The Great Public School Questions

[Reason10]

I work in the system as a substitute teacher. I have done so since 1999. I've seen a lot.

The Public School system in America is mostly a giant warehouse for children until they are old enough to move out of their parents' home. I may have mentioned that at another forum, but probably not here. If you see this on a daily basis (and it becomes really clear when you are able to move in and out of many different schools) you come to that conclusion.

I'm asking here, IS THIS A GOOD THING?
(There are no wrong answers. This is a think topic and I'd like to get some views.)

This is less political than just studying the structure. Conservatives believe a lot of public schools have failed, are graduating morons and are indoctrinating kids to extremist left wing dogma. Liberals say we aren't spending enough money on public schools and that they should be extended to include the college years. I'm hoping we don't go down that path here, but all views are welcome.

Is this giant warehouse a bad thing? Today, children (at least at the elementary level) are getting breakfast and lunch, are getting instruction in the basic skills of reading, writing, math and science. They also get music, physical education, STEM and library skills. Today the federal government pays about 7 percent for this. Most of the money for public schools (including determining teacher salaries) comes from the county level, sales and property taxes.

Is it a bad thing for our country as a concept?

Right now, it appears that China is going to come to the negotiation table with our President because the threats of tariffs are tearing that country apart. For the longest time, China has been an oppressive Communist totalitarian regime. We've seen over the past 40 years where China has embraced a lot of capitalism and has made amazing strides on the world stage. So why would its economy be in the crapper?

I only know this because I have friends who are international brokers of various commodities. Most of China's enormous population is illiterate. Many of them are starving. What we see when it comes to those brilliant Chinese individuals are those in the cities who have competed their way up a very tall heap. We see the elite and we don't see the wretched.

Do you think an educated population is good for a national economy? (And again, there are no wrong answers here. Swing away.)

How is education today different from when old farts like me were in public school in the Sixties? I can remember a computer costing a million dollars and filling up an entire classroom. Yesterday I subbed for a math class where each student took at a mini laptop from the charging station and logged on to Google Classroom and did and entire math lesson for about 45 minutes. There are also reading programs where certain books are assigned what they call AR points. The student (usually at the elementary level) reads the book and then goes online for testing to get AR points.

It's all pretty hi tech. And I can remember in 2000 when there were no laptops in school, where students had to go to regular computer labs for basic typing courses, and they were forbidden to go on the internet.

A lot has changed.

In your opinion, is it a good thing?

And think in terms of the big picture. Is public education a good thing for the country.

Right now, my jury is still out. Maybe some of you can help me make up my mind.


Have at it.

[CaveDog]

It depends how you define education. A solid, classical education creates competent citizens capable of critical thought and self-government with the skills to drive a modern economy. This is essential to the success of a Republic such as ours. Unfortunately, due to the influence of thinkers such a John Dewey and politicians like Woodrow Wilson backed by the financing of industrial Magnates such as J.D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan in the early 20th century, the educational system has been transformed into a split tier system where the typical public school student is meted out little more than enough knowledge as necessary to serve the system. This goal was clearly articulated, even celebrated in that early "progressive" era and executed with great effectiveness. It's become ingrained in the system. Meanwhile, in the same period there was a proliferation of elite boarding schools which housed and educated the children of the wealthy and influential. Much of the upper tier of our political leadership are the product of such schools even to this day. Jefferson would have been aghast. He envisioned education as a tool to empower the people. It has become the opposite, merely enforcing a modern caste system. It's simply impossible to debate modern education while side-stepping that reality.

[Reason10]

It depends how you define education. A solid, classical education creates competent citizens capable of critical thought and self-government with the skills to drive a modern economy. This is essential to the success of a Republic such as ours. Unfortunately, due to the influence of thinkers such a John Dewey and politicians like Woodrow Wilson backed by the financing of industrial Magnates such as J.D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan in the early 20th century, the educational system has been transformed into a split tier system where the typical public school student is meted out little more than enough knowledge as necessary to serve the system. This goal was clearly articulated, even celebrated in that early "progressive" era and executed with great effectiveness. It's become ingrained in the system. Meanwhile, in the same period there was a proliferation of elite boarding schools which housed and educated the children of the wealthy and influential. Much of the upper tier of our political leadership are the product of such schools even to this day. Jefferson would have been aghast. He envisioned education as a tool to empower the people. It has become the opposite, merely enforcing a modern caste system. It's simply impossible to debate modern education while side-stepping that reality.

Is it the nature of the heavy, wieldy "public" school, (where one has to teach the masses, whoever walks through the door) versus the elite schools, where the clientele is hand picked? Your point is certainly well made, when Obama lectures us about not having enough political correctness in public schools while the taxpayers pay for his kids to go to Sidwell Friends private school.

Your first sentence probably should be the mission statement of the entire public school system.

It is definitely a two tier system where motivated upper class types can afford to raise their kids to be achievers and stick them in private schools with other achievers and teachers who expect no less. The public school system is where some very bright middle class kids are stuck in a classroom with some total morons who barely toilet trained by their equally moronic parents. Private schools are hand crafted products, whereas public schools are mass production.


About ten years ago, (when I got the crazy idea that maybe I could write some humorous stories for the Saturday Evening Post--since they pay pretty good fees for publication) I created a short story about 20 years in the future, when time travel was commonplace. There was one store that featured a conversation with some figure of the past. One customer decided he wanted to speak with Thomas Jefferson. So the store went back in time and brought Jefferson to the year 2040. The man smelled worse than any homeless person, probably because there was no deodorant in his time. The store made the mistake of leaving a television set on. Jefferson saw that and was immediately terrified, thinking that it was some evil box with demons trying to get out. He kept asking for hemp, which the store owner realized was marijuana.

The story went way over the word limit so I tossed it. I thought it was funny.

Jefferson would look at America today and be convinced he had died and gone to hell, just noticing the images today that we take for granted.

[Reason10]

It depends how you define education. A solid, classical education creates competent citizens capable of critical thought and self-government with the skills to drive a modern economy. This is essential to the success of a Republic such as ours. Unfortunately, due to the influence of thinkers such a John Dewey and politicians like Woodrow Wilson backed by the financing of industrial Magnates such as J.D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan in the early 20th century, the educational system has been transformed into a split tier system where the typical public school student is meted out little more than enough knowledge as necessary to serve the system. This goal was clearly articulated, even celebrated in that early "progressive" era and executed with great effectiveness. It's become ingrained in the system. Meanwhile, in the same period there was a proliferation of elite boarding schools which housed and educated the children of the wealthy and influential. Much of the upper tier of our political leadership are the product of such schools even to this day. Jefferson would have been aghast. He envisioned education as a tool to empower the people. It has become the opposite, merely enforcing a modern caste system. It's simply impossible to debate modern education while side-stepping that reality.

There certainly is an element of "serving the state" that even Horace Mann got pretty close to. And his goal was to take the religious and parental influence out of the mix entirely.

[Peter1469]

Cavedog covered the education aspect well.

So far as China goes, the OP is correct. China is really two societies attempting to become one. Its coastal mega cities are doing well with their selective application of capitalism and massive middle class (the real drivers of the economy). But the interior and to the west is dirt poor. Because of the prosperous part of China the manufacturing of "cheap stuff" is moving further south in Asia. The question remains to be seen is whether China's economy can survive this shift- the larger poor part of China will drag the prosperous smaller part down. Trump's tariffs have brought this reality home very fast.

[HawkTheSlayer]

Remove teachers unions from public schools and eliminate government sponsored indoctrination.
Abolish the Department of Education while we're at it.

[Reason10]

Remove teachers unions from public schools and eliminate government sponsored indoctrination.
Abolish the Department of Education while we're at it.

You won't get ANY argument from me on the subject of abolishing the Department Of Education. It is a miserable Jimmy Carter waste of money. It creates more local paperwork headaches than anything else and it accomplishes nothing.

Not sure about unions. Make all states RIGHT TO WORK states and you instantly solve the union problem. Here in Florida, unions have almost no real power because the closed union shop is illegal. Still, local teachers' unions do provide some valuable group insurance buying pools. Some legal aid groups are on the payroll to unions for helping teachers in various disciplinary disputes. Nothing else, these teachers are definitely getting their money's worth.

But you raise a lot of points about viability of unions for any government worker. Is it a good idea? I look at unions as paid private sector negotiating groups that have large enough membership to have real power. If a local union can collectively bargain for really high wages for the workers, higher than they could possibly have gotten on their own, they've earned their dues. The question your statement brings up, however subliminally, is whether or not unions can be involved in government businesses without a lot of corruption involved? Some say there should be NO unions for government workers. I'm about 80 percent with you, especially if it is a closed shop state.


Government sponsored indoctrination? I've got a bit of bad news for you. Having recently subbed for a couple of social studies classes at the high school level, I can safely say that the fix is in. Yes, the American history chapters DEFINITELY support the MSNBC side of things. That's not even close to being debatable. It's definitely anti Reagan and pro Obama. That comes from the publisher. I don't know if the Department of Education instructed the publishers (and there are many) to put in that editorial direction, or if they are naturally left wing and have decided on their own their version of history. But in that one high school, social studies is definitely CNN.

[gamewell45]

Remove teachers unions from public schools and eliminate government sponsored indoctrination.
Abolish the Department of Education while we're at it.

Even better, close down all public schools and have the parents either home school their children or send them off to private school for their education. Home schooling their children will allow them to ensure that the proper values that are important to them will be instilled in their children and they will have more control over what they are taught. Additionally the savings in tax dollars and sale of school property would benefit all taxpayers immensely.

Parents worried about their children being socially inept can always form social groups with other parents and the children can socialize with other children their age.

[Standing Wolf]

Even better, close down all public schools and have the parents either home school their children or send them off to private school for their education. Home schooling their children will allow them to ensure that the proper values that are important to them will be instilled in their children and they will have more control over what they are taught. Additionally the savings in tax dollars and sale of school property would benefit all taxpayers immensely.

Parents worried about their children being socially inept can always form social groups with other parents and the children can socialize with other children their age.

Sorry, but that strikes me as a very upper-middle-class, suburban view of how it would work, gw. Were it not for public schools, millions of American children would receive no formal education whatsoever - ever. Private schools would not be in the budget for the majority of working families, let alone those living in poverty. As for home schooling, when would the parents in a two-paycheck home have the time, even if they had the resources, patience, or - let's be frank about it - the intelligence to do something like that effectively, or at all?

Taxpayer support for universal public education is by far one of the best investments that could possibly be made. Public schools are the only hope for escape from a crappy life for a hell of a lot of kids, and also vastly increases the chances that fewer of those kids will grow up to be criminals, addicts or just a drain on society. The ones who live in actual houses or apartments or whose parents have jobs are the relatively fortunate ones; there are kids whose parents barely acknowledge their existence, living in conditions you wouldn't subject an animal to. Private or home schooling? I don't think so.

[gamewell45]

Sorry, but that strikes me as a very upper-middle-class, suburban view of how it would work, gw. Were it not for public schools, millions of American children would receive no formal education whatsoever - ever. Private schools would not be in the budget for the majority of working families, let alone those living in poverty. As for home schooling, when would the parents in a two-paycheck home have the time, even if they had the resources, patience, or - let's be frank about it - the intelligence to do something like that effectively, or at all?

Taxpayer support for universal public education is by far one of the best investments that could possibly be made. Public schools are the only hope for escape from a crappy life for a hell of a lot of kids, and also vastly increases the chances that fewer of those kids will grow up to be criminals, addicts or just a drain on society. The ones who live in actual houses or apartments or whose parents have jobs are the relatively fortunate ones; there are kids whose parents barely acknowledge their existence, living in conditions you wouldn't subject an animal to. Private or home schooling? I don't think so.

I understand your viewpoint but consider this: the tax dollars saved might enable the parents to either send their children to private school or enough savings in tax dollars where a second paycheck would not be necessary. I'm sure that most people would agree that having one parent staying at home is better then having to ship kids off to daycare which is an additional expense.

Additionally each parent knows their limitations as to home schooling; those who don't feel they have what it takes always have the option of sending their kids off to private school.

You say that public education is by far one of the best investments that could be made; I agree it is an important one, hence why parents ought to decide which path their children take as far as their education and values are concerned. I went to a private high school and did better in life then some of my friends who went through the public school system. Schools are designed to teach their students and prepare them for life; not to act as babysitters which unfortunately some schools have become.

Either way you make some compelling points and I respect your viewpoint.