Should taxpayer dollars be used to fund private education?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Making class size smaller would solve some problems. If class size were irrelevant, then there would be lecture halls in elementary schools.

And again, I am the one criticizing that proposal for reasons after reasons - including no numbers. Using exactly what they posted, then this statement agrees with what they said: "Class sizes should be 3 students per teacher to solve education problems". Did they post anything to the contrary? No. Did we not learn from George Jr who also promoted wish-washy solutions using same reasoning?

Meanwhile we have lecture halls in elementary schools. They are rooms with desks for 30 kids.

How many posted based upon myths that private schools are better? Why did I let this thread go so far before finally posting facts? I waited for someone to discuss from reality rather than from assumptions - post numbers. No numbers means junk science was being used.

For every study that says class sizes of 15 is better, another study takes the same facts to prove 30 is just as sufficient. It is a wash no different than electric fields created cancer in kids. It is arguing over WMDs because they must exist rather than first asking some damning questions, demanding numbers, and addressing the problem.

Why did Saddam have WMDs? Because he had to make everyone believe that lie. No one bothered to first address the problem; therefore knew Saddam must have WMDs for the same reason that smaller class sizes must work. Work? Work to solve what? What is this problem that smaller class sizes miraculously solves? Why was the education system so much better back when class sized averaged 30 per teacher? What changed? Again, when do we define the problem before (instead) imposing solutions?

Again, based upon what others have posted, they want 3 students per teacher? Why did they not post a number? That is the first symptom of junk science alive and well. It is a 'feel good' solution; therefore it must be right. This is what Rush Limbaugh and George Jr did to promote 'No child left behind'. When do we first define the problem?

Did anybody learn this lesson from a liar named George Jr? Why so many solutions without even defining the problem?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile we have lecture halls in elementary schools. They are rooms with desks for 30 kids.

That's a classroom. A lecture hall holds over 100 (and 100 would be a small one), and is generally encountered for the first time in college.

Originally Posted by tw

For every study that says class sizes of 15 is better, another study takes the same facts to prove 30 is just as sufficient.

Or, how about 45? Why not 60?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's a classroom. A lecture hall holds over 100 (and 100 would be a small one), and is generally encountered for the first time in college.Or, how about 45? Why not 60?

Exactly my point. Where were their numbers? What is the difference between a 30 person lecture hall and a classroom constructed for 5 students? Well, so many are posting declarations that a smaller class size means a better education - and did not post numbers. So yes, a class of 30 is better than a lecture hall of 100. We can easily make both cases because why? No numbers were provided with a claim that smaller classes are better? Same tricks were used to prove Saddam must have had weapons of mass destruction.

The OPs post asked about financing private schools. I am still asking why - a question still not answered? But then this is exactly how Rush Limbaugh lies are spun into political agendas. Others just assumed private school meant better education. Why? No one posted a number until that 15 July NY Times article. No wonder Rush Limbaugh still has listeners. The shortage of analytical questioning - the shortage of doubters - is mountainous. Smaller class sized are 'proven' for superior education? The classic popular perception - rather than hard facts .... the numbers.

So why do we finance private schools with taxpayer money? Our education systems are too good? We need to dumb down the kids? Since the problem was not defined and since the NY Times article provided facts, then apparently kids are being too well educated. A completely logical conclusion when a problem is based on assumptions. Why should taxpayers finance private schools that don't provide a superior education? Only one reason is logical - we must dumb down the kids.

Curiously, only Happy Monkey and tw have even put forth numbers for a 'large' and 'smaller' classroom? Why did so many previous posters assumed private schools have superior education? Does popular myth mean it is a fact? I am mystified that products of this education system could let 'Saddam has WMDs' logic be used again.

This never was a rhetorical question. What is the problem to be solved in the OP's original post? Anyone. Not just Luisa. Anyone who posted. What is the problem being solved by funding private schools?

[footfootfoot]

I only want to address one of your many points tw, as to the matter of numbers and class size.

Before we can even begin to discuss whether 5, 15, 30, or more students per class is "better", we need to define: better for what? Better at producing math and science geniuses who will back science which argues favorably for burning coal and oil? Or for producing math and science geniuses who will come up with better ways to monitor billions of hours of cell phone conversations daily so we can keep tabs on our citizens?

Or perhaps better at producing free and creative thinkers who are able to envision a new global paradigm which doesn't rely on corporate welfare in order to artificially stimulate the economy. Or maybe it will create a better system of education to make the united states the envy of the art world, producing art, dance, and music that heal and nourish and empower people, instead of feed them into the machine of commerce making corporate rock, and "blue chip" investment paintings which have no message other than potential returns on investment.

What, exactly are our eduactional goals anyway? We need to agree on this before we can decide how many students per class we'll have.

John Taylor Gatto's premise is that our educational system is designed to create an army of factory workers who are trained to conform, be easily led, are used to being lined up, graded for performance, and to cowboy up and take it. If that's the case, then all is hunky dory with our so called eduactional system.

[Aliantha]

I can tell you exactly why Private education is better than Public in Australia, but I doubt it would have any relevance to the US because your grading system is different with regard to getting the marks to get into what you call college and we call university.

[piercehawkeye45]

footfootfoot, I think you are talking about the hidden curriculum.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

Exactly my point. Where were their numbers? What is the difference between a 30 person lecture hall and a classroom constructed for 5 students?

The amount of attention the teacher can pay to the students.

[yesman065]

We have both colleges and universities here in America.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't need quantified studies to know a class size of 15 is better than 30, because I've had and lived with both.

15 - The teachers answers ever question. By hearing all questions can find out what they're not communicating clearly and change methods.
30 - The teacher will answer 4 or 5 questions and move on. If your question wasn't covered, too bad.

15 - The teacher has more interaction, can observes more closely each student's work
30 - The teacher can't even see what many of the students have on their desk, no less keep track of each students feedback. Much easier for the kid to skate.

15 - The teachers have time to really read papers and evaluate content.
30 - The teachers can only scan papers, catch spelling and punctuation errors, but not enough time to really Analyze content.

Simple logic would tell you the same thing. Any time there are numbers, there's someone with an agenda behind them. The agenda may be benevolent, but it's there, because people don't compile this stuff for a hobby.
Even if they did, they wouldn't have access to the information in most cases. Oh, and the people supplying the information have their agenda too.
Be careful of simple numbers, they're never simple.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Be careful of simple numbers, they're never simple.

Your numbers made it pretty clear and simple, kinda logical too.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

Why did so many previous posters assumed private schools have superior education?

Oh, stop it. No one is assuming that all private schools are better than all public schools. The assumption is that all private schools are better than the absolute worst of the public schools.

Here's your "smoking gun" evidence: there is no such thing as a private school with metal detectors at the doors. By comparison, many public schools do have them. Voucher programs have never been suggested for average public schools. They are for the bottom 1% of public schools, where the problem of ignorant students is secondary to things like gang violence and drug use.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

footfootfoot, I think you are talking about the hidden curriculum.

thanks for that link. It lead me to this one:
http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/Gatto/Gatto.html

An excerpt from that page:


"Our form of compulsory schooling is an invention of the state of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted - sometimes with guns - by an estimated eighty per cent of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost in Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the 1880's when the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard."

Bruce spells out some of the impacts of smaller classes quite well. (As if we'd expect less)

Taken a few steps further one gets into the territory of "unschooling". Which, although it won't prepare a child for life as a cube farmer or telemarketer or call center operator, isn't a bad way to spend a good part of one's life.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Gatto is full of shit.

But keep in mind that in the United States almost nobody who reads, writes or does arithmetic gets much respect. We are a land of talkers, we pay talkers the most and admire talkers the most, and so our children talk constantly, following the public models of television and schoolteachers. It is very difficult to teach the "basics" anymore because they really aren't basic to the society we've made.

What? To be able to read, write and cipher are not the very basics of a good education? Bullshit, everything you do will be based on those abilities.

Our form of compulsory schooling is an invention of the state of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted - sometimes with guns - by an estimated eighty per cent of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost in Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the 1880's when the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard.

While he may be technically right he distorts the picture.
Prior to this, the town owned schools taught the three Rs and about life, both good and evil, by teaching Protestant Christian Bible lessons. Why not, that's what the all were.

In 1848, the city marshall of Boston was ordered to find out how many truants and vagrants there were in Boston. He found 1,066 children between the ages of 6 and 16 who were either vagrant or truant Considering the fact that in 1849 the total enrollment in Boston's public schools was 20,589, the truants amounted to about 5%. In other words, without compulsory attendance laws, 95% of the city's children were attending school.

That 5% were the influx(1840s) of Irish Catholic kids whose families didn't want the kids subject to protestant schools even after the religious part had been removed. They also, being poor immigrants, wanted the kids out hustling to help the family survive. The rest of the state was more like the immigrants, in they expected by their work ethic, every member of the family to be contributing. Life wasn't easy for the majority of the New England rock farmers, and spending money for a school and teacher to take the kids away from their chores didn't settle well....even for 90 days a year.

The idea that every kid be given a free education regardless of social/financial status, is one of the best things that happened in America.

Over the years the school year has doubled, the mandatory attendance age has climbed and the schools have become daycare until you can ship the off to college...or war. Why? How did this happen?

The parents, in pursuit of the American dream, lost interest in raising their children. They sub-contracted to teachers, in place of wet nurses and nannies, and pretended their lives were enriched.... pretended they were rich.

But they were really poorer.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by yesman065

We have both colleges and universities here in America.

But don't you have to go to college before you can get into university?

We also have colleges here, but the term is used fairly loosely in a lot of cases whereas University means a degree which qualifies you to work in professional circles (mostly).

[yesman065]

No, Ali you don't. Graduates from both colleges & universities are also able to work in professional circles.