public education

public education questions and answers

More information about public education at Education News.

Q: How does a Conservative explain thier support of Public Education,Social Security and Medicare?
Seems to me that these are all Socialist programs, especially Public education, modeled after Germany. Yet when asked about these the answer is "well that is too important to allow the free market to run that" Ask a Conservative about Social Security and they tell you "we will get voted out if we oppose that" same with Medicare since these are all socialist programs. What does this say about conservatives and their philosophy, is it only for certain Govt run programs?

A: They can't explain it as these fly in the face of their beliefs. The fact is that Public Education would be much better off if it was privatized, it could not possibly get worse! They are just Conservatives in name only. They just brush these off and try to bring up tax cuts when they are mentioned as if tax cuts were some magical answer to all our problems but as you can see Tax cuts did not work and we are now in the worst economic crisis since the Depression. The worst of all is Income Tax, I do not see many conservatives calling for the end of that(expect Alan Keyes). Some say a National sales Tax but this is also totally against true Conservative philosophy. They just like the word I think as they practice very little of what they preach. Funny how few Conservatives will answer this question as admitting to wrong is also not in their playbook.

Q: Should the primary responsibility of public education be preparing a person for for the market economy?
If so does public education do a good job of preparing are youth for work and adulthood? It is hard to believe the great majority of kids getting out of high school don't know what compound interest is. I think public education is a miserable failure and our prisions reflect their performance. Your thoughts please.

A: If our prisons reflect their performance, why are most of the people in prison poor? Plenty of middle and upper class people go to public schools and don't end up in prison. I think you have oversimplified the argument. Learning about compound interest won't prevent people from committing crimes. Although it would be nice if kids were taught how to balance a checkbook, or the consequences of getting into debt. The restrictions imposed on our schools by standardized testing and its effect on funding have a huge negative impact on public education, and so does the fact that teachers are not paid well--if the pay was higher, the qualifications could be higher, and we could have more competent people teaching our kids.

Q: Should we "revise" the Constitution to require the Federal Government to get involved with public education?
I have noticed a number of "suggestions" that we should use the money being spent in Iraq to support public education and those effected by the sub prime private sector. Of course that would be unconstitutional as is stands. So, should we change the Constitution?

A: Hmmm...not as straight forward a question as it seems. First it is unconstitutional to use Federal tax dollars to fund education and private sector bail outs the way I understand the U.S. constitution. That is assuming the constitution grants power to the government and these are not granted powers (yes, yes I know "common good" but with that reading then nothing is limited...do you really suggest that the constitution was written with no limit to federal power?). Where this gets tricky is the government is already doing both of those things no matter what the constitution says, regardless of Iraq.

Q: Why should the government fund public education?
I am doing research on why the government should fund public education and im not find much on it. So do you have any resons why the government should fund public education?

A: That is a question too rarely asked. I don't have any help for you, but they're not educating us in the best possible way.

Q: With people downing the idea of national healthcare would they agree to eliminate public education?
Free education could be catoragized as national, or socialist if you think about it. Sense the schools are not doing too hot, maybe they should stop having the public finance it . How is it different? Will doctors turn into loafers? Some say it would improve the sytem we have now. What are peoples opinions on it?

A: I work in the NHS in the UK. I have yet to come across a medical student that 'has been forced into a speciality' and I am involved in teaching the doctors of tomorrow. Look at the facts, not at lies or half truths. Despite spending more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other country in the world, the USA has one of the western worlds highest death rates for kids aged under five. How is it right that dead American kids would have had a better chance of being alive if they had been born in Canada?

Q: Why are some politicians trying to destroy public education?
Is it elitism? Hatred? Plain old fashioned stupidity? What motivates people like Schwarzenegger (da Schwartz) and Wilson (Slimy Peter) before him to destroy public education so completely?

A: The Politicians have been DUMBING DOWN the public school system for almost 50 YEARS... which is why there are so many functional illiterates in AmeriKa... If people are stupid and dumb and poorly educated, they will blindly follow the orders of their handlers... which is what NEW WORLD ORDER really means.

Q: Who could better our public education system?
Everybody agrees that public education is broken. My 13yo son, who attends public school in San Jose, performs poorly since he reached puberty. No wonder. He sits in the same classroom with pretty girls and looks at their faces not coverd by burkas instead of looking at the blackboard. And my daugther age 15 instead of being taught cooking and sewing yesterday recieved instruction in proprer use of condoms. This situation deeply concerns me. Do you know which candidate has experience attending proper schools? Who could fix all this mess with education of our children?

A: I personally think you have a great sense of humor. I do not understand why others do not get it and take you seriously.

Q: Why are people freaked out about Ron Paul abolishing the public education system?
The 10th plank to the Communist Manifesto states: 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

A: The main reason is that we have conditioned ourselves to th Idea of a Big Brother babysitter so we can pursue our dreams whilst the govt. watches over our kinder and , unfortunately,indoctrinates them to it's own agenda which is nefarious and dastardly in the least.

Q: Who thinks we should do away with public education?
I do make it privatized and the natural law of competition will make better schools and cheaper schools. The only thing public education does is....well nothing. They keep lowering their standards and people arent learning anything.

A: Government schools are a massive failure. Now, leftists, when considering whether my statement is correct please consider both the COSTS and the BENEFITS. Thank you. Now, yes, we need to get government out of the education business through all means, like vouchers. I will not entertain the fantasy that in my lifetime the government school system will be dismantled, but I do sincerely hope that more and more parents realize what a cruel outcome is for their children to get an "education" in a government school and emerge woefull unprepared for the next stage of life and they support voucher programs to get some of that money they contribute for nothing and put it to good use.

Q: why the government should not finance public education?
i have to write this essay on why the government should not finance public education and i need help. so what are your opinons on it? please help.

A: you should of done the opposite because I know alot of reasons why government should finance public education if not there would be chaos and nobody would have any education

Q: Without throwing money at the problem in the form of vouchers how would you improve public education?
A few years ago I fought back the laughter while discussing this with a neocon as he stated within the same breath, "Liberals believe in throwing money at problems. I think school vouchers are the way to go". He, of course, was quoting Fox News and called this thought his own. The last I checked, a voucher IS money. How would you improve public education in the USA?

A: (1. Cut off every stinking nickel that goes to private and religious schools that teach religious bull crap; (2. Purge mercilessly any of the lunatic fringe right wing scum who are teaching lies like "creationism" and "intelligent design" and other insanity as if it had something to do with reality, including their cockamamie crap about the world being about 5,000 years old and other demented "Pailinisms". (3. Stick to the hard requirements of education, and if parents can't get their children into some form of hygiene or pre-literacy, don't allow them to keep their children, and have the slime buckets sterilized, by force if necessary. We are breeding right wing incompetents, whose only "knowledge" is the dumbphuck propaganda their slobber mouthed moron parents parrot out from excrement piles like the revolting fat slob drug addict, Rush Limbaugh. (4. Model our educational system after the European system, and completely cut out any signs of old line favoritism and "old family tie" b.s. Most Americans are unaware how much better foreign primary and secondary education is than ours, but if you doubt it, discuss it with an AFS exchange student rep, and they'll make it clear to you. (5. Send children not capable of anything more into an improved vocational system, so that they at least learn something productive at some point in their lives, not necessarily college preparatory. (6. Stiffen up the drug and drug import laws, such that drug users like the fat slob Limbaugh can be executed at any age or time. The congental retardation caused by that kind of filth needs to be destroyed, immediately. (7. Remove all public support from private and religious schools, and tax them out of existence, especially those Nazi institutions which have advocated politically on public issues. (8. Smack down mercilessly and in the nastiest possible way the filth who peddle lies like "no child left behind", wherein the good students are held back while the system sits and stinks. (9. Execute any public official who even proposes giving a cent to private schools, ESPECIALLY ALL WHITE ONES, and do so immediately.

Q: Why doesn't society use the term welfare for public education?
Why are people quick to use the term "on welfare" to refer to people receiving food stamps or other aid, but they don't consider students receiving a public education or government scholarships to be "on welfare"? It is the same thing: redistribution of wealth. So, if Keefer is correct, then why do you need the government to be the middleman. Why not just have the parents pay the school directly? ANSWER: because a low income parent may pay a small portion of their child's educational cost through taxes, while higher income individuals pick up the remainder of the burden. Thus, a welfare system.

A: It's not precisely equivalent. Ostensibly, the parents or guardians of the students are paying taxes which are responsible for funding the educational system in which they are a participant. An individual receiving welfare is generally exempt from most taxes (save those on the sales of goods), which means they are not, at the moment, contributing to the system from which they benefit. Thus, society has attached a certain stigma to being a recipient of welfare, with the implication that you are living off the work of others. It is true that a student does not provide the taxes which pay for his or her public education, but it is generally accepted that a parent or guardian is responsible for paying for the needs of their child in all areas, and the parents are, of necessity, active contributors to the system from which their child derives said educational benefit. In Response to Additional Details: The key word is 'remainder' of the burden. Keep in mind I am not arguing against the concept that there is a level of social assistance involved in the provision of public education - simply that it is not precisely equivalent, and thus tends to remain in a seperate, less socially unacceptable category.

Q: Americans... Do you think that public safety, fire protection, and education should be privatized?
Americans are so against national health care because they don't feel the government should control the health care system. How is the right to health care any different from public safety, fire protection or public education (all socialized institutions of society)? If police officers and fire fighters made money when we were attacked or our homes caught on fire, would that really work in the best interest of protecting the public? Why is it then okay for corporations to make money when we are ill? Why are Americans so blind to this logic? Health care should be a basic right just like safety and education. What are your thoughts?

A: I agree, but there will inevitably be faults with a national health care system if one is implemented. Europe's system has it's faults; so will an American health care system. Still, anything is better than what we have now. I have friends that have NO health insurance.

Q: Did your school system sell out public education to the business community?
Businesses used to be responsible for screening and training their own prospective employees, but lately they seem to have managed to get each school system to do that for them with ever higher graduation requirements and testing and a curriculum that demands skills in math and science regardless of the student's interests or ability in those areas. It seems that the goal of public education is no longer the development of each child to his or her full potential based on individual interests and talents, but simply guaranteeing a pre-qualified neighborhood labor pool to meet business needs, all at public expense and under the guise of "competing in a world market." Or am I being paranoid?

A: Yes, I think you are being somewhat paranoid. Schools have always focused on preparing people for the future in one way or another. Schools did not ever really focus only on the individual interests of talents of students - there was a required curriculum. Perspectives change, of course, and that is to be expected.