Private schools

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I voted "no,"  but I'm on the fence.  I think that if a child is of a certain age and freely chooses to attend a private high school or college, they should be allowed to do that.  But I don't think children who are not old enough to make their own educational choice should be placed at an undue advantage or disadvantage based on the whim and/or wealth of their parents.

Also, children who are not old enough to make their own choices should not be limited in what they are taught by a private school ideology.  The public schools can teach children the values necessary to be good public citizens.  If parents want to enhance that in their own home, that's fine.  But no child should be completely isolated from the subjects and values taught in public schools.

So, in general, I think private high schools and colleges should be legal, but that all children should have to attend public elementary schools.

BTW, I attended public schools through high school, though I did attend a private university.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I voted "no,"  but I'm on the fence.  I think that if a child is of a certain age and freely chooses to attend a private high school or college, they should be allowed to do that.  But I don't think children who are not old enough to make their own educational choice should be placed at an undue advantage or disadvantage based on the whim and/or wealth of their parents.

Well, there's a few problems with that.

1. A child, even a teenager, would be hard pressed to afford private school unless they receive some sort of outside assistance, parents being the most likely. And how would the kid really know what's best - he/she is young, immature, and inexperienced.

2. Sorry, but you can't stop parents from putting their child in an advantaged position. If there's only one school choice in an area and it sucks, the parents could just move to a place with better choices to advantage their kids, unless of course they can't afford to do that. Unless you could magically make the quality of all schools the same, it's an impossible ideal to enforce.

Certainly it is an ideal that all public schools be of equal quality.   But I believe that if an ideal is unrealized, we should be trying to figure out how to make slow but steady progress toward that ideal rather than dismissing the entire idea as unattainable.  

I think abolishing private schools is much further down the road toward this ideal than many other more realistic steps we could take.  At this point, many private schools are a force for good in society because so many public schools are so dysfunctional.  We definitely need to repair our public schools before getting rid of private ones.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though I completely agree that parents are responsible for their children's ideological education, i'd like to further that in saying that it is the parents moral responsibility to educate their children, not the state. In addition, it is upsurd to say that private schools hold any more ideology than public ones. When I went to public school, they started teaching us from kindergarten about the gay and lesbian movement, and how some children have a mom and a dad, and others have a mom and a mom, and both are perfectly fine. They even legitimicized poligamy. The exact reason why I want to abolish public schools is what you claim private schools do. In my experience, it is the oppsiate. In Catholic schools, sure, you have to learn the prayers, but that's certainly not forcing religion on you. Several Jews go to Catholic schools in the Bay Area (San Francisco has 200 thousand Jews), and they don't have problems. For my last point, not all schools have ideologies. I can name a few schools in San Francisco alone that don't have any sort of ideology- University High School; Synergy Grammar School; Discovery School; et cetera.

Whatever the school, parents are the sole educators of children and should not rely on any school to be fully responsible for their educational development.

If you are not happy with the ideology of the public schools, you can change it through the political process.  This is not true of private schools.  

I think that at young ages, children should be taught what the consensus of society believes they should be taught.  They should not be excluded from society because their parents disagree with it.  If parents want to teach their children about their religion or ideas, they can do this in addition to a public education, not instead of it.

Once a child reaches high school age, I think they are old enough to make judgements about which interests and ideologies to pursue on their own, which is why I don't think private high schools are as troubling.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though I completely agree that parents are responsible for their children's ideological education, i'd like to further that in saying that it is the parents moral responsibility to educate their children, not the state. In addition, it is upsurd to say that private schools hold any more ideology than public ones. When I went to public school, they started teaching us from kindergarten about the gay and lesbian movement, and how some children have a mom and a dad, and others have a mom and a mom, and both are perfectly fine. They even legitimicized poligamy. The exact reason why I want to abolish public schools is what you claim private schools do. In my experience, it is the oppsiate. In Catholic schools, sure, you have to learn the prayers, but that's certainly not forcing religion on you. Several Jews go to Catholic schools in the Bay Area (San Francisco has 200 thousand Jews), and they don't have problems. For my last point, not all schools have ideologies. I can name a few schools in San Francisco alone that don't have any sort of ideology- University High School; Synergy Grammar School; Discovery School; et cetera.

Whatever the school, parents are the sole educators of children and should not rely on any school to be fully responsible for their educational development.

If you are not happy with the ideology of the public schools, you can change it through the political process.  This is not true of private schools.  

I think that at young ages, children should be taught what the consensus of society believes they should be taught.  They should not be excluded from society because their parents disagree with it.  If parents want to teach their children about their religion or ideas, they can do this in addition to a public education, not instead of it.

Once a child reaches high school age, I think they are old enough to make judgements about which interests and ideologies to pursue on their own, which is why I don't think private high schools are as troubling.

Nice version of freedom you have there. That's what scares me so much about the Dhimmicrats.

Whose freedom...the parents' or the child's?  
I believe a child's freedom is enhanced by not having a parent's ideology imposed on them from birth.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The parent will teach his or her child their religious views no matter what, I fail to see how it increases the freedom of the child as he will still have his parents' beliefs imposed on him from birth.

It would be amazingly expensive to ban private schools as well.  We'd have to pay for millions and millions more children, which would require raising taxes and hurting the economy (in addition to putting the thousands of private schools out of business).

At least the child would be exposed to other ideologies in private school....this would certainly increase his or her freedom to make educated decisions in the future.

How would getting rid of private schools hurt the economy?  Instead of paying huge tuitions to corporations, parents would just pay the government more in taxes.  This should be cheaper overall, since the public schools don't have to run a profit margin and can achieve greater economies of scale.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It is the parents RIGHT[/i][/u] to teach their children their views of the world. I see nothing at all wrong w/that. If the child wishes to see otherwise when they get older that is their right. However their is no problem with parents teaching thier children as they wish.

I guess I just don't see it that way.  A child should not be treated like property of their parents to be used for whatever ends the parents wish.  Children are entrusted to parents on the condition that they look out for the best interests of the child.   They should not be allowed to indoctrinate their children in a way that will be harmful to the child's moral and intellectual development.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

At least the child would be exposed to other ideologies in private school....this would certainly increase his or her freedom to make educated decisions in the future.

I don't understand.  Are you arguing the other side?

How would getting rid of private schools hurt the economy?  Instead of paying huge tuitions to corporations, parents would just pay the government more in taxes.  This should be cheaper overall, since the public schools don't have to run a profit margin and can achieve greater economies of scale.

Average Joe, who does not send his children to private school, has to pay taxes now to send all of these new children there.  He can't pay his rent now.  Oh crap.

McDonald's now has to pay more taxes and charge more for their BigMacs.  Now all of the Average Joes who buy food there can't, and their monthly food bills go up, giving them less discretionary spending and making them less likely to buy TVs and luxury items that would help the economy.  Oh crap.

Sorry....I clearly meant public schools in my first sentence.

As to the second point, well, that all depends on where you place the tax burden.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

My god...think about this statement for a second...

"CHILDREN ARE ENTRUSTED TO THEIR PARENTS"

If that doesn't sound like Communism to me...wow

NickG, my man, you are scaring the living sh*t out of me. I never pictured you in the same category as guys like BetterRedThanDead and some of the other true marxists, but you may be in that category based on some of the things you've said tonight.

Taking care of children is a privilege and not a right in our society.  If you abuse your children, or use drugs, or do other things that are harmful to them, the state can take you them away.  

I just see certainly types of ideological and religious indoctrination as emotional abuse, especially when ones does not permit their children to experience the world of choices around them.