July 11-13: At Netroots Nation

The Hidden History of Guns and the 2nd Amendment Book Tour Is Coming...

  • Saturday, June 22: Los Angeles, CA 3:00pm - KPFK Speaker Series: Thom Hartmann (Stephanie Miller will be joining Thom) on The Hidden History of Guns. UCLA Dodd Hall 147, 315 Portola Plaza, Los Angeles - Get tkts here https://www.facebook.com/events/2263735727213646/
  • Sunday, June 23: SEATTLE, WA 7:30pm
    Location: Town Hall, 1119 8th Ave, Seattle (West Entrance) w/Elliott Bay Book Company
  • Tuesday, June 25: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7:00pm
    Location: First Church, 2345 Channing Way, Berkeley w/The Booksmith
    Here’s the Facebook event:https://www.facebook.com/events/2418269571727663/And here’s the link to purchase tickets: https://hiddenhistoryofguns.bpt.me/
  • Friday, June 28: CHICAGO, IL 7:00pm
    Location: Frugal Muse, 7511 Lemont Rd. #146 (Chestnut Court Shopping Center), Darien
  • Saturday, June 29: MINNEAPOLIS, MN 7:00pm
    Location: Common Good Books, 38 S. Snelling Ave, St. Paul
  • Friday, July 12: PHILADELPHIA, PA 4:15pm - At Netroots Nation
    Location: PA Convention Center, 1101 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA

Become a Thom Supporter- Click the Patreon button

I did not get the Liberal emphasis on public schooling...but I do now!

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

60 posts / 0 new

I consider myself to be "liberal" because I like to support ideas and causes that help as much people as possible, not just a few here and there. However, I do not understand the antagonism against private schools and especially home schooling.

When I get married and have a kid or two, I would not mind in the least to stay home and teach school to my children while my wife works. That is, if that is what we agree on as a family! Isn't the goal of any form of schooling to make sure that the child knows what they need to know to be responsible and productive citizens, regardless of being educated in the home, a private school, or a public school?

I have heard some people in my life say it's because public school teachers have a degree and a credential to make sure that educators "know their stuff." I find that insulting because I have two associate degrees. Does that make me stupid? Anything I do not know too well can be sought out by buying textbooks to study from accredited schools or community colleges.

I am not trying to tell others how to raise their kids. I am concerned about how some are trying to tell me how to raise my future kids, potentially. Am I wrong in this?

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Comments

I don't think liberals are against private schools or home schooling, they just realize that for most or at least many working families the former is overpriced and the latter is impractical. What liberals don't want is for the public school system to be undermined to such a degree that people find themselves sstruggling or unable to send their kids to a decent school because vouchers are inadequate.

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What I do like about public schools is that it does make sure that somehow there is always a means to facilitate education should the parents of a child not be up to it and there are no affordable private schools around.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

The frenzy toward privatization of the American educational system, including the charter school movement, is a direct assault on the American labor force. It is a trap by the right, which the New Dems have fallen right into, to destroy teachers unions. Private schools often don't even require their "teachers" to be certified the same way that public school teachers must be and here's why:

Private secondary or high schools do not have the same certification requirements as public schools. They are often willing to hire teachers with master's or even bachelor's degrees and no further education, experience or certification. As with any other position, the more experience you bring, the better your odds of getting the job and the more negotiating power you have when it comes to salary. As a result of their reduced requirements and lack of government spending, many private schools pay less and provide fewer benefits to their teachers than public institutions may offer. http://work.chron.com/jobs-uncertified-teachers-11796.html

Often parents choose private schooling in order to avoid the sinful secular world of public education so that their children won't be subjected to blaspemies -- like evolution. If parents choose to send their children to a religious school to get their daily dose of Bible thumping they have that right but schools should be strictly monitered by the state to make sure they learn something other than just what's in the Bible.

Home schooling is often done for the same reason, so that parents can pound religion into children without worrying that they'll be exposed to a world of temptations that await them just outside the door. Again, home schooling is a parent's right but I think it amounts to child abuse since socialization is a critical part of childhood. A generation of home schooled children is going to yield a bounty of socially dysfunctional adults.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

Mdhess,

I respect you for your stand in human rights, particularly when it comes to the rights of homosexuals. However, to be frank and honest, I find what you just said here to be slightly Orwellian.

"When thought is crime, no one is safe." - Orwell

Is it any of the business of the government what people think about "blasphemies" and "evolution?" Is it any public concern that a child gets "Bible thumped" just as long as that child receives the information they need to be responsible and productive at least by the time they are old enough to leave home to make the important choices in their life?

Don't get me wrong though. I am not religious. In fact I consider myself a "skeptical enquirer" in which "I don't know" G*d enough to believe that there is one. I am opened minded, but not to the point of being open enough to spill my brains out on the floor. While I might be disturbed by children receiving a "thumping" of an education, it is ultimately none of my business.

The only legitimate problem I can see, as you put it, is socialization issues. Child abuse? Hardly...but it is still an issue I admit.

Again, Mdhess, I respect you. Please do not infer that what I just posted is directed at you on a personal level.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

MdHess,

To answer your point concerning teacher salary and benefits, I say what if a teacher is a monk or nun that receives only a stipend for the most basic of needs? They would not get paid due to their calling, but could still deliver a good education.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

I don't know how to classify myself, so I will just consider myself left thinking. One of things I objected to was the voucher program. The voucher program, from the Bush Duce Administration, is just a subsidy for the rich. The truly elite private schools that teach classical educations cost a lot more than 7 or 8 thousand a year, and the privileged few that attend do not need vouchers, however, they are eligible for the voucher program, and you better believe their parents are taking advantage. There are interesting static for students who applies for vouchers program for private schools. Most of the students applying already attend private schools without taxpayer subsidies.

The voucher program is also going to be a boon for the privatization of the school system. Governors' like Chris Christie a former lobbyist for a company wanting to privatize schools in New Jersey. One of his first acts as governor of New Jersey was to take money out of the public school system, and grant for profit school companies, including the one Christie was a lobbyist, that exact amount he extract for public schools he put into the for-profit schools. Now you have the public system being robbed to pay the for-profit-schools and their also eligible for the voucher program in New Jersey. How long do you think it will take for a-for-profit school to start charging for exiting exams, diploma fees and the like?

My opinion , like a couple others who've posted here, is the main reason for these programs is to crush one of the last power and politically influential, private or public, unions left in the US. That's the teachers unions; these teachers that are going to be forced out of a job in the public school are going to make up the majority of the for-profit schools faculty. Plus, a for-profit schools are not going to do anymore than they have to do. Students will be getting the lowest bidder with the cheapest education programs accepted by the fiscally responsible state.

What I object to the most is parochial schools, especially, Catholic schools. The Catholic church is a protection organization for pedophiles and I do not want my tax dollars funding any organization that has a proven track record of protecting child molesters for the sake of public image. That's my opinion on the subject. I, also, don't like the idea of funding religious organization at all, but parochial school provide a more classical education than the compulsory public school system, which the for-profit schools will mirror exactly.

With that said, I don't have a problem with an at home education. I actually think it's a good idea and I think the public subsidies would be well spent in helping parents educate their selves, so they teach their children in their own way and in their own time. Early childhood should be with their parents. I, especially, like the idea of the first 6 or 8 years of educations. There should be some guidelines, but very loose in my opinion.

The main problem with public education is deeply flawed by design. The teachers have some blame, but primary problems is the education system itself. The system is failing because it's set up to fail. The entire structure of public school had become a teach-to-test system totally void of critical thinking.

The US no longer needs engineers, doctors and other professional because of Bill Gates (Little fascist) flat earth principle of undermining professional workers with H-B1 visa's; H-B1 visa works against professionals like NAFTA did to undermine labor. There are a lot more factors to consider, but the American public school system, once the envy of the world, has devolved into a political football for politicians to kick around but not fix.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am

Richard of Jefferson,

I can understand the concern over vouchers. I also would like for government money going only to "secular" public schools. Vouchers are more or less a subsidy.

However, I see another side of the issue. If private schools accept public vouchers then the government might try to usurp control of what is taught there in the name of quality control concerning "evolution" and the like.

Then there is the issue of unions. I agree with the existence of unions, particularly teachers unions. However, I do not view private education as a deliberate attempt to destroy any union. I could be wrong, though. What if a teacher with a vow of poverty taught at a private school because they would support that vow. Should such a person be forced to join a union? Maybe join the union for the sake of the community of workers, but they would not be able to pay dues for the pension funds, etc.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Private, for-profit and parochial schools already accept public, besides the voucher program. The voucher program, if you take it seriously, is suppose to give students "choice". The voucher is not used at public school; it's just used solely for for-profit charter, private, or parochial schools. A student going to public school, if accepted to a private institution, can use the voucher to help pay their way, however, the money is normally not enough to cover all the expenses. And according to the static I've seen; the majority of students applying and receiving these vouchers already attend these private institutions and have the means to pay.

I find it highly unlikely that private and religious institution will have to submit to government control due to public subsidies, however, they've got the right of refusal, which, I also, Highly doubt they'll refuse.

For the vow of poverty problem, they could always donate their salary. Easy enough

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am

Another point about home schooling. One that I think should be considered. Subsidizing Mothers/Fathers that stay home and teach their childern. We value a hedge fund manager to the tune of millions and millions of dollars in salary, stock options, bonus and company perks, but raising a child in the US has virtually no value.

In a pay to play society like the US, most households have to have two adults working. This would make it virtually impossible for a child to be taught properly at home, however, if we valued parenthood in this country, as much as, say, military contractors, we could pay for one person to stay home and educate their childern, providing human capital down the road, but of course paid killers are much more important and productive in a state capitalist society for opening "free" markets.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am

That's the problem with the salary of a vow of poverty. It is nothing at all except for food, clothing, etc. I guess that such a person can join the local union as a "volunteer," but that would have to be it as far as dues go.

What do you think about public education being administrated at the state level instead of the federal level? I actually think that it would help public schools. It would give states the opportunity to set up their own Dept. of Education in stead of relying on the dysfunctional Dept. of Education in Washington, D.C.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

In many states the per pupil cost for education runs well over $16,000/student per year. In many cases that cost exceeds the cost of sending one to a private school.

If I have the choice to send my child/student off for an education, I will, and did, choose the path that will benefit the child the most in later years with a good diverse education rather than worry about the teachers unions in the public education system.

Like public education or not, too many times all the students in the class are brought down to the lowest students performance levels in this day of diversity and political correctness.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

Dexterous,

You have a point. Unions are an issue to me, but not the most important one. The most important issue of any education is whether or not the student knows what they need to know so that person can be responsible and productive.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Like I said, American public school use to be considered the finest in the world, now it is a teach-to-test system, which doesn't teach a child anything but memorization of answers, that they'll soon forget. We could always look at the past to better understand the future, and maybe try to fix it, but that's using reason to help figure out a problem that's based in corruption and greed.

I would never go against a union, especially to support private enterprise. Unions have had to make a lot of concession to private interest because of the deliberate demonizing of unions by the American business controlled press and PR firms. Teacher unions are no exception to unchecked onslaught of negativity cultivated in media, PR firms, think tanks and corporate board rooms around the country. As unions have fallen, so has standard of living for most Americans. You could also look at history and statistics that support that theory too, but anti-unionism is the "new spirit of the age" and some of these responses prove their propaganda efforts are highly effective.

Unions are democratic institution and private enterprise is top down tyrannies.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am

By all means, privatize the schools. Privatize the prisons. Privatize Social Security. Privatize law enforcement at all levels. Privatize the courts right up to the Supremes – no more government run anything! Well, that’s a process already well underway. Ain’t it grand?

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am

Alberto Ceras 2,

I do not support the privatization of education unless you consider home schooling to be private. While I have reservations about private schools, I think that they have a right to exist just as long students can still get a public education if they choose to leave their private school for a public one.

There are some things that should never be privatized because they are used by everyone, like it or not. However, what I am trying to get at is why home schooling is bad when the goal is to provide people with the knowledge they will need to be responsible and productive citizens?

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Children learn more, far more, from their peers than from any other source. Take away the diversity – the clash of cultures and ideas - that only a public school can offer and you remove a – maybe the – major source of the child’s education. I can't imagine a more parochial, restrictive atmosphere for a child's education than the home.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am

Alberto Ceras 2, right on, getting people to understand that's the pill poisoning the system is extremely difficulty for people to understand. There is this libertarian/Ayn Rand/objectivist horse shit philosophy infecting the minds of people everywhere. This philosophy is a product of wealthy people manufacturing anti-government sentiment to undermine democratic control of our limited representative government. So, they can convince working people that, if government just got out of the way, and let business do as they please; the world will come into some kind of economic harmony guided by Adam Smith's invisible hand-job of self-correcting markets.

Well people, let me tell you something, wealthy business interest have dominated this government since it inception, and that domination has never been more obvious then in the past 4 decades. Our regulations are at their lowest, corporate taxes rates are at their lowest, capital gains tax are laughable, trade barriers are gone, monopolies exist everywhere, financial institutions are protected by a public safety net and on and on and on, but it's unions and the unbelievably underfunded social system destroying America. Yes, of course, those social benefits won by hard class struggle; the blood and sacrifice of working people to form union are the reasons America is failing.

Cheers to propaganda because that's the only American institution that still works like a charm.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am

What you guys have just said is disturbing. I am a "Liberal" because I like to act in the interest of everyone instead of the few here and there. However, what you are saying suggests that you believe it is the job of the government... no, forget government, the job of "Society" is to rescue children from their parents through the public schools. That is disturbing! Orwell is rolling in his grave.

I wish you guys no harm. I benevolently wish upon you both health and happiness. However, if it is the job of "Society" to rescue children from their parents then I don't want to have children.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

I have to qualify that I'm not against home schooling. I do understand why people are suspect of home schooled children, because a lot of it is ideology driven, which is harmful to children only in the aspect of the ridiculous nature of their parents, which will be for the most part the only view presented to their child. I am anarchist by tradition so a I have mixed feelings on the subject.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am
Quote RichardofJeffersonCity:There is this libertarian/Ayn Rand/objectivist horse shit philosophy infecting the minds of people everywhere. This philosophy is a product of wealthy people manufacturing anti-government sentiment to undermine democratic control of our limited representative government.

:::

Yes, of course, those social benefits won by hard class struggle; the blood and sacrifice of working people to form union are the reasons America is failing.

Cheers to propaganda because that's the only American institution that still works like a charm.

Well said, Richard. The unions, at their best, often provided the only effective counterpoise to wealth. And so they were targeted, effectively, very early on. It speaks volumes that those most in need of, who would most benefit from, unions are often the very ones who disparage them.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am

I have to go to school. I will get to you guys when I get back. I go to a public community college. Is that wrong? No it is not because the community colleges are not trying to take away anyone from anything. They are truly interested in the education of many things that almost everyone can find offensive here or there. Besides, it is not an issue of rights. At even the community colleges, they are paid for partially by the students themselves.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

First off, micah, I was responding to Alberto's privatization point. If you have a private institution with profit as its motivation v. a public institution bound by political bureaucracy with some democratic control. Your still leaving your child under some kind of institutional control. I would pick the one I have most influence over and that would be a imperfect government institution. Where you can vote on school board members and possible influence policy. A private company is a closed circuit with top down control like a dictatorship,

I agree with home schooling, but I understand Alberto's point and it is legitimate.

Holding a concept in ones mind without buying into is a lost art.

If a child, even an adult, is limited to one point of view, no matter how open minded and careful, that will be the single guiding aspect of that Child's life. It can be very limiting to that Child's development is all Alberto is suggesting and it's a good point

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am

One thing you often hear from anti-liberals (I'll refrain from using the term "right wing" here) is that public education is merely a state tool to crush the individual and create obedient workers and so forth. The success of that rhetoric is made possible by the fact that we have forgotten the conditions that pertained at the time public education was innovated. An educated, literate public is essential to democracy. Unfortunately, it looks like the pendulum has only just begun to pick up momentum in the other direction. It seems to me the point of the voucher system, given what WofJ said above, is to break down the idea that we all have a responsibility to society in the form of providing for a good education for each person. Since the change in conditions include an objectively better lifestyle but increasing inequality, this general breakdown of the idea of social solidarity in favor of class antagonism bodes ill for the well-being of future generations of workers and poor.

There are two ways this problem could be addressed in respect to education. One is to salvage the public education system. The other is to adapt so-called reform to a progressive use. Charter schools could also be run by local communities who embrace the progressive or liberal view of history, science and philosophy, etc. The fundamental thing is that the will and understanding has to emerge. This is difficult as it always has been because the working class and poor are at a disadvantage to the wealthy and powerful. There is no gaurantee that instead of it being too late worsening conditions will inspire a revolt against right-wing revolution.

As for home schooling, the fact that conservatives are the ones dominating the field brings up issues of perspective. According to the forementioned propaganda, they see home-schooling as a way to liberate the individual and family. From the progressive's perspective it is a means of brainwashing the child and cloistering the individual in a community that holds highly atavistic and authoritarian values which are often deeply disturbing in that they behind the facade often lies severe psychological issues and disfunction. The need to control that negative dynamic is part of why these "communities" and social networks form such an authoritarian character.

Blaming teacher's unions for the problems associated with public education is unfair, since it is usually the bureaucracy that is the impediment to reform. The teachers often have good ideas but the system cannot handle the process of testing them and implementing the successful ones. If what I said above appears unfair and slanted, then home-schooling can also be one way that progressives are able to develop ideas which have always been a part of their legacy anyway. I don't think we necessarily need to weaken or do away with federal involvement, since as long as we have a federalized banking system the money will always flow in large part from the top. But we can institute local control and diverse practices.

A person can only be sequestered from society for so long. I do worry about the potential emergence of right-wing ideologies which are deeply entrenched in the system. When they masquerade as the underdog they are really vindicating a historical perspective where diversity and multiculturalism and social evolution are scapegoated the same way immigrants and minorities are anytime the right-wing is in ascendance. But in the long run, the reality that most americans are relatively reasonable and respect the science of evolution for example will predominate if the power is returned to the hands of the people.

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote micahjr34:Orwell is rolling in his grave.

Only to afford himself more space to applaud. You have neither understood me nor Orwell.

Don't waffle, Richard.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am

Alberto Ceras 2,

I wish you guys no harm.

If what you guys are saying isn't what I interpret it to be, then please enlighten me... That is what this forum is for.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

The injustice would be that when the best education is only afforded to those with the money to afford it. Education is far too important for the world to offer it only to the highest bidder. The system right now is not nearly good enough. There are literally millions of hungry and eager minds whose formal education ends at graduating high school because of the costs involved with a continuing education. The cures for ebola and cancer could very well reside in the minds of that kid working behind the McDonalds counter.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, Bush_Wacker. I agree.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Alberto, I am not waffling.. My first post was in agreement with home schooling. I have a fundamentally different idea on the subject, than Micah, but I do agree with the concept of home schooling and I believe it could be very effective in raising highly educated children, but there are a ton of pitfalls to be considered.

I do agree with your point about peers. Children learning from contempories would have to be something to consider, because it's a real aspect of child development in a world where human interaction is a on a constant basis.

However, I believe a parent/teacher would give the child their best chance to develop to his/her fullest potential.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am

I am not saying that public education is evil... or even "bad." Let me phrase it this way:

If a parent decides to homeschool ther children, then the parent can possibly work with the public schools, especially when it comes to getting books and materials to supplement any private materials the parent also wishes to use. Besides, there is the acceptable policy to me that while a student is taught at home, that child would also have to take tests offered by the public schools to make sure that the child is learning at grade level.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm
Quote micahjr34:However, what you are saying suggests that you believe it is the job of the government... no, forget government, the job of "Society" is to rescue children from their parents through the public schools. That is disturbing! Orwell is rolling in his grave.

It may suggest that to you, micahjr34, but it is not my belief nor did I suggest it. The child's association with many peers from a wide spectrum of cultures, the diversity of opinion and tastes from which the child can choose and develop cannot be duplicated in the home. They can only be found in a public school setting. I can't find anything directly relating to this question in Orwell but this is close. It may shed some light on Orwell's slant on education:

From Orwell’s A Clergyman's Daughter

Chapter 4

Dorothy believes that her father, distraught at the rumours of her running away with Mr Warburton, has ignored her letters for help. In fact he has contacted his cousin Sir Thomas Hare, whose servant locates her at the police station. Hare's solicitor procures a job for her as a "schoolmistress" in a small "fourth-rate" private girls' "academy" run by the grasping Mrs Creevy. Dorothy's attempts to introduce a more liberal and varied education to her students clash with the expectations of the parents, who want a strictly "practical" focus on handwriting and basic mathematics. The work, which initially she enjoys, quickly becomes drudgery. Mrs Creevy eventually dismisses her, without notice, when she finds another teacher.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am

Alberto Ceras 2,

O.k., I apologize. I misinterpreted your statements.

Concerning socialization, I suggest that the homschooled children can social together in study groups from time to time during the school week...or even the school day. Also, homeschooled children can be allowed to play public school sports like baseball or basketball with children who are regular students at a school, for the sake of socialization if the parent sees that as beneficial.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Someday soon we will see a melting together of home schooling and traditional school. Our kids will participate with thousands through the use of home computer systems where they can study and interract with students around the world. Being able to visually and orally interract with each other socially will do wonders for young minds. One really good teacher can teach thousands at the same time. School buildings can be used to house the homeless someday.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote micahjr34:

If a parent decides to homeschool ther children, then the parent can possibly work with the public schools, especially when it comes to getting books and materials to supplement any private materials the parent also wishes to use. Besides, there is the acceptable policy to me that while a student is taught at home, that child would also have to take tests offered by the public schools to make sure that the child is learning at grade level.

You simply don't understand. It has nothing at all to do with books and materials. It is the association with other children from widely differing backgrounds that public schools provide and that neither home schooling nor parochial schools can. While important, you overestimate the formative value of what children learn from school books. The most valuable life lessons they learn from peers.

I'm also much in favor of team sports. Not what you think. I had the good fortune, when much younger, to teach in an Australian preparatory school - a public school. There were no school teams with fancy uniforms or such nor did the school itself sponsor any sort of sport. Within the school teachers were assigned "houses." These houses competed with each other in a variety of ways but always as one team against another. Whether in impromptu races or other activity we stressed the importance and value of each members' contribution, a lesson that, I believe, many learned for life. These sorts of team activities would be hard or impossible to duplicate in a home school environment.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am

What you seem to talk about is "selfishness" - or as it is commonly known - individualism? It is about loyalty to the common good and our "common personhood?"

Sounds great to me! BUT, and this is a big one - What about those others (not me...) who want to be selfish? What happens to them?

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Someday soon we will see a melting together of home schooling and traditional school. Our kids will participate with thousands through the use of home computer systems where they can study and interract with students around the world. Being able to visually and orally interract with each other socially will do wonders for young minds. One really good teacher can teach thousands at the same time. School buildings can be used to house the homeless someday.

This is precisely the sort of thing about which Orwell tried to warn us. May god deliver us from this perversity.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am

Why the liberal emphasis on public schools? Because we understand how important they are. That's why.

Witness the cookie-cutter good corporate citizens pushed out as educated today. However, I can't imagine a more vapid and limiting educational experience than home schooling. It's important to note ones own range if you're seriously thinking about teaching what would be naturally learned out in the world. Almost anyone can teach a child the 3 r's after all. And if that's all teachers did then they could properly be called babysitters instead of teachers.

If you're looking for a better or a more humanist learning experience for your children consider the progressive schools philosophy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education#Developments_since_the_1950s

There's quite a lot of them laying about if one looks.

School teachers are not just babysitters and shools are not corporate head quarters.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm

I am so confused. I can't tell if you all are saying that it is in the interest of children to know how to participate in society or if it is in the interest of society to teach children to participate. These two things are radically different propositions. I genuinely can't make heads or tails of what you all are trying to communicate here.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Did you read my link mica?

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm
Quote micahjr34:

What you seem to talk about is "selfishness" - or as it is commonly known - individualism? It is about loyalty to the common good and our "common personhood?"

Sounds great to me! BUT, and this is a big one - What about those others (not me...) who want to be selfish? What happens to them?

No way is that what I'm talking about. It astounds me how readily you misinterpret me. Selfishness and individualism are not synonomous. Not even close. In history quite often the least selfish have been the most individual.

A good many of those who wish to be selfish have done quite well on Wall Street.

I'm talking about understanding.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am
Quote rs allen:

Why the liberal emphasis on public schools? Because we understand how important they are. That's why.

***

If you're looking for a better or a more humanist learning experience for your children consider the progressive schools philosophy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education#Developments_since_the_1950s

There's quite a lot of them laying about if one looks.

School teachers are not just babysitters and shools are not corporate head quarters.

Thank you, rs allen for your wise comments.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am

I normally read the links after I have discussed things a while. I do read them, but I take my time with it. Know what? That is an extremely bad habit. It is putting the cart before the horse. I need to read links as I get wind of them instead of reading them as I go back over people's posts to see what they were referencing about. Bad habit indeed!!!! I am just saying that to be honest with you...

Your article explains the efforts of people such as John Dewey. It goes into "community" and the "individual" not necessarily having to conflict with each other. In fact, the article says that they can enhance each other. The entire article concerning this does not treat the individual as an isolated individual. Is that it? The issue is about isolation. The issue of public schools is about ending isolation and creating a dialectic among peers? (summarization of the articles)

I am not against that. In fact this forum is a "community," a dialectic (my wording...) so that I am with others, not for them or against them.

The whole gathering of information you had in that link goes against social isolation. Isolation is the problem, not the solution. That is the problem with home schooling: Isolation?

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

I do not consider Rs allen and Alberto Ceras 2 to be enemies. We are just having an intense discussion. That is what these forums are for...brutal honesty. I wish nothing but the best for them. Also, I do not forget Richard of Jefferson. I am not trying to even argue against what they are saying. I am trying to understand what they are saying. Any debate over who is "right" is over trivial matters.

I think that I am beginning to understand. By going to public schools, students learn to be part of the community, not just learn information.

I also do not forget Mdhess.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

I'm sorry that I didn't reply sooner but the post you referred to was from late last night. I am not advocating thought policing. i agree, and said, that it's a parents right to teach children religion if they so choose just in the same way I would not suggest that people don't have a right to believe in conservative ideology. When I said "Bible thumping" it was merely an expression of my own personal disdain.

As far as home schooling I stand by my assertion, if it does not include some provision for socialization then it's child abuse. No kid should be cloistered away from the opportunity to be around a social circle of his or her peers. I have friendships and memories from school that helped shape me and could never have happened without a social setting like public school. For instance (and I don't mean this as a brag as it doesn't really say anything about me) I befriended a person named Tom Knotts in school. I knew him for several months before discovering that he's the son of Don Knotts. That would never have happened if I had been sitting at home being tutored by my mother. Socialization, I'm convinced, is not just nice but critical to a child's development.

I feel very sorry indeed for kids who get stuck at home attending an "online" school. Frankly I think the idea that a school could operate online is ludicrous. As a supplement, sure, but not as one's primary school.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm
Quote mdhess:

The frenzy toward privatization of the American educational system, including the charter school movement, is a direct assault on the American labor force. It is a trap by the right, which the New Dems have fallen right into, to destroy teachers unions.

True, destroying unions is a key agenda of the right, as is letting corporations feed at the public troth.

But I've had my share of bad awful public school teachers that should have been weeded out of the system years before I got them. Maybe on some level I should be grateful to my 3ed grade teacher who forever destroyed any automatic respect I had for those in authority.

On the other hand one of my best friends was a teacher... progressive, creative, care about the kids... and he lost his job. He was grateful saying schooling had become oppressive. He might do much better in a private school that's not so rigid.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Home schooling would be a necessity if you insisted on living in a place like Alaska and were many miles from the nearest town, but even that would be a neccessary evil born out of the insistance on living isolated from the rest of civilization. The importance of socialization cannot be overstated. It seems to me that the typical home schooler does so out of fear of what their children might be subjected to at the public school. If paying additional money to attend a school populated by children of like-minded parents alleviates the fear, by all means do so. However, to purposely isolate your children from the outside world will yield results that are not much different than being subjected to solitary confinement in prison.

The home schooling crowd seems to go hand in hand with the anti-union, anti-government crowd, so it is no major revelation to see them shun unionized teachers and unionized government workers as part of the whole deal. The jury is still out on whether or not charter schools can actually improve the education of children, but the jury is in on how charter schools are heavily supported by the same crowd who are so vehemently anti-union. I don't think charter schools were initially conceived of as an anti-union mechanism as much as an empowerment of the people, but the anti-union angle has really been exploited. There is no reason a charter school cannot employ unionized teachers, but you would think otherwise based on the info we are provided.

The concept of having our tax dollars be used to universally educate our children is something nobody should question, just as universal healthcare. Yet, here we are actually debating such nonsense in the wealthiest nation on earth as if we just can't afford it. We can't afford not to and we just might find out the results of refusing to pay that very important bill as we keep giving away our taxes to those who need it the least. Shame on us!

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I don't get the question. Since when are the "left" against private schools or home schooling? Is this a question framed to fish for "right baiting" answers?

The progressive position is that government funds should not be taken away from public schooling to enrich private school owners. The voucher system is simply another way for the republicrats to rob from the poor's future to subsidise the weathly.

I also call bullpucky on the person that said private schools cost less than public schools. I want to see the source on that one. All studies I've seen show private schools costing a minimum of 1.5x and that's the crappy ones.

Rhodan's picture
Rhodan
Joined:
Oct. 4, 2014 7:40 am

Rhodan,

I asked the question because I wondered why public schools were so important to Liberals. In this thread people have said that it is because of the need for children to socialize. I conceded this point, that even children homeschooled should be more than allowed to participate in social study groups and even public school athletics. There is also the issue of unions, where I do concede now that there are people out there in the homeschooling movement who are into it because of being against teacher unions. I would never personally use home schooling as a means to hurt those unions.

I have also posted against vouchers because they are a government subsidy for a private institution.

I also posted that a point I am trying to make is that what should be the most important reason to send children to school is so that they learn what they need to know to be responsible and productive citizens. Whether a child is homeschooled, private schooled, or public schooled, the number one aim is education, with socialization coming in a very close second.

As for any statements about private school costs, that is a distant third. While the cost of educating students is a factor, the most important factor is still that the student gets educated.

No I am not trying to "bait" people into controversy here concerning anything "right wing."

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

To everyone here,

One argument that I have heard against having a public school system is "I don't want to pay for the schooling of other people's kids!" I wholeheartedly reject this argument, and this is why:

Do people pay for the police and fire departments even though they as individuals do not have an emergency happen in their own homes?

Do people pay for the military even though they as individuals are not (hopefully...) shot at by terrorists radicalized or born in a terrorist nation like that infecting Syria and Iraq?

The public schools exist for all children, even those who were not supposed to have been conceived. Those people who are poor but say that they do not want to "subsidize" other people's kids education might just have an "oops!" and conceive a child they are too poor to educate by themselves. The public education is there always as an option when homeschooling and private schooling are not options.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm
Quote micahjr34:In this thread people have said that it is because of the need for children to socialize.

The word “Socialize” is too weak, almost frivolous. These are some standard definitions:

To convert or adapt to the needs of society:

To talk to and do things with other people in a friendly way

To teach (someone) to behave in a way that is acceptable in society

Attendance at a public school affords the child an opportunity to observe - often to come in close or intimate contact with - habits, customs and beliefs (mores, if you will) that are different from those of his immediate family. Those family – and familiar - mores that the child has generally accepted without question. It is above all an opportunity to compare and question, perhaps to strengthen or, conversely, maybe to reject the familiar. It is, in short, an opportunity to grow, mentally and morally, on the way to becoming a responsible, thoughtful adult.

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am

Well, looks like we are getting closer together in understanding. What I meant by "socialize" went beyond mere interaction and went into the realm of COMMUNITY! That is the greatest strength the public schools have over home schooling and private schools, which is "the learning and participation in a community." People doing more than just getting along...

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Here's what the feud and reconciliation between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson can teach us about civility

Thom plus logo Donald Trump did not invent the art of the political insult but he's inflamed the level of vitriolic public discourse and incivility to a new low unmatched by other presidents. In a tainted tradition that has permeated our history, other presidents have not been immune to dishing out acerbic insults against one another.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system