Shouldn't mandatory education be abolished?

[Anarchist420]

Yeah, I know public high school helped get me into college, but I was reading http://mises.org/daily/4525 and it really exposes how lousy and unnecessary mandatory public education is.

I just don't get why it's not abolished, or at least cut down, especially the atheletic events, which have nothing to do with academics. That would save a lot of money.

I think free-market education and no laws surrounding it would be a lot better. There's too much stuff you don't learn and too much stuff you'll never need that you're taught. And you have to take the unnecessary shit. And when there are discipline problems, as the article points out, the whole class, sometimes even the whole school, has to sit through them.

And finally, there are people who don't need to be in school anyway. No more than half of my graduating class went to college. They expel more people than they graduate in Richmond City Public Schools.

So why isn't public education abolished or at least made not mandatory? Are there some benefits I'm not seeing or what?

 

[DanDaManJC]

A functioning high tech society needs an educated public for one. I would concede not everyone goes on to a "high tech" job -- whether through a trade or academic. But that leads us to another point... there's already class disparity between haves and have nots. "Officially" letting the have nots, even if they already dont give a shit about school, not take an education would only make the class disparity all the more obvious.

 

[drebo]

I do not believe that public secondary education should be abolished. HOWEVER, it does need to be fundamentally changed.

As a society, not everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone needs a liberal arts education. The current ideology is that everyone "deserves" to go to college, and that's simply not true.

We need to make a shift in our expectations of society. There are a LOT of kids who simply are not cut out for college, and forcing them to go to a general high school (and sometimes college) does more harm than good.

What I would like to see is this: middle schools (6-8 grades) should be structured in such a way that the students have their aptitudes tested. Then, in 8th grade, they are given a test which, in addition to teacher input, determines whether or not they are "college-bound". If they are, they should be put into a traditional high school with other students who are of like intellect, ambition, and goals. If they are determined to not be college bound, they should be sent to vocational schools where they learn a trade.

There is nothing derogatory or inherently bad about learning a trade. The current system, however, creates overcrowded highschools and colleges full of people who really don't want to be there. This causes everyone to suffer. The mentality that everyone "deserves" a college education is destructive to people who actually WANT a college education. Additionally, it's simply not true.

Teaching kids a trade for 4 years keeps them off the streets, gives them a set of skills they can use in the real world, and might actually be interesting to some of them. Core competencies, such as reading and writing, must be a part of that, but the full liberal arts curriculum certainly is not required. Let them pick a field they enjoy and let them learn how to do it. When they're done, they have marketable skills.

 

[First]

It should not be abolished, but your ability to post should.

 

[IGBT]

tax payer funded education should end. All public education should be tuition funded.

 

[Linflas]

I do not believe that public secondary education should be abolished. HOWEVER, it does need to be fundamentally changed.

As a society, not everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone needs a liberal arts education. The current ideology is that everyone "deserves" to go to college, and that's simply not true.

We need to make a shift in our expectations of society. There are a LOT of kids who simply are not cut out for college, and forcing them to go to a general high school (and sometimes college) does more harm than good.

What I would like to see is this: middle schools (6-8 grades) should be structured in such a way that the students have their aptitudes tested. Then, in 8th grade, they are given a test which, in addition to teacher input, determines whether or not they are "college-bound". If they are, they should be put into a traditional high school with other students who are of like intellect, ambition, and goals. If they are determined to not be college bound, they should be sent to vocational schools where they learn a trade.

There is nothing derogatory or inherently bad about learning a trade. The current system, however, creates overcrowded highschools and colleges full of people who really don't want to be there. This causes everyone to suffer. The mentality that everyone "deserves" a college education is destructive to people who actually WANT a college education. Additionally, it's simply not true.

Teaching kids a trade for 4 years keeps them off the streets, gives them a set of skills they can use in the real world, and might actually be interesting to some of them. Core competencies, such as reading and writing, must be a part of that, but the full liberal arts curriculum certainly is not required. Let them pick a field they enjoy and let them learn how to do it. When they're done, they have marketable skills.

Actually public education was somewhat like this when I attended school. The goal then was to produce a functionally literate population while providing the grounding necessary for those that had the desire to attend college. There were large vocational ed programs for students that wanted to work in the trades as well as programs for the college bound.

 

[Acanthus]

tax payer funded education should end. All public education should be tuition funded.

Err in a lot of cases tuition is funded by tax payers too...

FAFSA, PELL, Subsidized Loans ring a bell?

 

[CallMeJoe]

I do not believe that public secondary education should be abolished. HOWEVER, it does need to be fundamentally changed.
As a society, not everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone needs a liberal arts education. The current ideology is that everyone "deserves" to go to college, and that's simply not true...

A thread I started here February, 2006 (link):

Much has recently been made of the importance of improving education in the United States, with proposals ranging from President Bush's "no child left behind" initiative, to school voucher programs and "parental choice" options. Lawsuits have been filed across the nation concerning inequities in funding between school districts within a state, leading to complex systems to redistribute funds, even as there is decreasing evidence that throwing more money into failing systems will make any difference. Students are endlessly tested and evaluated. Teachers and schools are graded and regulated. The situation has gotten to the point that very few citizens even question the federalization of what have traditionally been local or at most state decisions on schools.

I dare to propose that the underlying problem has little to do with money, and that no number of new federal mandates or new testing or new teacher requirements will make any difference in our childrens' learning. I propose that we need radically to change the underlying philosophy of education in the United States. We must recognise that we do not live in an educational Lake Wobegone, and that, despite parents' beliefs, not all children are "above average". We must recognize that to allow the average and above average students to progress, some children must be left behind. We must abandon a false egalitarianism so that all students may progress to the best of their abilities, though not all to the current supposed "grade level".

My Proposal:
All students start with equal opportunity. Kindergarten and early elementary education would change little. Things would start to shake around elementary grade 3 with a gradual stratification of performance levels, dividing students initially into 3 levels based on academic performance. Higher achieving students - average students - underachieving students. Each term there would be opportunity for promotion/demotion between levels. As grades progress, there would be a further division into as many as 5 levels. Each group would advance at its own pace, with slower students no longer holding back the average and faster students able to push on ahead. Again, opportunity for movement between levels as students show either ability to move up or need to move down. Around grade 9 (3d year secondary) there would be a transition to vocational/technical training emphasis for lower levels as upper levels are moved into college preparatory. This system allows our best students to progress at a pace far beyond what they are now permitted. It allows our average students still to receive a quality education. It lets even the slowest students progress at a pace beyond what they can today, since they would be instructed at a level they can maintain, rather than being forced to try to keep up with a class average beyond their abilities.

The obvious weakness I see in this proposal is the unwillingness of parents to admit that their precious little one might actually be below average in ability or application. Anyone who has seen Mommy and Daddy screaming at a teacher who dared give little Johnny or Janie the failing grade they deserved for not doing assigned work will know whereof I speak. Nonetheless, I sincerely think this proposal gives all students an opportunity to learn at their own highest level.

Does anyone reading this missive think our brave politicians would ever vote this proposal?

This idea was inspired by my brief period of secondary education in Great Britain during the '60s, and my subsequent return to the mediocrity of the American educational system, during what now almost seems a Golden Age of American education.

 

[Cogman]

It should absolutely not be abolished. It should, however, be reformed.

Some of the old education methods should be brought back. IE, stricter testing and a higher frequency of grade repeating for failing grades.

 

[Tristicus]

Well, you're a prime reason of why the school system needs to be reformed.

 

[IGBT]

Err in a lot of cases tuition is funded by tax payers too...

FAFSA, PELL, Subsidized Loans ring a bell?

If that's true then the education portion of property tax (1/3 +) should be deducted and returned to the tax payer.

 

[Jaskalas]

A thread I started here February, 2006 (link):

This idea was inspired by my brief period of secondary education in Great Britain during the '60s, and my subsequent return to the mediocrity of the American educational system, during what now almost seems a Golden Age of American education.

Screw the OP, I like your idea.

 

[Cogman]

A thread I started here February, 2006 (link):

This idea was inspired by my brief period of secondary education in Great Britain during the '60s, and my subsequent return to the mediocrity of the American educational system, during what now almost seems a Golden Age of American education.

I have only one problem with this proposal. Some teachers are insane. I have had one teacher who thought I was retarded, if it was up to her, I would have spent an eternity in the forth grade with no ability to prove that "yes, I can do more".

No teacher before or since has given me "special" treatment.

Otherwise, I like the idea of moving the smarter kids faster and keeping the slower kids longer. It's embarrassing to be at a college level and see people that can barely spell or add.

 

[bamacre]

Even if the answer is yes, doing so shouldn't be anywhere close to the top of our list of priorities.

 

[drebo]

There's nothing wrong with local taxes funding public schools in those areas. Vouchers, property taxes, lottery proceeds, etc...that's all fine. There should not, however, be any federal involvement in the school system.

Additionally the main problem with schools is the "equality of outcome" ideology for students. My wife is a 4th grade teacher, and she has had kids that couldn't read in the same class with kids who could read at an 8th grade level. She's had kids that were at a 6th grade level for math in classes with kids who didn't know basic arithmetic. There certainly does need to be more division based upon intellect in the schools. All kids are NOT capable of reaching the same level as far as learning goes. The idea that they can simply holds back the smarter kids, bringing everyone to sub-mediocre levels.

In primary schools, if these types of divisions were institutionalised, kids would be happier and teachers would be more able to teach the kids they had...whether they were "slow" or "fast". Primary schools would be a LOT more effective.

Secondary schools should split the kids into vocational vs. educational schools, for much the same reason.

The highschool I went to had a class that was a year-long class. It was "industrial technology" or some such. During the course of the year, they built a mobile home, and then at the end of the year, they sold it to pay for the class. In much the same way that cosmatology schools give cheap haircuts, etc, these vocational schools could offer discount oil changes or other basic services to communities to help subsidise their operating costs and reduce the burden on the tax payers.

There are a LOT of potential reforms that could be made to the school systems across the country, but they all start with getting rid of the idea of "equality of outcome" for the kids. It's simply not true. Some kids are destined to be intellectuals, whereas some are destined to work in a trade. It's not a caste system, so there should be no stigma attached to it, and there is nothing wrong with helping the kids reach their full potential whether it be as a scientist, a computer programmer, or an electrician.

 

[drebo]

I have only one problem with this proposal. Some teachers are insane. I have had one teacher who thought I was retarded, if it was up to her, I would have spent an eternity in the forth grade with no ability to prove that "yes, I can do more".

This is just yet another in a long list of reasons why tenure should be abolished.

 

[MJinZ]

Yeah, I know public high school helped get me into college, but I was reading http://mises.org/daily/4525 and it really exposes how lousy and unnecessary mandatory public education is.

Why are you reading retarded shit?

I just don't get why it's not abolished, or at least cut down, especially the atheletic events, which have nothing to do with academics. That would save a lot of money.

Maybe you should have learned to use your brain in school. Damn, too late.

I think free-market education and no laws surrounding it would be a lot better. There's too much stuff you don't learn and too much stuff you'll never need that you're taught. And you have to take the unnecessary shit. And when there are discipline problems, as the article points out, the whole class, sometimes even the whole school, has to sit through them.

Get out of the shithole where you live.

Unnecessary stuff? What unnecessary stuff? What do you think education is there for?

And finally, there are people who don't need to be in school anyway. No more than half of my graduating class went to college. They expel more people than they graduate in Richmond City Public Schools.

Get the fuck out of the shithole where you live.

Keep in mind that the shithole you grew up in has directly contributed to your retardation.

So why isn't public education abolished or at least made not mandatory? Are there some benefits I'm not seeing or what?

Yes, like instead of being a retarded dumbass, you could instead, be looting and raping and going ape-shit for fun.

 

[Moonbeam]

All children should be educated like the children of Sparta by the state. School should run for 20 years and include all aspects of living, health arts, science, math, language, trade skills, finance, cooking, parenting, and mental health. Those that don't pass should be sterilized.

 

[classy]

it should not be abolished, but your ability to post should.

lol

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I've never read anything as stupid as the OP in my life. Unbelievable.

 

[Siddhartha]

In a country where the government is elected by its citizens. That has an economy where almost all the jobs that provide a middle class income require a college education or technical training. You guys want to decrease the overall level of education. Wouldn't that fucked the US politically and economically?

I keep seeing these sort of threads on this forum and I am curious is it that some of you are incredibly short sighted or is it as long as you have yours, everyone else go to hell?

 

[StageLeft]

Unfortunately, as we know a lot of people and therefore parents are stupid, so if you abolish it you'll find a lot of kids further injured (more than they otherwise would be) by terrible parenting and end up ignorant and illiterate. It's always a balancing act figuring out where parenting ends and society begins. It changes all the time and there is no black and white for it.

I'm quite concerned about certain directions of public education, but still there should be something expected of kids.

Somebody has to save kids from parents like this:

 

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, Righties now claim the Right to be Ignorant?

And no federal involvement? Might just as well come right out and say it- "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever!"

 

[JSt0rm]

well it clearly doesnt work anyhow so we should abolish it.

 

[drebo]

So, uhh, Righties now claim the Right to be Ignorant?

And no federal involvement? Might just as well come right out and say it- "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever!"

Schools should be segregated. Kids that learn fast should not be in the same classes as kids who learn slow. Why on earth should it be any other way?

If you put slow kids in with fast kids, it doesn't make the slow kids go faster. It makes the fast kids go slower and the slow kids feel like shit. Everyone knows this.