• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are public schools socialism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree. Public education has played a large role in our ascent to first world status, and we are much better educated today than 200 years ago.

Public schools are very good.

Compared to 200 years ago, sure.
Not much education was needed then.

Even though we need some amount of education today, I don't believe the primary purpose of school is to educate people, in the traditional sense.
It's to condition people to authority, even an irrational authority.
 
Even though we need some amount of education today, I don't believe the primary purpose of school is to educate people, in the traditional sense.
It's to condition people to authority, even an irrational authority.

To some extent yes (including national authority), but our education system, even the private universities, were always designed to be practical institutions which promote vocational training.
 
EXACTLY, it should be a state issue and the feds should get the hell out of the equation. Each state should handle education the way it See's fit and DC should not say a word.

Then don't take the federal money for it. That is how it all gets bootstrapped together. Go out and advocate for tripling you property or sales tax and sever the federal cord. We intend to use private school until HS and then let the kids decide on their own what they want to do about HS. Most of the teachers at the school we are using are former public school teachers who left because they were tired of the crap they have to deal with and disruptive students who come to school just to taunt and terrorize others.
 
Compared to 200 years ago, sure.
Not much education was needed then.

Even though we need some amount of education today, I don't believe the primary purpose of school is to educate people, in the traditional sense.
It's to condition people to authority, even an irrational authority.

Public education serves many needs. Some people need to learn respect for authority. Some will go to med school.
 
To some extent yes (including national authority), but our education system, even the private universities, were always designed to be practical institutions which promote vocational training.

Of course they provide education, but it's littered with methods of conditioning.
Rather than pushing real creative thought, with guidance, it's regimented creativity.

For me, I don't believe people should be conditioned to follow authority, unless said authority is merited.
 
Public education serves many needs. Some people need to learn respect for authority. Some will go to med school.

Most people are conditioned to follow authority and go do other things.
The problem is that people are conditioned to follow irrational authority, aka things like zero tolerance policies.
 
Of course they provide education, but it's littered with methods of conditioning.
Rather than pushing real creative thought, with guidance, it's regimented creativity.

For me, I don't believe people should be conditioned to follow authority, unless said authority is merited.

Your starting to sound a little disturbed.
 
Of course they provide education, but it's littered with methods of conditioning.
Rather than pushing real creative thought, with guidance, it's regimented creativity.

For me, I don't believe people should be conditioned to follow authority, unless said authority is merited.

I have made my peace long ago at the notion that Foucault once said: "Knowledge is power." The status and thus power of teacher is that above student, and I believe necessarily so.
 
Your starting to sound a little disturbed.

I'm disturbed by the fact that the foundation of our education system reads more like a good conspiracy theory novel.
Most people take it for granted that it was done, to provide education and nothing else.

Providing education was only a small part of it, the rest involved scientific racism, separation of the classes, etc.
At it's core, our system is still Prussian in design.
 
Most people are conditioned to follow authority and go do other things.
The problem is that people are conditioned to follow irrational authority, aka things like zero tolerance policies.

People learn the truth. The rich loud,violent or popular tend to get what they want.
 
I have made my peace long ago at the notion that Foucault once said: "Knowledge is power." The status and thus power of teacher is that above student, and I believe necessarily so.

Knowledge is power, that's why I left public school.
It provides a limited knowledge, for specific purpose.
To perpetuate the myth that public school, is for their own good.

In it's current form, I find that not to be the case.
 
I'm fine with educating people, even at public expense.
I'm not fine with conditioning people to bow to all authority.

Good thing that isn't what public school does. I.question authority and I know others that do to. Many challenge authority in the U.S.
 
Of course they provide education, but it's littered with methods of conditioning.
Rather than pushing real creative thought, with guidance, it's regimented creativity.

For me, I don't believe people should be conditioned to follow authority, unless said authority is merited.
And authority in schools isn't merited? How many different occupations in this country exist with no power structure? Everything in this country exists within a structure of power and always has. My guess is you wish to arbitrarily determine whose authority is merited, but unfortunately life simply does not play out that way.

But at the end of the day, the primary purpose of public education is education. Public education teaches many things, even things they should not be responsible for, but the number one purpose is to provide the future generations with the tools they need for life.
 
Good thing that isn't what public school does. I.question authority and I know others that do to. Many challenge authority in the U.S.

Right....
I'll use this, because it's a good example.

So a guy I know, had his house raided by the police.
Now he didn't do anything wrong, they were looking for another person who used to live at that apartment years before he moved in.
They tore through all his stuff, leaving a complete mess.
When they realized they got the wrong place, that the guy no longer lived their, they left.

They did not compensate him for the damages they caused, didn't apologize, didn't even say **** you very much.
That's the kind of things we're talking about.
Few do anything about that.
Not banging drums on the internet or protesting, actually doing something.
 
And authority in schools isn't merited? How many different occupations in this country exist with no power structure? Everything in this country exists within a structure of power and always has. My guess is you wish to arbitrarily determine whose authority is merited, but unfortunately life simply does not play out that way.

But at the end of the day, the primary purpose of public education is education. Public education teaches many things, even things they should not be responsible for, but the number one purpose is to provide the future generations with the tools they need for life.

Are zero tolerance policies merited?
Sometimes, the school is quite wrong.

I don't wish to arbitrarily determine when authority is merited.
Most people can see when the authority is wrong, but few often call them on it.
 
Are zero tolerance policies merited?
It depends on that which is not being tolerated, but when it comes to drugs, for example, absolutely. Why wouldn't it be?

Sometimes, the school is quite wrong.
Because they punish students who break the law on their campus?

Most people can see when the authority is wrong, but few often call them on it.
On the contrary, most people have incredibly different opinions of the role of authority. You're wishing to assign your own, and then use that to criticize the concept of public education, completely ignoring all the incredible things public education does because you dislike authority.
 
It depends on that which is not being tolerated, but when it comes to drugs, for example, absolutely. Why wouldn't it be?

Which kind of drugs, otc's, prescription or illicit.
Generally speaking, many schools offer the same punishment for possessing any.

Because they punish students who break the law on their campus?

Sometimes the rules or the law, shouldn't be followed.
An example, is self defense in a conflict.

The defender should not be punished, if they did not instigate the fight, yet the outcome is that they are.

On the contrary, most people have incredibly different opinions of the role of authority. You're wishing to assign your own, and then use that to criticize the concept of public education, completely ignoring all the incredible things public education does because you dislike authority.

I'm not dismissing all the things that it does.
I have issues with the regimented way schools work.

It's great kids learn stuff though, I don't have an issue with actual education, I have an issue with how it's presented, conducted and conditioning children to follow authority regardless of it being irrational.
 
Which kind of drugs, otc's, prescription or illicit.
Generally speaking, many schools offer the same punishment for possessing any.
If a student does not have a prescription on file with the school health department/nurse, then how is the school to know if they are legal or not?

But I was referring to illegal drugs.

Sometimes the rules or the law, shouldn't be followed.
That may be, but anyone not following rules or laws cannot be upset when they are punished for violating those laws. Whether you agree with bath salts being illegal is irrelevant to the fact they ARE illegal, and a zero tolerance policy is definitely an appropriate use of authority.

An example, is self defense in a conflict.

The defender should not be punished, if they did not instigate the fight, yet the outcome is that they are.
And here is where you are trying to assign your own values.

For example, I'm a teacher in a public school, and there have been numerous times where a student has been defending themselves and not received punishment. However, it has to be TRUE self defense and not what so many kids call self-defense, which is where two kids get into an argument, maybe pushing and then fight.

Your argument against public schools here is weak.

I'm not dismissing all the things that it does.
It sure does seem that way. You are criticizing public education, even saying "It provides a limited knowledge, for specific purpose. To perpetuate the myth that public school, is for their own good. In it's current form, I find that not to be the case."

You most certainly are dismissing the good public education does, because you have what I consider to be an irrational fear of hierarchy of power, a phenomena which exists in just about everything we do in society.

It's great kids learn stuff though, I don't have an issue with actual education, I have an issue with how it's presented, conducted and conditioning children to follow authority regardless of it being irrational.
What's irrational about telling kids they cannot bring illegal drugs on campus? What's irrational about telling kids they are not allowed to cause harm to another child? What's irrational about mitigating potential for lawsuits?

You seem to have a very unrealistic view of how education works and an even more unrealistic view on how education should work. You don't seem to appreciate the behavior of children, the differences in learning abilities nor the differences in how education is valued amongst different groups of people.
 
I'm not really qualified to teach a lot of the subjects my kids would learn in school. And I can still teach my children at home as part of the normal duties of a parent like all other parents do, the two are mutually exclusive.



How does it make market sense to run a free school? What kind of business is going to make money giving away its product for free?



What do we do with people who cannot teach their own children due to work or other reasons, and what would they do with their kids during the day while they were at work, and what if they couldn't afford a private tutor?

The two are NOT mutually exclusive. Most of the advanced subjects are in later years and you could hire a tutor or any other number of solutions to cover those.

And I am going to be blunt, here. If people have children and want them to have an education, they WILL see to it one way or another. Like they do when they need to make sure their children are fed and clothed and housed. If they don't care they wont do a thing. Just like now. Most of what I see against the idea is simply a lack of will. You don't want to. There's very little in the way of children being able to get an education regardless of whether or not there are public schools. Its simply a matter of will.

We have public schools now. My children will NEVER set foot in a public school as a student, ever.

I could imagine a perk employers dangling, to get and KEEP good employees would be an education subsidy for their employees children or if they are large enough run their own school. I could imagine if a employer had an excellent school program they would have a very long line of people wanting to work for them.
 
The two are NOT mutually exclusive. Most of the advanced subjects are in later years and you could hire a tutor or any other number of solutions to cover those.

And I am going to be blunt, here. If people have children and want them to have an education, they WILL see to it one way or another. Like they do when they need to make sure their children are fed and clothed and housed. If they don't care they wont do a thing. Just like now. Most of what I see against the idea is simply a lack of will. You don't want to. There's very little in the way of children being able to get an education regardless of whether or not there are public schools. Its simply a matter of will.

We have public schools now. My children will NEVER set foot in a public school as a student, ever.

I could imagine a perk employers dangling, to get and KEEP good employees would be an education subsidy for their employees children or if they are large enough run their own school. I could imagine if a employer had an excellent school program they would have a very long line of people wanting to work for them.

Employers are balking at healthcare like hell they pay for elementary school.
 
I have made my peace long ago at the notion that Foucault once said: "Knowledge is power." The status and thus power of teacher is that above student, and I believe necessarily so.

Power is the application of will and energy.
Knowledge is the lever directing how power is applied.

An instructor will earn their students respect if the instructor is worthy. A master has no problems earning respect, otherwise they are not masters.
 
Power is the application of will and energy.
Knowledge is the lever directing how power is applied.

An instructor will earn their students respect if the instructor is worthy. A master has no problems earning respect, otherwise they are not masters.

Life isn't like the karate kid in reality.
 
Employers are balking at healthcare like hell they pay for elementary school.

Excuse me? BEFORE the atrocity called OBAMAcare more than a half of US employers provided health for their employees without coercion. No laws whatsoever. What did you expect to happen when something gets shoved down their throat? They weren't going gag on it? Not, try and spit it out? More than a few employers provide help for education of their employees now. You seem to be under the impression ALL or even MOST employers are scum. Newsflash sonny boy, but your argument is garbage. You have NO idea what you talk about. I can tell from your argument you have NEVER hired anyone or ran a business were you had employees.
 
Excuse me? BEFORE the atrocity called OBAMAcare more than a half of US employers provided health for their employees without coercion. No laws whatsoever. What did you expect to happen when something gets shoved down their throat? They weren't going gag on it? Not, try and spit it out? More than a few employers provide help for education of their employees now. You seem to be under the impression ALL or even MOST employers are scum. Newsflash sonny boy, but your argument is garbage. You have NO idea what you talk about. I can tell from your argument you have NEVER hired anyone or ran a business were you had employees.

So like you said only half provided the most common benefit of work that wasn't mandated. That being actual pay.

Employers aren't going to start paying for education. How many provide daycare now?

Sonny boy lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom