0
   

The two main reasons for bagging the public ed system

 
 
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 10:15 am
One of the two reasons is basically the NEA and the problem is well known and not any sort of a mystery to anybody.

The other reason is considerably less well understood and involves the adoption of the Prussian model for public education around the start of the 1900s in America, which has basically turned into a disaster of incalculable proportions.

A couple of places to go for info on this topic:

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13931197.html

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue.htm

Quote:

You aren't compelled to loan your car to anyone who wants it, but you are compelled to surrender your school-age child to strangers who process children for a livelihood, even though one in every nine schoolchildren is terrified of physical harm happening to them in school, terrified with good cause; about thirty-three are murdered there every year. From 1992 through 1999, 262 children were murdered in school in the United States. Your great-great-grandmother didn't have to surrender her children. What happened?

If I demanded you give up your television to an anonymous, itinerant repairman who needed work you'd think I was crazy; if I came with a policeman who forced you to pay that repairman even after he broke your set, you would be outraged. Why are you so docile when you give up your child to a government agent called a schoolteacher?

I want to open up concealed aspects of modern schooling such as the deterioration it forces in the morality of parenting. You have no say at all in choosing your teachers. You know nothing about their backgrounds or families. And the state knows little more than you do. This is as radical a piece of social engineering as the human imagination can conceive. What does it mean?

One thing you do know is how unlikely it will be for any teacher to understand the personality of your particular child or anything significant about your family, culture, religion, plans, hopes, dreams. In the confusion of school affairs even teachers so disposed don't have opportunity to know those things. How did this happen?

Before you hire a company to build a house, you would, I expect, insist on detailed plans showing what the finished structure was going to look like. Building a child's mind and character is what public schools do, their justification for prematurely breaking family and neighborhood learning. Where is documentary evidence to prove this assumption that trained and certified professionals do it better than people who know and love them can? There isn't any.

The cost in New York State for building a well-schooled child in the year 2000 is $200,000 per body when lost interest is calculated. That capital sum invested in the child's name over the past twelve years would have delivered a million dollars to each kid as a nest egg to compensate for having no school. The original $200,000 is more than the average home in New York costs. You wouldn't build a home without some idea what it would look like when finished, but you are compelled to let a corps of perfect strangers tinker with your child's mind and personality without the foggiest idea what they want to do with it.

Law courts and legislatures have totally absolved school people from liability. You can sue a doctor for malpractice, not a schoolteacher. Every homebuilder is accountable to customers years after the home is built; not schoolteachers, though. You can't sue a priest, minister, or rabbi either; that should be a clue.

If you can't be guaranteed even minimal results by these institutions, not even physical safety; if you can't be guaranteed anything except that you'll be arrested if you fail to surrender your kid, just what does the public in public schools mean?

What exactly is public about public schools? That's a question to take seriously. If schools were public as libraries, parks, and swimming pools are public, as highways and sidewalks are public, then the public would be satisfied with them most of the time. Instead, a situation of constant dissatisfaction has spanned many decades. Only in Orwell's Newspeak, as perfected by legendary spin doctors of the twentieth century such as Ed Bernays or Ivy Lee or great advertising combines, is there anything public about public schools.....


Gatto is a former teacher of the year from NY city who couldn't deal with it past a certain point and who gives you the impression that home schooling and private schools are about the only shot we have at this point, i.e. that a kid would be better off living in the jungle being raised by chimpanzees like Tarzan than attending public schools at this juncture.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 632 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 01:37 pm
The United States has had a public education system for the past 150 years-- and just look at where it got us.

What would the United States be like if it had a successful education system.

- The United States might have grown into the premier world economy.
- The United States might have been a powerhouse of science, inventing new technologies and new industries.
- The United States could have pushed medicine further than ever before, curing diseases and increasing life expectancy.
- The United State could have produced new literature, new forms of media that would be consumed throughout the world.

- Heck with a successful education system, we could have put a man on the moon and robots on Mars by now.

Sigh...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 02:06 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:20 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
The United States has had a public education system for the past 150 years-- and just look at where it got us.

What would the United States be like if it had a successful education system.

- The United States might have grown into the premier world economy.
- The United States might have been a powerhouse of science, inventing new technologies and new industries.
- The United States could have pushed medicine further than ever before, curing diseases and increasing life expectancy.
- The United State could have produced new literature, new forms of media that would be consumed throughout the world.

- Heck with a successful education system, we could have put a man on the moon and robots on Mars by now.

Sigh...




It's increasingly the case that the bulk of such achievements are being accomplished by people who are either home-schooled, attended private schools, or somehow or other miraculously just survived the public school system and managed to educate themselves along the way.

The future in America will increasingly belong to the home-schooled.

Quote:

Gatto continues:

'We started to see Brandon flounder in the first grade, hives, depression, he cried every night after he asked his father, "Is tomorrow school, too?" In second grade the physical stress became apparent. The teacher pronounced his problem Attention Deficit Syndrome. My happy, bouncy child was now looked at as a medical problem, by us as well as the school.

'A doctor, a psychiatrist, and a school authority all determined he did have this affliction. Medication was stressed along with behavior modification. If it was suspected that Brandon had not been medicated he was sent home. My square peg needed a bit of whittling to fit their round hole. ...

'I cried as I watched my parenting choices stripped away. My ignorance of options allowed Brandon to be medicated through second grade. The tears and hives continued another full year until I couldn't stand it. I began to homeschool Brandon. It was his salvation. No more pills, tears, or hives. He is thriving. He never cries now and does his work eagerly.' "
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:22 pm
If your kid has anxiety and attachment problems, enough that he can't even face public schooling, how will he stand up to the Democrats, or Al Qaeda some day?

Coddling the weak, pff

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If your kid has anxiety and attachment problems, enough that he can't even face public schooling, how will he stand up to the Democrats, or Al Qaeda some day?

Coddling the weak, pff

Cycloptichorn


Me, I never had any of those kinds of problems. What I DID have was an overwhelming sense that my own needs were not being met, and that a huge chunk of my life was simply being wasted. Anything I actually managed to learn in those days was on my own.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:26 pm
gungasnake wrote:
It's increasingly the case that the bulk of such achievements are being accomplished by people who are either home-schooled, attended private schools, or somehow or other miraculously just survived the public school system and managed to educate themselves along the way.

The future in America will increasingly belong to the home-schooled.
Are you suggesting 1 on 1, 2, or 3 teaching is even more effective than 1 on 10, 20 or 30? Shocked Gee that's shocking. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:34 pm
My kids are home-churched.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 04:23 pm
Laughing Something tells me that might be more effective too.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 04:34 pm
This bumper sticker made me chuckle...

"Don't pray in our schools, and we won't think in your churches."

((In my house we value education much more than religion))
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 04:35 pm
ebrown wrote :

Quote:
My kids are home-churched.


i'm not sure if you are joking , but it's a new or re-emerging trend !

Quote:


source :
HOME CHURCHED
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 05:12 pm
Anybody who thinks $200,000 is more than the average home price in New York (like gungasnaKKKe's source) is totally clueless.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 05:48 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
This bumper sticker made me chuckle...

"Don't pray in our schools, and we won't think in your churches."

((In my house we value education much more than religion))



You'd have an easy time fooling most people.....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 05:50 pm
username wrote:
Anybody who thinks $200,000 is more than the average home price in New York (like gungasnaKKKe's source) is totally clueless.


The man clearly meant throughought the state of NY and not NYC.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 06:21 pm
gungasnake wrote:
username wrote:
Anybody who thinks $200,000 is more than the average home price in New York (like gungasnaKKKe's source) is totally clueless.


The man clearly meant throughought the state of NY and not NYC.
So what? The median price "throughout the state of NY" is nearer $300,000

See for yourself:
http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/Pages/MetroPrice
Scroll down to where it says "State Existing-Home Sales, then choose the PDF or Excel version.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 02:07 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:


...So what? The median price "throughout the state of NY" is nearer $300,000
....


The article is copyrighted 2000 - 2003, at which time the $200k figure was likely spot on....


http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/201266/2/istockphoto_201266_expression_idiot.jpg
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 01:19 am
gungasnake wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:


...So what? The median price "throughout the state of NY" is nearer $300,000
....


The article is copyrighted 2000 - 2003, at which time the $200k figure was likely spot on....
Rolling Eyes What do you base this likelihood on? The link I provided you doesn't do 2003... It starts at 2004, where you're off by over $100,000. I just checked the US Census bureau, and they've got more bad news for you. You'd have to go back to 1992 to be correct. Were I you; I'd think about learning how to fact-check before arguing facts. :wink:

New York
1992- $199,300
1993- $207,100
1994- $217,500
1995- $220,100
1996- $240,100
1997- $243,700
1998- $276,600
1999- $272,800
2000- $273,300
2001- $286,600
2002- $290,400
2003- $282,600
2004- $307,500
2005- $319,800
2006 $303,400
2007- First 3 quarters were: $332,800, $297,200 $291,200, respectively.

What's with the picture?
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 01:27 am
And according to Wikipedia the average price of a home in California is over $500K, which makes $200K for a kid's education seem like the bargain it is. I came up thru twelve years of public schools. That was good enough to get me into the two Ivy League universities that I have degrees from. You'll not see any support from me for the narrow, ideological "education" that seems to be the desire of many home-schoolers, nor for the "small government" fetishists that misinterpret the Founding Fathers for their own fantasies of what they think government should do, or shouldn't do and ignore the fact that most people in this country disagree with them.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 01:49 am
username wrote:
And according to Wikipedia the average price of a home in California is over $500K, which makes $200K for a kid's education seem like the bargain it is. I came up thru twelve years of public schools and have degrees from two Ivy League schools. You'll not see any support from me for the narrow, ideological "education" that seems to be the desire of many home-schoolers.
On that count, I disagree. I'd very much like to see matching funds for qualified parents whose children excel. My sister home-schooled her kids when they were youngerÂ… the eldest through 8th grade. He recently set his Class A public high school record high ACT score, and is fully expected to graduate valedictorian. All of the kids excel. It seems to me; as long as the kids can prove they're getting a great education through standardized tests; the tiny class sizes of the home school has to be an advantage.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2008 02:03 am
From what I read, Bill, there seem to be two broad wings of home schooling. One wing seems to be intent on giving a child a superior education by intense individual attention. That may or may not work. I suspect that's got a lot to do with how good a teacher the parent may be, and that's likely to be sort of hit-or-miss. If the parents have the time, resources, skills, and knowledge to do it, that's fine with me. However the other wing of home schooling seems to be intent on teaching the child only the particular ideology, most often religious, that the parent believes him or herself, and denigrating any idea that doesn't fit or might challenge the parents' beliefs, as witness the "Christian" academies (not home-schooling, but similarly blinkered) that sprung up in the South so white kids didn't have to interact with black kids in public schools, or those parents who don't want their children exposed to diversity or evolution (tho that is the basic foundation of all modern biolgy). There is a whole lot of the world that may not fit a particular fundamentalist religious belief, be it Christian or Islamic, but I think it's important that kids learn that, and from what I've heard it seems like kids in public schools in general are more likely to be exposed to that than kids in the more belief-driven part of the home school movement.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The two main reasons for bagging the public ed system
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/04/2024 at 10:04:08