Doesn’t it already?
This thread/argument seems like a thinly disguised variation on the “Is religious education = child abuse?” thread of a few weeks back.
State governments already have this control over private schools, so allowing these schools to take vouchers would not affect this at all.
A libertarian is going to Argue that the state should be increasing the funding of things? This a different version of libertarianism than the one I am familiar with.
It gets worse than that; CBC radio and Quebec police discovered that Le Mission de L’Esprit-Saint, a conservative Christian sect, was operating two illegal schools, and shut one of them down.
It was reported on CBC radio that these children were divided by sex and taught that women living outside of the church were literally demonic and responsible for all the evil in the world. Girls were not being prepared for anything besides housekeeping and having children. It was implied that they were illiterate. Boys learned nothing of science and little of anything else outside of the three R’s. The actual learning was so mixed up with “We-are-the-chosen-the-apocalypse-is-upon-us” mumbo-jumbo that it would be impossible for a child to think critically on any of it. I remember the radio interview so clearly because it was every nightmare that someone like me has about religious schooling. I never thought people would go to such extremes in this day and age.
I am having trouble finding cites for the actual teachings, but I am sifting through the CBC archives for it right now… when I find them I will come back.
You’re assuming that a private school education is deficient compared to public school.
I thought there were already standards in place to ensure that private schooled (and home schooled) kids got a decent education.
Many people send there kids to private schools because they feel that the public schools are deficient. In fact I think it would probably be safe to say that ALL people who send their kids to private school instead of public school feel that private schools do a better job educating their kids than public school.
Please explain why you find this example so absurd? The state (ie the voters and their chosen representatives) chose what level of service to fund and provide in many things. Roads, police, schools, health care, etc. If I, personally, decide that the level provided doesn’t meet with my needs or wants, then I can do a couple of things. I can replace or suppliment the services being provided, I can work on the system to get the standards changed to what I want them to be, I can live with what is there. If I chose the first option, what right do I have to require that the rest of my community pay for it for me?
Well, speaking as a parent with one child in private school (middle) and one in public (elementary) I can say that we feel the private school does a “different job”, which was a much better match for my son. My daughter remains in the public school because it fits her better.
There are a lot of areas where my son’s private school is terrific, and areas in which I miss the public school.
I guess one could argue that “different” for my son = “better”.
Ermm . . . that was DianaG’s point, with which I concur. Thought I made that clear enough.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I agree with you, actually, especially in the sciences. But when it comes to religion, social issues, and government, this is a lot dicier. I was thinking more of philosophical issues than anything else. And the problem with this is that many people are not aware of where their philosophies are not the same as accepted fact.
Argue what? That her statement was a reductio ad absurdum? I found it to be a non sequitur. Renob’s statment was absolutely correct. The fact that we don’t earmark public funds for people to access, thru vouchers, for use in private schools is a policy decision, not something enshrined in the constitution and it’s not some logical absurdity.
If one really wanted to create vouchers for police protection, one could do that, but it doesn’t necessarily follow from eucational vouchers. Many Libertarians (even of the large “L” type) recognize that the police force is a legitimate public monopoly. Euducation needn’t be.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Could you give some examples? Certainly it is wrong to teach that any religion, or any political viewpoint, is correct. I think it is in the national interest to teach that democracy has advantages over dictatorships, though. Allowing debate about these issues is another matter. We spent most of the time in my HS AP history class in these kinds of discussions, since we all were perfectly capable of reading the book for the test. Our teacher had an opinion, but he never forced it on anyone. I learned a lot more doing this than regurgitating the book - and it worked, we all got good scores on the AP test.
**Should parents be allowed to decide whether their children go to private school?
**
Yes.
What do you suggest as an alternative? Someone else decides? The elimination of private schools?
Back to the OP…I most certainly do believe that parents can direct their child’s education in any way they choose, even if (to some observers) misguided. The citizens of a state have a *right * to a public education, but not a *duty * to avail themselves of that education. And, AFAIK, the state’s control over education is limited to public schools, and to direct that all children under a certain age attend some school of some sort. States do not control private school’s curricula.
But the state does have a back-door means of control over private curricula at the high school level. A state’s public universities can define certain standards for high school education that meet their entry criteria. So State U can say “you can teach creationism, or flat earth, or anything you like, but don’t expect your graduates to get into our school.”
No . . . to argue that people who hire private security firms should get government vouchers to pay for them.
At the moment I have no problem with the public school system in Canada. I think I got an excellent education myself, and I’ve always been impressed with my daughter’s teachers save a very few.
But you guys in America appear to have a huge problem. I’ve seen many documentaries outlining the poor quality of primary and secondary education in America. Most recentlywas the John Stossel report.
The public school people complain about a lack of money but
For a class of 25, that is $250,000.
Say $70,000 for the teacher
Say $20,000 for supplies
Say $25,000 for financing class room, and share of associated building and playground.
Say $20,000 for share of administration costs
Say $10,000 for utilities
Say $5,000 for insurance.
Where the hell did the $100,000 per class room go?
That’s $4,000 per pupil down the tubes !
Get the picture?
The Stossel link compares the education of American students who performed poorly compared to Belgian students. Belgium has a voucher system and spends less than Americans on education. When parents have choice, the schools just have to repond. The lesson is clear to me. Parents should be able to put their kids into the school of their choice public or private and let the poor schools die if they can’t perform.
A personal note:
Here in British Columbia I was able to get my oldest daughter transferred to another high school because she was very unhappy with her low social status . Her new school was a big boost to her self esteem and her marks. I’m all for parental choice.
Is there a regular poster in GD these days who has made that argument? I don’t think so.
I don’t know if this expense is part of any of the above categories (doesn’t seem to be…) but in our district the number 2 expense (behind salaries) is busing. A huge chuck of the budget is spent providing transportation to get students to school.
The thing is, I’m sure most curricula do not teach a particular religion or political viewpoints…it’s the information imparted by the teachers on an ad hoc basis that I think is of more concern. I absolutely believe that teachers indirectly influence children in this regard all the time. The example I gave earlier in the thread is probably the best one I can think of right now…Wallet states that he or she is giving information to the students that other teachers aren’t. Clearly someone is not following the curriculum, if different teachers are teaching different things based on what he or she thinks ought to be taught. I actually don’t believe this can be helped, as of course teachers are individuals with their own ideas about things. But it makes me understand why a parent may want to teach their kids themselves, so they know what is being taught, or why they may want a teacher whose philosophies and values are in line with their own. It’s not necessarily that you don’t want to teach kids about other points of view, but you want to be sure that the values you think are correct are placed on them.
HS AP courses are a little different…at that level, I would expect students to be able to debate issues.
IMO, a teacher in the public schools should not even give an opinion (not sure what you mean by “forced it on anyone.”) A teacher is a big influence on students and is an authority figure, and even just giving his or her POV is much different from hearing it from another student.