Separation of School & State

[teamnelson]

"Again and again, Americans find themselves at war with each other over public schooling. Yet furious conflict over religion in this country is almost unheard-of. ... So why does the endless variety of religious life in the United States lead to so little strife, while the strife over public schooling never seems to end? The answer is no mystery. America is a land of religious freedom, in which people decide for themselves what to believe and how to worship. No religion is funded by government. No church or synagogue has a state-supported monopoly. Elected officials have no say in the doctrines of any faith or the content of any religious service. Religion flourishes in America because church and state are separate. And it flourishes so peacefully because no one is forced to support anyone else's faith, or to attend a church he isn't happy with, or to bring up children according to the religious views of whichever faction has the most votes. Religion is peaceful because it is government-free. Liberate the schools, and they too would be at peace. Taxpayer-funded, one-curriculum-fits-all schooling makes conflict inevitable. There would be far less animosity if parents were as free to choose how and where their children learn as they are to choose how and where they worship. Separation of church and state has made America an exemplar of religious pluralism and tolerance. Imagine what separation of school and state could do for education." --columnist Jeff Jacoby

[slim rem 7]

very interesting brother..slim

[mechanic]

Amen

[wareagleguy]

Might work.  Get rid of religion all together might work better.

[teamnelson]

wareagleguy, Ben Franklin, who you quote, and who himself did not receive education past his 10th year, "The Idea of what is true Merit, should also be often presented to Youth, explain'd and impress'd on their Minds, as consisting in an Inclination join'd with an Ability to serve Mankind, one's Country, Friends and Family; which Ability is (with the Blessing of God) to be acquir'd or greatly encreas'd by true Learning; and should indeed be the great Aim and End of all Learning."

[wareagleguy]

 

[Empty Quiver]

All these crazy ass Muslim whack jobs graduating from their private schools would certainly be an interesting arguement against.

The teachers and administration by and large work their tails off trying to educate your kids. Show me an intact family that supports their kids and you will find kids that are doing just fine. When mom and dad are worried where their next thrill is coming from and letting the school raise the kids is where our problem lies.

Most of us here are a product of public education. I'm not sure about every one of you, but most seem to have their head screwed on straight.  Another thing I don't know for sure, but am willing to bet, is that you weren't raised by a school district. There are those who are able to overcome anything, most need a good home and caring parents willing to give of themselves. 

This is likely gonna raise some hackles, but I'm going on with it. One parent needs to work and one parent needs to stay home and raise these children. Daycare is the ruination of our society.

In the interest of full disclosure I have a daughter that is attending a Lutheran College. It is a fine institution and certainly prides itself on higher standards than most public universities. To eliminate public education would be a mistake in my opinion, and to make them inherently inferior would be an even worse mistake.

[teamnelson]

EQ, no hackles raised here, I concur the family is the important ingredient to a child's education.

I would quibble though that public education is already inherently inferior, and here's why. It has not been the goal of the public school system to educate children probably since sometime during the years you and I were in it, maybe even from inception to a certain degree. The goal is to graduate them; big difference.

But here's a question: Are parents in charge of their child's education looking to the government for help? Or is the government in charge looking for the parents to help?

[Empty Quiver]

 I believe traditionally the gov't was into education to supply a labor force suited to an industrialization. Learning by rote, following directions, not overly concerned with individual thought. This also worked out nicely to divide us into leaders and followers. It was in the best interests of parents to have their children be educated. Just like now our great, great, grand parents could barely keep up with technology. They were dependant on their children to get the new grain drill repaired or keep the wind mill pumping water. Innovators excelled on the farm, and in the city.  Do you want to stack flour sacks or operate the steam engine at the mill.

I feel we are in for a great transition. I don't know who is going to be "running" education. I am past this but will encourage my kids to be involved parents.

[wareagleguy]

What about the kids that do not have parents worth a hoot?  Public education is all those kids have at a chance to make it.  Those are the kids that need help.

[mechanic]

The problem is not so much the public schools, as it is the government having too big a role.  Education once was locally controlled, then the state took over, now the feds.

I looked through my grand daughter's civics book yesterday.  What is glaring is not what is there, it's what is missing.

We need to bring education back closer to home.  The Feds certainly have NO LEGAL ROLE that would allow them to control education.

[teamnelson]

But as wareagle cries, what about the forgotten children? what about those whose parents are disinterested? who will be their father and mother? without the government running the program, who can they turn to? Is it not in the best interest of all children everywhere that the government tell us what they need to know? Have we not voted into office our elected representation who have in turn hired the best and brightest educators to tell us what our kids should learn? Surely the parents, unless they have a masters degree in education or sociology, are unqualified to know what is in the best interest of their children.

[or so I've been told.  ]

[gstewart44]

wareagleguy, Ben Franklin, who you quote, and who himself did not receive education past his 10th year, "The Idea of what is true Merit, should also be often presented to Youth, explain'd and impress'd on their Minds, as consisting in an Inclination join'd with an Ability to serve Mankind, one's Country, Friends and Family; which Ability is (with the Blessing of God) to be acquir'd or greatly encreas'd by true Learning; and should indeed be the great Aim and End of all Learning."

Thank you TN - I had read that but could not remember the exact quote.

[Empty Quiver]

Society has been trying to do for those parentless children for 40 odd years. The solution eludes those who are unwilling to accept the obvious. Without parenting children are unlikely if even able to keep up with those who do have parents. The sooner this message is screamed over MTV and rewarded by society the sooner things will turn around.

The vast majority are not going to thrive. Where is an idiot going to get a job in the future? They have machines to stack bags of flour onto pallets now because folks are too damn lazy and dumb to do it. You and I are going to have the fruits of our labors confiscated to keep these people from dying on the street. That is the long and the short of it. The arguement will be over how much Cable TV should be free and what temperature to set the Gov't central air at, and is it fair that the unemployable should not eat steak and fresh fruits and vegetables rather than canned and chicken thighs.