Privatizing education

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Chris Delanoy

unread,
Aug 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/27/00
to
Andrew P. Boulton <com...@idontlikespamidirect.com> wrote in message
news:39A9B6...@idontlikespamidirect.com...

> The idea of vouchers, endorsed by social conservatives to reform
> education, is _not_ a free-market proposition. The funding for the
> schools would still be provided by taxpayers.

Not to mention the fact that the controls and rules that go along with the
government funding would destroy the few private schools that are left and
make them totally indistinguishable from the abysmal government youth camps
we call "schools" today.

Fortunately, it looks as though private educators aren't falling for this
scam. In Florida, for instance, only FOUR of the state's three thousand
private schools have signed on to Jeb Bush's voucher program (described as a
perfect "model" for any such program) and the insane eight thousand pages of
rules which accompany it.

> Those lacking sufficient funds may be able to receive
> student loans, if their children seem sufficiently
> academically promising to pay their debts later on in life.

And the reward is that they'll get an ACTUAL education, rather than a twelve
year government brainwashing intended to turn them into a mindless, obedient
robot (or a "good citizen," as they're called.)

Chris Delanoy


Andrew P. Boulton

unread,
Aug 27, 2000, 8:46:59 PM8/27/00
to
The idea of vouchers, endorsed by social conservatives to reform
education, is _not_ a free-market proposition. The funding for the
schools would still be provided by taxpayers. And the funding is quite
unfair. For instance, a gay couple, or a childless straight couple,
would be forced to pay the same tax rate to the system as some of these
fundamentalist families with 7 or 8 kids. That is unfair! The only
fair and just solution is the complete privatization of education,
including its funding. Everyone sending kids to school should be forced
to pay out of their own pockets. Those lacking sufficient funds may be
able to receive student loans, if their children seem sufficiently
academically promising to pay their debts later on in life.

Andrew
http://webhome.idirect.com/~cometx

Wes Moxam

unread,
Aug 27, 2000, 9:26:50 PM8/27/00
to

hmmm, do you know what the net result would be?

Children == more expensive
therefore: have less kids

Our birth rate is already low enough due to kids being so damn expensive.

Keep voting for that Freedom party Andrew, heck it may even crack the 2%
popularity level one of these days.

--------------------------------
| Wes Moxam |
| wmo...@www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
| http://www.scs.ryehigh.cx |
|______________________________|

Patrick Coghlan

unread,
Aug 27, 2000, 11:15:11 PM8/27/00
to
"Andrew P. Boulton" wrote:

> The idea of vouchers, endorsed by social conservatives to reform
> education, is _not_ a free-market proposition. The funding for the
> schools would still be provided by taxpayers. And the funding is quite
> unfair. For instance, a gay couple, or a childless straight couple,
> would be forced to pay the same tax rate to the system as some of these
> fundamentalist families with 7 or 8 kids. That is unfair! The only

Everyone pays taxes to support *core* services. Last time I checked health care and education were considered as such.

> fair and just solution is the complete privatization of education,
> including its funding. Everyone sending kids to school should be forced
> to pay out of their own pockets. Those lacking sufficient funds may be
> able to receive student loans, if their children seem sufficiently
> academically promising to pay their debts later on in life.

And the rest...?

Get real.

Erik

unread,
Aug 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/28/00
to
What's this, the Corporatist Manifesto?

"Andrew P. Boulton" wrote:

> The idea of vouchers, endorsed by social conservatives to reform
> education, is _not_ a free-market proposition. The funding for the
> schools would still be provided by taxpayers. And the funding is quite
> unfair. For instance, a gay couple, or a childless straight couple,
> would be forced to pay the same tax rate to the system as some of these
> fundamentalist families with 7 or 8 kids. That is unfair! The only
> fair and just solution is the complete privatization of education,
> including its funding.

Fair for the kids? Fair for society to produce successively dumber
generations like those educated in the avaerage American public school?

> Everyone sending kids to school should be forced
> to pay out of their own pockets. Those lacking sufficient funds may be
> able to receive student loans, if their children seem sufficiently
> academically promising to pay their debts later on in life.

Oh, so if your toddler can play the piano at age 5, he might get a loan,
otherwise he can go dig coal? Pretend the 20th century never happened?

>
>
> Andrew
> http://webhome.idirect.com/~cometx


Erik

unread,
Aug 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/28/00
to
In a prosperous state (as in nation-state, not state-of-mind), why should kids
who haven't even had a chance to make poor decisions be penalized with a crappy
or unavailable education? A high literacy rate is just one 'quality of life'
indicator that doesn't get much credence anymore, yet literacy and prosperity
certainly have a close correlative relationship...

Chris Delanoy wrote:

> Andrew P. Boulton <com...@idontlikespamidirect.com> wrote in message
> news:39A9B6...@idontlikespamidirect.com...
>

> > The idea of vouchers, endorsed by social conservatives to reform
> > education, is _not_ a free-market proposition. The funding for the
> > schools would still be provided by taxpayers.
>

> Not to mention the fact that the controls and rules that go along with the
> government funding would destroy the few private schools that are left and
> make them totally indistinguishable from the abysmal government youth camps
> we call "schools" today.
>
> Fortunately, it looks as though private educators aren't falling for this
> scam. In Florida, for instance, only FOUR of the state's three thousand
> private schools have signed on to Jeb Bush's voucher program (described as a
> perfect "model" for any such program) and the insane eight thousand pages of
> rules which accompany it.
>

> > Those lacking sufficient funds may be able to receive
> > student loans, if their children seem sufficiently
> > academically promising to pay their debts later on in life.
>

> And the reward is that they'll get an ACTUAL education, rather than a twelve
> year government brainwashing intended to turn them into a mindless, obedient
> robot (or a "good citizen," as they're called.)
>
> Chris Delanoy

Who'll lend the money? If this private education is to begin at age 5 or 6, what
criteria will the kid need to qualify for a loan? Who'll interview him/her and
decide if the risk is worth gambling on...? What about bright kids who deserve a
subsidized-shot at learning but their parents are totally useless and wouldn't
even consider going into debt for anything not on 4 wheels?


Chris Delanoy

unread,
Aug 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/28/00
to
Erik <mam...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:39AA35F6...@sympatico.ca...

> In a prosperous state (as in nation-state, not state-of-mind), why should
kids
> who haven't even had a chance to make poor decisions be penalized with a
crappy
> or unavailable education?

I agree. And since this exactly the sort of non-education they get when we
heard them like cattle in these monolithic government youth camps and trap
them there for twelve years, this is just all the more reason to abolish
them. Good point, Erik.

> > And the reward is that they'll get an ACTUAL education, rather than a
twelve
> > year government brainwashing intended to turn them into a mindless,
obedient
> > robot (or a "good citizen," as they're called.)

> Who'll lend the money? If this private education is to begin at age 5 or


6, what
> criteria will the kid need to qualify for a loan?

The number of people who truly could not afford a basic education for their
children would be marginal. These few people could appeal to private
charity - and if the government has taken the strangulating yoke of
regulation and control off the economy, there would be plenty of that to go
around.

Teaching a child to read from scratch, for instance, takes about six weeks.
The fact that our government youth camps profess the need to spread it out
over twelve years - and even then still fail to teach nearly a third of the
children that are thus entrapped - is even more reason why this madness has
to stop.

Chris Delanoy


Ashitaka

unread,
Aug 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/28/00
to

Andrew P. Boulton <com...@idontlikespamidirect.com> wrote in message
39A9B6...@idontlikespamidirect.com...

If I don't want military in my country, I still pay taxes even for them,
that is called republic everyone pay taxes and taxes are used to provide
services such as education. Moreover I think that is fair to pay for the
education of other's people children, because they are the future of the
country ...

Steve Marskell

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to

Chris Delanoy wrote:


> Teaching a child to read from scratch, for instance, takes about six weeks.
> The fact that our government youth camps profess the need to spread it out
> over twelve years - and even then still fail to teach nearly a third of the
> children that are thus entrapped - is even more reason why this madness has
> to stop.

Maybe that is why more and more families are turning to home schooling
for one on one teaching provided by a very interested teacher ;)

John Carrick

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to

>And the reward is that they'll get an ACTUAL education, rather than a twelve
>year government brainwashing intended to turn them into a mindless, obedient
>robot (or a "good citizen," as they're called.)

You are hilariously mistaken in your belief that teachers take their
cue from governments at any level. Our schools certainly socialize
children, but they don't do so according to any government plan.

Where the rubber hits the road...in the actual classroom setting...
it is the teacher's own values that count. Jim Keegstra should have
taught you that.

I suspect that what you call a "mindless, obedient robot", is what
most of us would call a responsible citizen, who has learned that
in order to function in society, he or she must behave responsibly.

Accepting the need to conform to some degree to the expectations of
others in one's community (be it the school, or the larger community)
is vital for the well-being of the individual and the community alike.

There is room for a degree of non-confority, of course, but an
aggregation of non-conformists would by definition not be a society at
all. It would be a sort of Texas Death Match.

It is conformity that allows society to function. If you don't
believe that try driving around town for a while ignoring all traffic
lights.

John Carrick

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to

>>Teaching a child to read from scratch, for instance, takes about six weeks.
>>The fact that our government youth camps profess the need to spread it out
>>over twelve years - and even then still fail to teach nearly a third of the
>>children that are thus entrapped - is even more reason why this madness has
>>to stop.
>>
>
>Got a lot of experience teaching kids to read do ya? Six weeks and
>they can tackle Shakespeare - man your amazing.

"Amazing"?

You are too kind. He is mouthy, uniformed, and stupid

John Carrick

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to

>> Teaching a child to read from scratch, for instance, takes about six weeks.
>> The fact that our government youth camps profess the need to spread it out
>> over twelve years - and even then still fail to teach nearly a third of the
>> children that are thus entrapped - is even more reason why this madness has
>> to stop.
>
>Maybe that is why more and more families are turning to home schooling
>for one on one teaching provided by a very interested teacher ;)

His post was silly enough.

Did you *have* to add your inanity to it?

Iconoclast

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to

John Carrick wrote:
>
> >And the reward is that they'll get an ACTUAL education, rather than a twelve
> >year government brainwashing intended to turn them into a mindless, obedient
> >robot (or a "good citizen," as they're called.)
>
> You are hilariously mistaken in your belief that teachers take their
> cue from governments at any level. Our schools certainly socialize
> children, but they don't do so according to any government plan.

F.A. Hayek wrote that the essence of socialism is government planning--and
coercion.

They do so from the academics' plan which is anti-capitalist and statist.


>
> Where the rubber hits the road...in the actual classroom setting...
> it is the teacher's own values that count.

But the teacher is also a product of the system, stupid. He has already been
brainwashed beyond repair.

The teaching profession in N.A. is virtually a collectivist monolith. It
was reported on CNN that about 1/3 of the delegates to Gore's Demagogic
Convention were teachers.

Iconoclast

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to

John Carrick wrote:
>
> >>Teaching a child to read from scratch, for instance, takes about six weeks.
> >>The fact that our government youth camps profess the need to spread it out
> >>over twelve years - and even then still fail to teach nearly a third of the
> >>children that are thus entrapped - is even more reason why this madness has
> >>to stop.
> >>
> >

> >Got a lot of experience teaching kids to read do ya? Six weeks and
> >they can tackle Shakespeare - man your amazing.

But he didn't say that. In your bigoted fashion you
are distorting his statement. All he said was
that they could be taught to read. From there as their mental age progressed
with their chronological age, and their I.Q. at least normal, they could
proceed to Shakespeare and other great writers in due time.

It is said that Thomas Macaulay and John Stuart Mill were reading and
translating Greek and Latin at the age of three
without having had any formal education.

One of the greatest scholars in English history, Dr. Samuel Johnson,
never attended school. He did in his late youth enroll at Oxford but then
quit in disgust after just a few days.

Iconoclast

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to

John Carrick wrote:
>
> >> Teaching a child to read from scratch, for instance, takes about six weeks.
> >> The fact that our government youth camps profess the need to spread it out
> >> over twelve years - and even then still fail to teach nearly a third of the
> >> children that are thus entrapped - is even more reason why this madness has
> >> to stop.
> >

> >Maybe that is why more and more families are turning to home schooling
> >for one on one teaching provided by a very interested teacher ;)
>
> His post was silly enough.
>
> Did you *have* to add your inanity to it?

Recently in the U.S. a young girl who had never attended a school
achieved a perfect SAT score. All her instruction was given at home.

Steve Marskell

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to

> >Maybe that is why more and more families are turning to home schooling
> >for one on one teaching provided by a very interested teacher ;)
>
> His post was silly enough.
>
> Did you *have* to add your inanity to it?

Yes, because it furthered the discussion, as opposed to your finely
tuned slag. Nice did you eat your wheaties today?

Steve Marskell

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to

James Goneaux wrote:

> Perhaps you can tell us why an increasing % of minority parents in the
> US are in favour of home schooling and charter schools?
>
> Or are they all racists too?

If not racists they are inane right wing selfish bastards :(

chr...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/29/00
to
In article <39A9B6...@idontlikespamidirect.com>,

"Andrew P. Boulton" <com...@idontlikespamidirect.com> wrote:
> The idea of vouchers, endorsed by social conservatives to reform
> education, is _not_ a free-market proposition.

This is quite true. It's not a *free*-market proposition, but it *is* a
*market* proposition. It's an example of a market mechanism working
within a (in general terms) social-democratic framework. You don't have
to be a right-winger to like them, and really consistent free-marketers
don't.

That being said, I'd reject them unless they came with an equivalent of
Medicare no-extra-billing provisions. That is, a private school could
educate a child for that child's share of education taxes, *or* it
could have the parents pay full tuition, but they could not add tuition
fees to the basic voucher. OTherwise, I'm afraid we'd end up turning
the public school system into the educational equivalent of social
housing.

No voucher proposal I know of includes such a provision.

>The funding for the
> schools would still be provided by taxpayers. And the funding is
quite
> unfair. For instance, a gay couple, or a childless straight couple,
> would be forced to pay the same tax rate to the system as some of
these
> fundamentalist families with 7 or 8 kids. That is unfair!

Education has a general social benefit. A poorly educated person is not
just a burden on his own family; he's a burden on society at large.
It's worth remembering that British introduced universal education in
the mid-19th century primarily because they expected the franchise to
be extended to the working class within a few decades and they feared
the prospect of a an ignorant electorate. The people who making that
decision, like the people who voted for them (and by and large the
people paying for the system) weren't they direct beneficiaries, but
they understood that they would benefit indirectly.

>The only
> fair and just solution is the complete privatization of education,
> including its funding. Everyone sending kids to school should be
forced
> to pay out of their own pockets. Those lacking sufficient funds may
be
> able to receive student loans, if their children seem sufficiently
> academically promising to pay their debts later on in life.

It's unlikely that some not-very-bright person (at the bottom 20th
percentile of the IQ scale, say) will ever make enough money to pay off
a student loan of, what?, $80,000? $100,000? And yet I think it
extraordinary dangerous (not to mention unfair) to have millions of
unschool people hanging about. Generally speaking, it makes sense for
the government to "overinvest" in education, that is, to create more
and better educated people than the system demands. It's a way of
building up social capital.

Cheers,

Chris


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Michael Valentine Smith

unread,
Aug 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/30/00
to
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:30:18 GMT, Iconoclast <"iconoclast"@ home.com>
wrote:

>
>It is said that Thomas Macaulay and John Stuart Mill were reading and
>translating Greek and Latin at the age of three
>without having had any formal education.
>

My son was reading well and could do basic math prior to going to
school. I don't think it's that hard to learn these things on an
informal basis, and it's not like we put a lot of time into it. It's
all in the home environment, if you encourage learning and interest in
learning the rest will happen by itself.

School has more to do with socialization, and unfortunately in many
schools about slowing everyone down to the level of the slowest in the
class.

**********************

n' keep it in yur mind and not ferget
that it is not he or she or them or it
that you belong to

Robert Zimmerman

Steve Marskell

unread,
Aug 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/30/00
to

Michael Valentine Smith wrote:

> School has more to do with socialization, and unfortunately in many
> schools about slowing everyone down to the level of the slowest in the
> class.

And that's why apologists/advocates of home schooling trot out the
ideas/themes of dumbing down, and grade ghettos.

Erik

unread,
Sep 1, 2000, 4:05:48 PM9/1/00
to

Iconoclast wrote:

> John Carrick wrote:
> >
> > >> Teaching a child to read from scratch, for instance, takes about six weeks.
> > >> The fact that our government youth camps profess the need to spread it out
> > >> over twelve years - and even then still fail to teach nearly a third of the
> > >> children that are thus entrapped - is even more reason why this madness has
> > >> to stop.
> > >

> > >Maybe that is why more and more families are turning to home schooling
> > >for one on one teaching provided by a very interested teacher ;)
> >
> > His post was silly enough.
> >
> > Did you *have* to add your inanity to it?
>

> Recently in the U.S. a young girl who had never attended a school
> achieved a perfect SAT score. All her instruction was given at home.

Yet American prisons are crammed to the rafters with other people who's parents
edjercated the kids at home... to suggest the average parent can teach their kids
better than a functioning public educations system is ludicrous.

Iconoclast

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 12:26:27 PM9/2/00
to

Erik wrote:
>
> Iconoclast wrote:
>
> > John Carrick wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Teaching a child to read from scratch, for instance, takes about six weeks.
> > > >> The fact that our government youth camps profess the need to spread it out
> > > >> over twelve years - and even then still fail to teach nearly a third of the
> > > >> children that are thus entrapped - is even more reason why this madness has
> > > >> to stop.
> > > >
> > > >Maybe that is why more and more families are turning to home schooling
> > > >for one on one teaching provided by a very interested teacher ;)
> > >
> > > His post was silly enough.
> > >
> > > Did you *have* to add your inanity to it?
> >
> > Recently in the U.S. a young girl who had never attended a school
> > achieved a perfect SAT score. All her instruction was given at home.
>

> Yet American prisons are crammed to the rafters with other people who's (sic) parents
> edjercated the kids at home... to suggest the average parent can teach their (sic) kids
> better than a functioning public educations (sic) system is ludicrous.

The problem is that the public education system is not really functioning very
well at all. In many instances it is DYSFUNCTIONAL.

Tom Asquith

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 1:17:59 PM9/2/00
to
Fer sur, like totally, on Sat, 02 Sep 2000 16:26:27 GMT , Iconoclast ,
y'know, like posted this stuff to can.politics:

>The problem is that the public education system is not really functioning very
>well at all. In many instances it is DYSFUNCTIONAL.

Where's the proof that the Canadian public education system is not
functioning well?


Cheers,
Tom Asquith,
mosquito-at-canada-dot-com
Delete Spam Filter ("FILTER") to reply.
All SPAMMERS will be reported.
------------------------------------------
"Beauty plus pity -- that is the closest
we can get to definition in art."
- Vladimir Nabokov
------------------------------------------

Donald J. Dickson

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 3:03:06 PM9/2/00
to
In article <08d2rssjnvqint05l...@4ax.com>, Tom Asquith
<mosq...@canada.com> wrote:

> Fer sur, like totally, on Sat, 02 Sep 2000 16:26:27 GMT , Iconoclast ,
> y'know, like posted this stuff to can.politics:
>
> >The problem is that the public education system is not really
functioning very
> >well at all. In many instances it is DYSFUNCTIONAL.
>
> Where's the proof that the Canadian public education system is not
> functioning well?
>

Ontario, ever since Harris & Co. created a "crisis".

--
Don Dickson

Remove first "x" from xcx666 to reply by email.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages