kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation

[mmotyka at lsil.com]

Duncan Frissell wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote:
> 
> > All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. Make well
> > considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too
> > much, too quickly and poorly crafted. By all means let's improve the
> > educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid
> > knee-jerk approach. Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing
> > war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good.
> 
> Since we don't depend on the government for food, steel, concrete, or
> medical care (60% private money not much actual government acre delivery);
> why would we think that teaching by government employees would be
> efficient.
> 
First, you depend more than you think on government actions for
essentials even though they have private brand labels.

Second, why do you think that when someone is a government employee they
are automatically inferior to everyone in the private sector? That's
irrational.

I've talked with several friends about pooling efforts and creating a
small private school. It ain't easy. It is something I would like to do.

The financial reform part is probably hopeless in the short term. Once
the hooks are into the green they don't like to let go.

> We can argue about payment later (although taxing the poor to pay for the
> college education of the rich seems unfair), but no rational person can
> argue that socialist provision of services is superior to market provision
> in case like this.
> 
What the fuck do I care how the services are provided? Show me the
services and I'll rate them myself without the benefit of your
ideological prerating system. That's what rational means. I do resent
the financial handcuffs.

> > This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure
> > as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. Sounds like the sort of
> > foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves.
> 
> I can pick any public school teacher at random and cross ex them on the
> stand and establish that they don't know diddly squat.  The concept that
> one should institutionalize one's children for 8 hours a day so that
> public officials can attempt to modify their knowledge, understanding, and
> physical and psychological deportment is the worst kind of child abuse.
> At future war crimes trials America's parents will have to answer for
> their crimes.  (For those of you who attended slave schools, that last is
> a joke.)
> 
Big challenge, most people don't know diddly squat. 

It may be just as difficult to find or create alternative schools that
are affordable ( even with financial reforms ) and provide a good
education as it is to improve what we have. Out of the frying pan and
into the fire. And not everyone has the ability to home-school for
various reasons. All I said was that I don't think the solution to the
problem is as simple as throwing it all away.

> Can you seriously argue that governments do a better job of education or
> that it's safe to trust them with the souls (in the religious and
> non-religious sense) of the innocent.
> 
Do a better job of education than ...?

As for the religious bit, they're easily as dangerous as governments.

I usually get the new car before I get rid of the old one. All I said is
that before you dismantle what you don't like start building the
replacement, get a few prototypes to the working stage. 

> Apart from everything else one can say, attending slave schools subjects
> the child and the family to the full force of government record keeping.
> If you are not on the dole and you have no children in slave schools, your
> chances of having any sort of interaction with the minions of the coercive
> state apparatus are very substantially reduced.  Much safer.
> 
Moderately interesting point.

> > >While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices
> > >should not be available.
> 
> Yes, just like the employment choice of "slavery" should not be available
> because it's wrong (at least within my proprietary community).
> 
Your point?

> > Uh, nope, that's not what I said. I said I would be in favor of
> > carefully considered proposals. Proposals that are fair to individuals
> > and beneficial to the community. Again, the two goals are neither
> > completely compatible nor mutually exclusive.
> 
> What's the community got to do with it?  I should give up money and
> children because people who are demonstrably stupider than I am think it
> would be a good idea?  I don't give barbers who can't cut my hair the way
> I want my money or my hair.  Why on earth should I do it to my children?
> 
You live in a community. Been to a third world country? I don't really
want to see that here. In some ways we have progressed in that direction
over the past few decades...

One thing I disliked about CA's recent attempt at the voucher system is
that it would let some people take out more than they put in. It was
still a socialist program. Funny that, coming from a generally
right-wing angle. In addition there are very limited choices for private
schools where I live. The voucher proposal SMBTAHS.

> The slave school teachers of those making that argument did at least that
> part of their work well.
> 
Wee bit bitter, eh?

> DCF
>
Happy, happy, happy, all of the time,
Mike