approaches zero asymptotically?
By R. Alex on Dec 19, 2006 | Reply
Schools are spending far too much time teaching kids what to think instead of how to think.
This might come across a lot more mean-spirited than I intend for it to. If I’m mischaracterizing what you’re saying, I apologize in advance, but I’ve heard arguments that seem similar to this before and they tend to drive me batty. With that said…
I strongly disagree with this assessment. It would be one thing if kids had a grasp of the facts but were unable to compile them in a critical and thoughtful manner, but for the most part don’t have a grasp of the facts.
Kids that can’t name the three branches of government know a dozen offensive and defensive football configurations and how they line up against one another. People can follow increasingly complex plots on television and in video games, but can’t remember algebraic formulas.
It doesn’t matter how critically people can think when they don’t have the factual foundation from which to draw their conclusions.
I’d go even further to say that the problem is that we’ve moved too far in the direction of conceptual, process-oriented education system. We’ve decided that details aren’t important (and learning them is a hideous burden… rote memorization… ick!), but conceptual understanding collapses without the foundation.
By Jimmy don't play that on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
“Schools are spending far too much time teaching kids what to think instead of how to think.” - spoken like a true constructivist. At what (grade) level of conceptualization are facts permitted to intrude? When in the course of rote accumulation of “facts” does the skeleton of conceptual structure precipitate? The mission of public education ought to be the assurance of a minimal level of competency, enabling survivors thereof to minimally function within society. Any dogma is icing on the cake, I simply demand to choose my children’s baker. I contend that Matt overstates the case when he avers that public education, like Social Security, is a “major success”. Their appeal devolves not from leveling the achievers but from elevating those who would otherwise fail to achieve a basis. Public education should assure that we all can speak a modicum of the same language, understand our civic and fiduciary responsibilities (thereby weaning generations off the teat of Social Security, but that is another rant), and inculcate sufficient morals - yes morals, dammit - so that subsequently, criminal perpetrators who are products of public education cannot claim ignorance of the societal evil of their criminal actions (legal complexity - yet another rant). Any child who excels sufficiently ought to be able to rise above the floor, and any attendee of non-public school who cannot or will not make the cut should be allowed to sink back to the floor. Public school is, and ought to be, academically inferior to private school. If it is not, then I fault the private school. To pretend otherwise is to be blind to Browning’s exhortation: “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?†Yes, yes, modulo all you atheists who will pick at the heaven nit - Browning didn’t capitalize it, either. Call it enlightenment if you must, but at least question the premise that, if we could just throw enough money at the extant system, all our kids could achieve satori simultaneously upon matriculation. Primary education is not about enlightenment - it is about differentiation and discrimination (no, not that kind) - the inculcation of basic thought processes that allow us to be skeptical instead of blindly tolerant. “Colby natale” unfairly conflates private and religious schools. Tolerance as a sacrament of the public school? Bosh.
By colby natale on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
I love how my name gets put in quotes, like you would when you said it in sarcasm, as if I don’t exist. Either that, or I am special.
By colby natale on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
“It doesn’t matter how critically people can think when they don’t have the factual foundation from which to draw their conclusions.”
I disagree, simply because if one had to choose between JUST facts or JUST thinking skills it would make more sense to choose thinking skills since fact can be derived using said skills. Skills cannot be derived using fact.
By R. Alex on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
Garbage in, garbage out. The value of thought is only as good as the information that it relies on. You can’t talk NFL football unless you know what the teams are or at least the rules of the game, no matter how good of a thinker you are. You can’t understand the founding of our country without being able to put together some sort of time line, which involves dates, no matter how good of a thinker you are. Facts need more than thinking to be discerned, they need other correct facts to actually think about.
By Craig on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
R. Alex hits it on the head as far as I’m concerned. We need to learn facts in school. As someone famously said, “You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.” Once you have those facts, you need to know how they mesh together; if, in fact, there is cause and effect between the facts.
TMM is also right in that we need to teach a little bit of morality. This self-esteem bullshit that has pervaded schools for the past 20-30 years has got to go. If you’re a shithead non-starter, you should feel bad about yourself; but they don’t seem to.
And, last but not least, let achievers achieve, rather than consigning them to mediocrity. Bring back competition, recess, and sometimes we can let kids take some lumps now and again, no matter how much we want to protect them from pain.
Learning how to deal with adversity at 8 beats having to figure it out at 28.
By Craig on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
And, while we’re at it, the word “tolerance” is a Princess Bride word: You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.
When I see people use the word tolerance, usually what they want it to mean is “acceptance.”
Not trying to assign value here, but it’s really two different things.
By Jimmy dont play that on Dec 20, 2006 | Reply
“Colby natale” - nope, no sarcasm - its a white space thing. If your name contains white space, your string gets quoted. White space is a field delimiter. Hence Craig needs none!
By Colby Natale on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
“You can’t talk NFL football unless you know what the teams are or at least the rules of the game, no matter how good of a thinker you are.”
But isn’t it true that someone with solid thinking skills could observe the game, note the penalties, see the smiliarities in the goals and actions of the teams, and deduce the rules from that?
Somone who knows all the rules, but can’t critically think worth a damn is never going to do anything but sit in front of the tv and watch football all day; they can;t make theories about why certian teams are good, or what the Colts should do in the red zone, or who is likely to go to the super bowl, because they cannot interrogate all that data they have.
By Craig on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
If someone can watch a couple of NFL games and explain the tuck rule, then I’m impressed.
(Had to inject some levity there.)
By Jay Stevens on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
Great conversation.
I find myself agreeing with a little bit of everybody’s opinion — especially JP’s and Jimmy’s.
As someone who went to both private and public schools as a kid, I have to say that my private school education was vastly superior to my public school experience.
I went to “hippie” private day school during 7-9 grades, took both Latin and French, read Faulkner, and took some calculus.
When I got to high school, I was two years ahead in math, had already completed my language requirements and basically played sports (soccer, ski racing, track) and partied my way to the honor roll in public HS. (No wonder I thought high school was fun!)
Here’s what we had in private school that we didn’t in public: small classes, teachers with aggressive lesson plans, and ambitious classroom requirements for all students. The teachers also had a lot more control over their curriculum.
Oh, and interested parents.
If I had my wish list for public school reform, it would be this: class sizes of no larger than 10 students for the humanities, 15 for math. Small, neighborhood schools. Each student assigned a tutor/mentor from day one. Starting teacher salaries double what they are now, and much stricter qualification standards. Two required languages, starting in the fifth grade. Destroy standardized tests.
Of course, those reforms are politically infeasible. That’s why we’ll probably consider putting the twins in private school or even doing some homeschooling.
Still, I believe we should do everything we can to provide as best a public education as possible. Jimmy’s right: public school is aimed to ensure that as few as possible drop out of the “system.” We need to give as many children as possible a basic and decent education, even if their parents are disinterested or unable to afford a better education.
Bottom line is this: just as I’d be willing to spend extra money to encourage my children’s talents (soccer camp, art school, etc), I’m willing to spend extra money to give my kids a better education. I don’t expect every parent to value education as much as I do — and as JP said — for some kids a traditional education doesn’t even have to be a priority.
But that doesn’t mean that I, as a member of my community, don’t have an obligation to help educate my community’s children through public schooling. You can call it an economic investment if you like to think of things in terms of $, but I think it’s a human rights issue.
By R. Alex on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
But isn’t it true that someone with solid thinking skills could observe the game, note the penalties, see the similarities in the goals and actions of the teams, and deduce the rules from that?
Someone that hasn’t been told what the rules of the game are will come up with a lot of false assumptions about them. And then he and she will build on those assumptions. New assumptions will be made based on the faulty old assumptions. They’ll find themselves making arguments based on the faulty assumptions and will either be embarassed when the other person confronts them with facts or they will be arguing with someone that has a similar ignorance of the details who will have another set of faulty assumptions. You have learn “what” before you can accurately assess “why” and “how”, which is where critical thinking becomes important.
I’m not saying that critical thinking isn’t important. I am saying, however, that it isn’t effective until you have knowledge.
Somone who knows all the rules, but can’t critically think worth a damn is never going to do anything but sit in front of the tv and watch football all day; they can’t make theories about why certain teams are good, or what the Colts should do in the red zone, or who is likely to go to the super bowl, because they cannot interrogate all that data they have.
If our school system was producing kids that had an even passable knowledge of the facts and an inability to know what to do with them, I might agree. Instead, young people are able to process large amounts of information, but outside of video games, TV, and culture, have an insufficient reserve to draw from.
By Walter Greenspan on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
In addition to having to include non-subject area material as part of the shcool day, the key problem is that the majority of teachers come from the bottom-third of their graduating high school class and then most go to schools of education to learn how to teach but not what to teach, and thus they end up simply parroting (sp?) whatever is in the text book that is assigned to the subject being taught, including any incorrect information in the textbook.
Solution to this problem anyone?
By colby natale on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
“but outside of video games, TV, and culture, have an insufficient reserve to draw from.”
I am sure all the children of the country are really excited to get more facts shoved down their throats; let me know how that goes. You can’t just make someone learn facts, you have to make them want to know. You have to teach people to be curious. Short of people with great memories, it takes work to learn facts; boring tedious work. Why would any adolescent want to devote time to this tedious work when their are more fun things to do? Unless that work was fun…
By colby natale on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
“the majority of teachers come from the bottom-third of their graduating high school class”
Thanks for the kind words. Both myself and one of my best high school friends became teachers; I was in the top 10% of my graduating class, and he was the Salutatorian.
Any more gross generalizations you would like to make?
By Walter Greenspan on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
colby natale: Please see, “The Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools” by Martin L. Gross, Harpercollins; ISBN: 0060194588.
By R. Alex on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
Why would any adolescent want to devote time to this tedious work when their are more fun things to do?
For the same reason many of us work forty hours a week when we would rather be doing something else: because it’s what we’re expected to do and because it needs to be done.
We’ve passed the point where we’re making kids learn (cause we’ll graduate them anyway). Now we’re at the point where we’re asking them to. As long as it’s in the form of a question, the answer will usually be “no”, except for the kids that are least at risk.
Anyway, this is touching on another pet peeve of mine, so I should probably bow out now. I hope that I haven’t come across as too rude, Colby. This is obviously a subject that we both feel very passionately about.
By Involved parent on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
I have four kids who attended public school, earned good grades, were active in extra-curricular activities (not just sports, everything: speech and drama, Ag Ed, math competition, etc. They earned good grades and kept their noses clean (most of the time) because my wife and I were involved in their education. They went on to MT state colleges and earned degrees, went out and found jobs and are doing just fine. However, they didn’t accomplish this without some sacrifice (both theirs, having jobs and ours, helping with expenses). I think they were challenged sufficiently in public schools. As a teacher with 32 years experience, I see many students today who want to be told what to think. I work hard challenging them, only to have them put out partial effort. They seem too complacent about their education. I plan to retire in a couple of years. I don’t know what the field of education holds, but we need to get parents more involved. Home schools and private schools have that luxury; we in public schools have to take what we are given. That doesn’t always equate into a level playing field.
By Colby Natale on Dec 21, 2006 | Reply
“I hope that I haven’t come across as too rude, Colby.”
Not at all, I enjoy spirited debate anyhow. In my public school teaching years, all three of them, I taught debate. Thanks for the ideas.
By Craig on Dec 22, 2006 | Reply
Involved Parent has a very good point, too. Parents have fobbed off most of their responsibilities on the school. They see school as free day care. Now the schools are expected to be disciplinarians, teach manners and the whole lot, but they don’t have any authority to enforce any of it.
Time was, you’d run your mouth off at school, and probably get a belting there, and you’d hope that the school didn’t call your parents because you’d get another one!
By Gman on Dec 22, 2006 | Reply
You started a great conversation, Craig. Blogging at its best.
Colby, in response to your #9 comment…. To start, are you a parent? The first thing I expect from my childrens’ education is for it to build a strong moral foundation. (I hesitate to send them to public school because I don’t want them to learn a morality based on secularism.) I equate morality with the commands to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I believe that is the beginning of learning. From there, I want my children to think critically. That means being aware of all modes of thought in the social and natural sciences, math, languages, etc. I believe it is OK to intellectually embrace truth yet be open to the thoughts and feelings of others. That is the influence of the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” on the intellect. In a nutshell — know the truth yet be open and loving towards others. In my view, that’s how one achieves meaningful tolerance and acceptance.
What has always bothered me about the mentality behind public education is that the “public benefit” of education justifies taxing me to fund it. (See Jay Stevens last paragraph at the end of comment #29.) I don’t send my child to the public school, so I should not have to shoulder the tax burden that funds the public school system. Sure, I come across as radical when I submit that it’s immoral to force me to do so. Forcing me to pay taxes to fund the public school system because I benefit from it indirectly is analogous to forcing me to pay taxes to subsidize my neighbor’s car because he can’t get to work without it, and if he doesn’t work he doesn’t buy products, pay taxes, so on and so forth. Public education is merely an incidental benefit to me.
What also bothers me is that people accept the mediocrity of public education because without it only a select few would be educated. Talk about alarmism. The free market can provide products and services for 95% percent of the population, but it can’t provide education services for almost everyone? That doesn’t make sense. The usual retort to a private system of education is that only the rich will get a good education. First, it may be true that the rich will get a “better” education. Second, the rich get a better education anyway. Third, the current system fails to challenge gifted kids whether they’re rich or poor (which numerous commenters admit to). Somehow that outcome is more desirable than presumed inequities that would result from a private system?
By Walter Greenspan on Dec 22, 2006 | Reply
To understand the problems inherent in the government school system, please see “The Origins of the Public School” by Robert P. Murphy (Ideas on Liberty, July 1998).
By colby natale on Dec 22, 2006 | Reply
Gman,
To start, yes I am a parent, although you never really seem to elaborate on why you ask me that.
Although you don’t say it, I assume part of your explanation is that you want your child(ren) to learn your moral foundation, not just any such foundation. I agree with that idea as far as the word foundation really goes; there are certain core ideas that I want to teach my daughter. But I want to teach her that bit, not have a school do it for me. Furthermore, I accept that I am a fairly big lefty, and perhaps that is not the road for my daughter. I wouldn’t send her to left-wing private school if they had one, because (while I would prefer her to think liberally) I want her to formulate her own stances on issues; I don’t want myself or her school to saturate her with one point of view too much.
Your logic about public services would make for one crazy world if we all followed it. Everybody would be trying to pick and choose what they paid taxes for, and then no one system would have enough funding to be effective, especially those that work at a national level. Local police and firefighters might get enough money, since many people want local safety, but countless important but forgotten bodies and services would never get enough ‘desire’ to be funded. I bet if a bunch of kids who never graduated were sapping the welfare system, you would have something to say about its impact on you. That is what bugs me about posts like this, it is dominated by a very greedy, self-serving ideology.
So we get rid of public education, what do we do with the kids whose parents don’t care, or are dead, or waste all the money on beer? Why force those kids to bear the burden of a situation that is not their fault? We shouldn’t, so the good people of the country establish an education system that they can participate in regardless of their home situation, because it is the right thing to do.
“Love your neighbor as yourself”, unless that neighbor is poor and can’t afford private school, then screw him, right?
I imagine in response, I will get some idea that since the free market generates class specific offerings in every other field (cars, homes, clothes, etc) then it can do the same for education. This idea is even scarier, because then we are saying to kids, it doesn’t matter what your potential or skills are, your life is going to be foundationally based on the income of your parents; something you had no say over. “Sorry kid, your parents were poor, you get the entry-priced school”.
Yup, sure sounds fun to me!
By colby natale on Dec 22, 2006 | Reply
(In response to #34)
You gotta love Mr. Greenspan, in response to challenges to his assertions, he points you to someone else’s work.
Way to participate in the debate, Walter.
By Gman on Dec 22, 2006 | Reply
Colby, suffice it to say that to you there is either a public system or no system. It’s a zero sum game. The alternatives to a public system are simply unacceptable. I disagree. I think the private sector and private individuals are resourceful enough (and care enough) to even provide a so-called “public good” sucha as education. (Read this — http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0605Tooley.pdf .) Has it ever occurred to you that a private system would inculcate parental responsibility and increase quality? By and large, that’s exactly what the market does with other services and products. Furthermore, for the less fortunate, private charity has done a great job — when it’s allowed to — of leveling the field in the past.
Two more points. First, you completely fail to account for the severe shortcomings of public schools. Chiefly, the gifted are dragged down to the level of the lowest common denominator. There is no room in most public schools to challenge the gifted. We’re not stealing their futures away in the name of mediocrity, huh? You justify the system on behalf of the less fortunate, yet you totally disregard the system’s impact on the gifted. How many scientists and mathematicians are being stifled by the system? What are the costs to society in that regard? Ever look at drop out rates?
Second, it’s really sad that you equate poverty with ignorance. (So typical because it’s the rationale for every left-wing viewpoint.) Based on what you say, the public school system is delivering those poor sops from themselves. The article I linked to certainly belies your negative assumption. You also paint rich people as evil and uncaring — that their goal in life is to oppress the less fortunate.
Finally, greedy self-serving ideology? Amazing! Your policies FORCEFULLY tax me to pay for something that I do not directly benefit from. If that isn’t the epitome of greed and selfishness I don’t know what is. Don’t lose sight of the fact that not only am I paying to prop up the failed public education system with my tax payments, I am paying for my child’s education OUT OF MY OWN POCKET! I’m taking personal responsibility for my child’s education and that is GREEDY and SELFISH!?
Thomas Jefferson sure was right when he observed, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty.”
Oh, and what the heck is wrong with referring to “someone else’s work”?
By Walter Greenspan on Dec 22, 2006 | Reply
In response to no. 33:
It’s quite informative that colby natale believes that citing her and her friend disproves my statement that “the majority of teachers come from the bottom-third of their graduating high school class” and that I was guilty of “gross generalizations”.
Her claim would only be true if there were 3 teachers in all the United States.
Alternatively, if colby natale is referring to her class standing when she graduated college (I was in the top 10% of my graduating class, and he was the Salutatorian), all this would mean was that her and her friend were the top of the bottom-third.
And, I guess that colby natale — “You gotta love Mr. Greenspan, in response to challenges to his assertions, he points you to someone else’s work.” — does not approve of citing well-researched sources (and, the actual source of my assertion that “the majority of teachers come from the bottom-third of their graduating high school class”). I guess that colby natale is a product of a failed education system and believes that what we feel about something is better than actual facts.
By Walter Greenspan on Dec 22, 2006 | Reply
The 3rd paragraph in my immediate prior comment shoul read:
Alternatively, if colby natale is referring to her class standing when she graduated teachers college or a school of education (I was in the top 10% of my graduating class, and he was the Salutatorian), all this would mean was that her and her friend were the top of the bottom-third.
By Craig on Dec 22, 2006 | Reply
Just for clarity’s sake, Colby is a male, and should be referred to as such.
By Dani on Dec 23, 2006 | Reply
I’ve read this thread over the past week and while I support the concept of both private and public education, I really do want to comment on colby natale’s opening paragraph:
“Public education, precisely because it does not conform to one ideological set, forces children to face facts, opinions, beliefs different from those found in their families and homes, and that makes for better people and better citizens; more tolerant people if you ask me. Public schools can do a lot of great things, but being that they adhere to some ideology, they cannot do what public schools do best.”
Not having an ideology, is in fact, is an ideology. Tolerance as the highest goal of education (which I have heard expressed before, so let’s be clear I’m not picking on colby) is an ideology. While I whole-heartedly agree that exposure to facts and differing viewpoints is essential, Jimmy’s point about discrimination is right on. I’ve been involved in higher education recently and I do think that many (not all) younger people simply do not know how to think logically and critically. I don’t know where any of these students and classmates have received their K-12 education.
Having been exposed to many differing worldviews, but never taught to question any of them, some have a very hard time discussing any topic that they take seriously. Some take deep, personal offense when their position is challenged, because they in turn have never had to defend it. The mere fact that they hold an opinion, is in their minds, prima facie evidence that the opinion is meritorious. They aren’t able to distinguish between facts and feelings- to them there is no difference. Both are perfect justifications to support an argument.
This week, I noticed my own kids using the words “I feel” in place of “I think,” perhaps because it’s less offensive to other people that way. Feelings are also unassailable. When I noticed they were doing this, we had a discussion about it. When they’re older, I’ll have them read Stephen Carter’s book, “Integrity.”
This attitude is pervasive. I see it everywhere that one can have an opportunity to discuss issues with young people (and not so young people), be it on a blog or in a classroom. Critical thinking seems to have evaporated into thin air, and that’s something that should concern us all.
By Dani on Dec 23, 2006 | Reply
Oops. Forgot the after prima facie. Also, Craig, does this new blog design support block quotes? I noticed no one was using them, so I didn’t, but I do like to if it can be done.
By Craig on Dec 23, 2006 | Reply
Blockquotes are hunky-dory, as are closed tags.