public schools

[starvingeyes]

The Unconstitutional Public School
Rob Lundy


America was founded by men who knew men were entitled to the rights of all properties that would, in turn, allow them to live happily. Since then, their visions have been twisted into a stew of socialistic and communistic swill. They held that the government's only task was to guard the rights that were given by their "creator" (whomever the individual believes their creator is, be it man or God). Shortly after, a public school system was established. Thus began the degradation of the founding father's vision of a capitalistic utopian country, the individual man's rights to his own lively hood, and the minds of the children of America.

During the past few decades, international studies have shown that America is among the very last in education. This does not mean America is lacking in the provision of education, but in quality. Children are failing to learn to read, not only in elementary, and not only in middle school either; teenagers actually graduate high school easily without learning how to read. This is not an unusual occurrence; it is happening more and more in the recent years. This is just a single example of the shortcomings of the public school system. Children who know nothing about math are graduating with high marks. Children who couldn't tell John Steinbeck from Steven King are passing directly through the English classes. Children with a 40% margin of error are passing high school. 40% is failing almost half the time. 40% is nothing more then an excuse to keep the flow moving. 40% should be considered abuse in the fact that smarter children are dragged down by the teachers who feel it necessary to help the children who are too lazy or on the children who have given up on learning.

The above is a very serious problem. It is a plague that threatens America. At the current rate it will not be civil war or revolution that causes America to cease to exist, it will be ignorance. When men who can't actually spell America are voted into office, that will be the end of its potentially great reign.

The antidote is simple. It is the bureaucrats that decide the curriculum. It is the bureaucrats that decide whether a school is doing good or bad. It is the bureaucrats that decide the funds for individual schools. It is the bureaucrats who's children attend private schools or are privately tutored. The antidote is to remove the power from the bureaucrats and to give the power to the parents. The antidote is to let the parents choose which schools will be funded. With choice, parents have the option to decide on the curriculum for their child. If a parent wants their child to learn mostly about science, they have the choice to send their child to a school that is known for its science department. If a parent doesn't want their child in a certain environment, or disapproves of a certain school policy, they may transfer their child to a different more suitable school.

Such a system requires schools to participate in competition with one another. Schools will hire better teachers, or train their existing ones, they will raise their standards, they will provide better educational services for the parents who decided to send their children to them. If they fail to recognize this requirement they will go bankrupt very quickly. Furthermore, when competition is introduced, the administration will be inclined to manage their finances better then they were before. Thus lowering the cost of tuition allowing for more choice within the school. As is common with many competitive markets, the quality of the goods (education) will raise, and the cost (tuition) will lower.

The students who do not wish to attend school, who are bored or mischievous or even dangerous may choose freely to not attend. If their parents decide that their child's grades are not acceptable they may discontinue their child's attendance to the school. If the school finds that the child is a potential emotional, physical, or mental threat to other students, they may discontinue the child's attendance. (ie. the class clown who's main goal for school is not to learn, but to keep others from learning. The child's attendance is pointless until the child comes to know that school is a good thing, and not something to be fought. When this day comes, he may attend another school.) When a student goes through a full year of high school, it costs the taxpayers around seven thousand dollars. When the student fails every class, that is literally seven thousand dollars wasted. When there are a million students failing all the classes, that is seven billion dollars. Why then are people who are not responsible for the failing students held responsible by their government to provide the failing students with funds that they will in turn waste.

The beauty of competition lies in the fact that it's an extremely democratic system. When a parent enrolls their child in a school, it is a vote for the success of the school. Therefore only the truly effective schools will survive. The bad schools with bad teachers, and bad administration will go bankrupt.

One may ask: "what about those who cannot afford private schools? What about mentally challenged children?" Every parent has the right to school his or her own child. Every neighborhood has the right to organize a system where they alternate week by week and teach the children. Every individual has the right to open a loan company to give money to those who cannot afford school. Every individual has the right to donate money to families or schools whom they wish to succeed. It is, after all, the parent's responsibility to either educate or have someone educate their child.

This is not a new idea. Recently, one has heard a lot about voucher programs. However there is a major flaw built into it. This program does advocate school choice. However, it is still money out of the pockets of the taxpayers that do not have children in school. Why is it their responsibility to pay for the education of children who are not their own? Why is it not in their jurisdiction then to scold a child who is not their own? Or a more extreme question: why is it wrong for an individual to steal from a person, but not wrong for a large group of individuals (the government is, in fact, nothing more then a large group of individuals) to steal from a person?

It is said that man has the right to his property. Is money not a property? If man is revoked from his right to all of his money, then he has no right to it. If he has no right to it, he has no right to what he buys with it. If he has no right to what he buys with it, he has no right to a life by means of the items he buys. If he has no right to food, water, clothes, or a home, he has no means of survival. This is why public schools are unconstitutional; because the constitution guarantees the right to property, and the right to life. Such a system that taxes men for something they do not benefit from revokes the rights to both.

Public education is not a moral right. Over the years, it has become something the majority of the people have come to consider it as such. However, it was a very new idea back when it ruined a major part of our country. What if today, the government began to manufacture shoes on the basis that they all their citizens should have shoes on their feet? They declare it as a controlled monopoly (much like the postal service or the utilities), so that the current shoe manufacturers may not compete against the government. In two hundred years, when someone challenges the idea of privatization of public shoes, they will be met with the same opposition.

The public school system is doing more harm then good. Furthermore it is unconstitutional. The system is completely run by bureaucrats who decide which schools to reward, and which to penalize. The power is in the wrong hands. By privatizing schools, it will allow the parents to decide.

[Bandalero]

The antidote is simple. It is the bureaucrats that decide the curriculum. It is the bureaucrats that decide whether a school is doing good or bad. It is the bureaucrats that decide the funds for individual schools. It is the bureaucrats who's children attend private schools or are privately tutored. The antidote is to remove the power from the bureaucrats and to give the power to the parents. The antidote is to let the parents choose which schools will be funded. With choice, parents have the option to decide on the curriculum for their child. If a parent wants their child to learn mostly about science, they have the choice to send their child to a school that is known for its science department. If a parent doesn't want their child in a certain environment, or disapproves of a certain school policy, they may transfer their child to a different more suitable school.

the problem with giving the parents this power is that:

A) some parents really dont care, all they do is drink heavily, do drugs and don't interact with the child at all.

B) some parents care too much. if 75% of all parents send their kids to school A, then school B will be lacking funds again.

[starvingeyes]

that's ultimately the problem of those parents and those children, not me or mine. if i am to help them, it should be voluntary, not compulsory. it's slavery.

[Bandalero]

if your going to have schools compete against one another, prices won't go down. for the most part training teachers will eventually cost money, hireing the best teachers will cost alot more money. what's going to happen is the market (schools), will ultimately set a high standard tuition, for the sake of optimizing their profits. that's never any good.

democracy is an idea...and on paper it really looks good. but in reality democracy is equal to mob rule. what the US calls democracy is called a republic.

[starvingeyes]

what you just said flies in the face of all contemporary economic theory. there may be a handful of economists on the planet who would call that a feasible scenario.

competition always drives prices down. there has never been a case of anything, ever, where competition did not drive prices down. this will be no different in schools.

[sandsleeper]

that sounds great and all but like reno said, there will be kids left behind who can't afford private schools and although you may feel it is not your problem, it will be when 25% of the nation's students get left behind in underfunded school B, receive an even worse education, and have no other choice than to pump gas and wait tables for the rest of their lives. is this not a kind of "slavery" in itself? not to mention the drain it would put on the economy. and that's where it would become your problem.

It is, after all, the parent's responsibility to either educate or have someone educate their child.

we must remember that not everyone is the model parent. not everyone is the most competent person. many parents are unable to educate their own child or they can't afford to have someone else educate them. it's a nice thought that they could be educated out of the kindness of other people's hearts, but people just aren't that nice and don't want to put the money forward, as evidenced by this article.

in addition, there is something called a budget vote, is there not? if a community does not wish to pay for the public schools in their neighborhood they can simply vote the budget down and pay significantly less. that's where your "democracy" comes in. interestingly enough, however, countless times the budgets are voted up. it seems there still are many people who have faith in our public schooling system.

[Bandalero]

that's right demand drives prices down.

but look at the teachers point of view. a high demand teacher is going to be sought after by alot of schools. you would think that the school with the highest check would win however that's not the case. a school with alot of kids is going to have the bigger checks....but the bigger classes. teachers cannot educate at full efficientcy with a big ass class. there for the teacher will more than likley seek a school that has X amount of kids per class room, and a reasonable pay.

[emily]

what do you consider a high demand teacher? the job supply is so low and people are getting fired all the time, i dont think schools are really looking for a high demand teacher, they want cheap newbies who they can pay just enough so they can not starve. at base levels teachers make barely nothing, so, no, they will look for the job that gives more pay. half the teachers out there don't even care about how efficient they are or if they are actually teaching the kids anything.

[sandsleeper]

i have to agree with emily on what schools pay teachers.

but yeah, educated teachers do cost more. experienced teachers do cost more. where is that money going to come from?

[Corey]

If parent's don't like public schools, they have a couple options.

1) Join the school board and make it better

2) Send your kids to a private school

[Bandalero]

what do you consider a high demand teacher? the job supply is so low and people are getting fired all the time, i dont think schools are really looking for a high demand teacher, they want cheap newbies who they can pay just enough so they can not starve. at base levels teachers make barely nothing, so, no, they will look for the job that gives more pay. half the teachers out there don't even care about how efficient they are or if they are actually teaching the kids anything.

actually that's not true at all. a high demand teacher is someone with their teaching certificate. teachers with expirence are sought after big time because of the shortage of qualified teachers. what happens in bigger schools is that they take in the new ones so that they can fill the gaps because of shortages. (certified or not) no real expirienced teacher wants a large class they cannot control. in the smaller schools, they will hire a new or uncertified teacher. the superintendent will give that teacher their initial year to either get certified or they're fired. what you see is an influx of expirienced teachers comming into the smaller school districts because they get paid about the same being at a large school or a small school. so they would rather take on more responsabilites and teach fewer students. the bad thing about small schools is that the state doesn't make any money on them. in Texas alone a school has to have 1050 students in the district just for the state to break even. anything less then this number and the state is losing money letting that school operate.

[emily]

but there is a surplus of people needing jobs that have certificates. that's why there are buy-outs for retirement. the districts want to get rid of the older more experienced people because they have to pay them about 40,000 more a year than they do new teachers. just because there are larger schools doesn't mean there are larger classes. my high school has about 1700 students at least and there are no classes (besides something like band or of that nature) that have more than 30 kids. i dont know how many you think is a lot, but 30 isn't that many. i also dont know what teachers are like in texas, but my mom is a teacher and has been teaching for over 30 years, so i'm pretty sure i know what i'm talking about.

[Bandalero]

they need to come to texas....in the Laredo Independent School District alone there are 8,000 uncertified teachers that are holding teaching jobs right now. over 100,000 uncertified teachers statewide. that's insane how did you all get those teachers? no wonder we look for expirienced teachers and you guys dump them. in the state teacher retirement fund there is 90 billion dollars for retired teachers. (and they had stock in Enron, so it was alot more) In the schools i went to (most small schools) there were never any classes that were over 25. and almost every teacher had 10+ years expirience. my dad is a teacher, but has been a school superintendent and princpal, so thats how i get these numbers. (PEMIS and TEA) in these smaller schools you won't be shocked to see a teacher or two get behind the wheel of a school bus or coach something too. that's because if you get your CDL license, in most small schools you will get rembersed for that licence and will get paid additional monies for driving a bus route. now the way retirement works down here is they get your top 3 years where you got paid the highest and they multiply it with a multiplier number. when you add on another grand to one of your top three years, it helps your retirement. one of my old teachers told me that he used to teach in a large school and there you have mulit-ethnic children and it's hard to teach some of the kids because they speak a language you don't know. in a small school in texas you'll see a kid from only one ethnicity most of the time.

[sandsleeper]

but there is a surplus of people needing jobs that have certificates. that's why there are buy-outs for retirement. the districts want to get rid of the older more experienced people because they have to pay them about 40,000 more a year than they do new teachers. just because there are larger schools doesn't mean there are larger classes. my high school has about 1700 students at least and there are no classes (besides something like band or of that nature) that have more than 30 kids. i dont know how many you think is a lot, but 30 isn't that many. i also dont know what teachers are like in texas, but my mom is a teacher and has been teaching for over 30 years, so i'm pretty sure i know what i'm talking about.

its true. last year i had the best, most influential teacher i've ever had and he was bought out for retirement by the board because his paycheck was getting to big (luckily he and my former class still get together for dinner periodically). they replaced him with an incompetant, poorly educated, inexperienced greenhorn who i'm sure is getting less than half of his salary.

[Corey]

I don't know about you guys, but around here they have a law in place that grants teachers who have been with the school for 10 years exemption from being fired for ANY reason! I don't know the specifics but I think that is the general idea.

[Bandalero]

Jesus Christ....I thought teachers were in demand everywhere

[Corey]

no way, we have too many teachers.

[sandsleeper]

weird i haven't heard about that law. i don't think we have it down on the island, i know a few teachers who've been teaching for a few decades and have uh... stepped over the line and lost their jobs. i mean there is the whole tenior (sp??) thing though. after you've taught for 3 years you can receive tenior which makes it extremely difficult to get rid of a teacher.

[starvingeyes]

to begin.

it is economic fact that public industries are inefficient when compared to their private counterparts. look at the operating costs and profit margin of NBC compared with the CBC, or the difference in sales and costs of alberta liquor stores when they were public compared with now.

it's no different from any other kind of socialism. if you're not going to be paid based on your talent or skill, why work harder?

private schools would provide children with a better education. tax cuts and competition would make this largely available.

secondly, this is not the real issue here. the issue is whether or not it is morally ok to force somebody to pay for the benefit of someone else.

people who do not have children in school or whose children are all grown are still forced, against their will, to pay for the education of others. home schoolers, people who voluntarily make a concerted effort against public schooling are forced to pay for them. imagine that you made a deliberate effort to boycott gap clothing because you didn't like sweatshops, and even though you don't wear the clothes or buy them, you have to pay for the clothing of other people.

children do not need education, they will not die if they do not recieve it. we want education, just as i want a porsche. do i have the right to force you to pay for my porsche?

public education cannot be justified logically. it is irational and unreasonable.

[Corey]

There is one thing I don't like about public schools. They force everybody to go until they are 16. I think that this is rediculous. I can see going up to maybe 12, but if you are in your teens and don't see the advantages of getting an education then go ahead, stop going, see where it gets you. This would also improve education because the courses wouldn't be held up by dead beat students. Higher standards would take hold and grading would be more strict forcing students to work harder.