Separation of School and State

I agree, but too many fear this. At the very least, one should be allowed to write off the cost of tuition from one's income tax. </font>[/QUOTE]Why do they fear it? It's because they know the majority of people would prefer to fund an educational system that is more responsive to thier needs rather than government schools they aren't. They stand to loose control and that's something government bureaucrats really fear. It gets in the way of their "benefits for votes" schemes.

 

Actually, the majority of resistence to vouchers is from bible belt Christians who fear government control over the private school system via vouchers (the whole "you cannot serve two masters" thing). </font>[/QUOTE]That's an interesting angle I'd not considered before! Perhaps it is a factor in the way it might be administered. You can bet the government would want to attach many strings to a "voucher" program to keep control.

How about just letting the tax payers write their check to either the government school or the private school with no strings whatsoever? I wonder fears that would generate.

 

Go Poncho!

 

Good discussion, Johnv!

State-run schools had been in [existence] prior to the Constitution, as well as private-run schools. In fact, Thomas Payne in the late 1790's suggested the first voucher system. There have been state-mandated education standards since the early 1800's.</font>[/QUOTE]I understand the concept that public schools have been around a long time. Part of the homesteading of public land included reserving a portion of land in each township for a public school. Several of my ancestors were heavily involved in setting up, teaching, and administering some early public schools.

My point is that public schools have increasingly acted and been viewed as "government" verses "public". At one time I feel they were considered to be more of a quasi government locally controlled cooperative venture for the common good of local citizens. The community seemed to have "everything" to say about "their" school. Now they seem to be considered more a part of the "state" in every sense of the law and are tightly controlled by the federal and state governments.

Smarter, no. Do they tend to be better educated? Yes.</font>[/QUOTE]That's what I figured! So then, that must mean that the quality of private schooling is better than government schooling. It seems that the return - education - on the investment - tuition - is much better from a private school. Why else would people want to pay extra for it?

 

Private agencies could establish and accredit secondary schools just like they do higher educational institutions. The people that really know what's needed are the consumers - the employers who have need of the skills - of the educated public. Most employers are very much in tune to the bogus "diploma mills" you mention. The government really doesn't have all that much to offer in this realm. In fact, they seem to get fooled by bogus credentials from time to time don't they? The government is nothing but "overhead" to the public best concerned with providing a framework of justice, providing for the defense of the nation, and protecting our borders. People own the skills and employers own the jobs. Together they can figure out what's needed and those with the right drive will go get it. Parents need to be responsible - success or failure - for their children's education until those children get old enough to do so for themselves. Those that don't want to lean a skill will do even worse in a government school and "grow up" expecting that same government to provide for them.

 

Who says it can't? It's an oft-heard mantra, but real cases are few and far between. I'm sure you've heard the stereotype of the inner-city school and kids bringing in weapons. Yet, the most severe cases of school violence occur in small towns like Littleton, CO.
</font>[/QUOTE]In this case, I was focusing more on basic class room discipline that facilitates an orderly environment for learning rather than outright senseless violence such as the Littleton, Colorado incident. By "discipline" I do not mean harshness - I mean that necessary to establish and maintain order for the purpose at hand.

Teachers no longer have the ability to maintain basic discipline in the classroom of government schools. Nearly any school teacher can attest to that. Not only is corporal punishment virtually eliminated but even verbal reprimand is severely restrained. Many teachers work in fear of some of their students. A reason is that the government has it's "standards" for what constitutes discipline. It is grossly confused with all kinds of "political correctness" and "psychology" that eliminates the ability for execution of good judgment. Since the educational process in a government school is an "entitlement", the parents of misbehaving students don't care as much about discipline as they do extending the impact of their own "rights" and "entitlement" crusades.

A student who puts fear into a teacher belongs in reform school if any school at all. They are likely to be future criminals and should not be permitted to deter from the good education of others. Their continued attendence only establishes potetional "role models" for younger students. It becomes a game to test the system for how far one can push the limits.

As for the Littleton, Colorado incident, it is unfortunate that some of the school teachers or administrators were not armed and able to terminate the violence inflicted by the deranged students. These "little boys", who were fully responsible for the violence, deserved to die like the animals whose role they assumed whether in a public school, in a home invasion, or a bank robbery.

[ September 26, 2005, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Dragoon68 ]

 

Now you're saying that we shouldn't have state universities? No U of Michigan, no Wisconsin, no U of NC, no NC State, no U of CA, no GA Tech, etc. These are all excellent colleges and much cheaper than private colleges. </font>[/QUOTE]Sure, nearly all alumni and alumna of a given university believe they went to a great school. There are many universities with relatively - meaning compared to what's available - good academic programs. I don't disagree with that. Some students just think their university is great because of their football team alone. Many believe they receive a solid education.

Ask any group of graduates - high school or college - basic questions about reading, writing, mathematics, history, geography, government, etc. and tell me how impressed you are relative to what they should know and be able to do.

I'm saying private schools - including government ones that could be privatized - would be better because they wouldn't be under government control. A lot of the curricula of universities is devoted to studies that perpetuate the faculty agenda as opposed to providing useful knowledge for the students. Ask students is professors spend time teaching them or spend time researching and writing books. Ask students if most of their instruction comes from graduate assistants. Maybe that's why fresh graduates have to learn how to do a "real" job after spending four to five years "learning". Ask any college graduate ten years into their career how much of what they "learned" is "used" in their work. Academia calls it a "well rounded education" that "demonstrates the ability to learn". Many hard working people are so convinced that's the case at all. The programs of study could be much better and much less expensive. They're just not as "great" as government educators want us to believe.

Tuition to any college or university is hardly "cheap" these days. One reason public universities may seem cheaper is that part of their funding is hidden in an assortment of taxes. Another reason private schools are more expensive is because people are willing to pay for it - and they don't get the same tax support - because they believe they're going to get more for their money. Some just go for the "name" and can afford it. The curricula problem is the same.