An American 11-Year-Old
Which taxpayers should pay for children to go to school? Well, how about those who actually have them?
Yes, I think parents, except for those who are very poor, should pay for their own children to go to school. (I'm for the rest of us picking up the cost only for the very poor, in hopes of maintaining an educated populace -- necessary for maintaining a democracy.)
As for publicly funded schooling, perhaps if parents were paying for it directly there'd be more oversight, and I wouldn't get e-mail after e-mail on the level of this one from Sunday -- from an 11-year-old American girl:
Dear Amy,I need advice see I have a freind that is a boy.But I seem to have mixed feeling about him.But I was afarid to make a move.But now it's to late because he moved.But all summer I thougt about him and what we could have been.What should I do?My freinds all said I lke him and he liked me but we both denied it.Knowing we did.Now every time a flirt with a boy I think of him.
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fighting in flirtion
I think she meant "flirtation."
Here is how I think education should be.
1. It is not a right, it is a privilege
2. It is not mandatory - if you are only going to cause disruptions don’t even show up, however not showing up disqualifies you from any social programs in the future
3. Set number of students per class, too many students build another school, not enough students bus them in from the closest district that has too many
4. Each school get the same funding, high school in Beverly Hills get the same amount of cash as south central LA
5. Any funding drives kids are sent on, i.e. cookies, magazines, light bulbs, what ever those prepubescent Amway people sell -it all goes in to one giant account and is split evenly between all schools in the state. Beverly Hills school raised 2 million, LA school raises $400 - into same account split between all schools, same with parental or business donations
6. If the budget is so tight that you can no longer have art classes the football team had better not be receiving brand new uniforms every year - in fact the can buy their own damn uniforms - my high school didn’t buy my swimsuit so why were they buying the football and baseball uniforms?
7. State contracts for expenditures such as fuel and textbooks, this way one area is not spending more of their budget on gas than another, and no superintendents brother gets to sell textbooks at a 90% markup
8. Funding for education and school programs are separate from funding of teachers salaries
9. Pre school thru 9th grade automatic
10. 10th - 12th grade if you have the aptitude, if not pay for it your self, get a job, or trade school
lujlp at August 8, 2007 1:43 AM
lujlp,
I think that you make some very interesting points in your comment. Some of them I agree with completely and others not so much. I am really surprised at number 10. Who in the system would determine the aptitude of students? I think that a high school diploma is something that is of the up most importance in today's job market. If those who don't have aptitude for 10th-12th grade are going to just "get a job" then chances are slim that they are going to be making more at age 30 then they did at 16. Hell, the people with college educations have a hard time finding jobs much less those who haven't completed high school. Maybe it's just my bias of living in the great state of Michigan, which currently has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, but this seems like a terrible idea.
cleep at August 8, 2007 5:59 AM
I think it's actually a bit more simple than all that. When I was in school grammar and syntax were a standard part of the curriculum. When my own sons began school I was alarmed by the atrocious spelling that was coming home on schoolwork. When I discussed it with the teachers they all had the same answer. Penmanship, spelling and grammar are NOT TAUGHT AS PRIORITY. The new standard for teachers is: If I can understand the answer, I'll mark it correct. SPELLING DOESN'T COUNT!! I was mortified!! Even if I had gotten a 100 on a test, it would be a point deduction for each word misspelled. Not the case anymore. This was the standard for both NC as well as VA schools. I'm sure it's going on all over the country.
So if a test answer is 'beige' and the kid writes 'bage', it is correct, kid passes and moves forward in schooling.
I dealt with TONS of high school and young college kids and their spelling was horrendous. Add that to an 11 year old hunt and peck and I bet that has more to do with the letters you receive than all the funding issues. Admittedly, the education system is absolutely flawed. I can't begin to get into how screwed up things are here in VA and this is one of the better states!! Our LOTTERY money goes to our education system!!
When it comes to taxes, if you put it into perspective, the average person, single or with children, doesn't add much into the system. I make an average living. Last year my taxes to the IRS were about $3,000.00. The average salary for ONE police officer is $34,000. So my input to the taxes of this country paid about 1 months salary to a good cop. So it takes 11 other people making my wage to pay for ONE police officer for a year. So you could effectively say it would be pennies the average income brings to education as a whole.
Cathleen at August 8, 2007 6:11 AM
Grammar and syntax were not even a standard part of the curriculum when I went to school (I'm 43, and from suburban Detroit). I only have the command I do because I spend my entire childhood buried in laundry basketloads of books, and I think grammar, syntax, and spellling just seeped in.
A few days ago, I read about a teacher who flunked a girl who didn't show up to class, did terribly on tests, etc. The principal let her graduate even though she had actually failed this class. This shouldn't be.
People will scream about paying for their own kids. First, everybody loves a handout, but they'll also say, "Are you saying I should have fewer children if I can't afford to send them to school myself?" Um...yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.
As for this:
Any funding drives kids are sent on, i.e. cookies, magazines, light bulbs, what ever those prepubescent Amway people sell -it all goes in to one giant account and is split evenly between all schools in the state. Beverly Hills school raised 2 million, LA school raises $400 - into same account split between all schools, same with parental or business donations
That's socialism, and it's irrational to think people will work or donate when they don't see benefit. Not going to work.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 6:26 AM
I'm 37 and my education was in NYC/NJ. I can diagram a mean sentence!! Although I have NEVER used that knowledge outside of school, maybe that's why it's not a standard in most states. Who knows if they still do that up there, it's been a long time outside of school.
I tried to send my kids to private school, but the private schools here wanted 12k a year! Even if I had only 1 kid, I couldn't afford 12k!!It costs me about 600$ per student a year to send them to public school. So thats the way I had to go!
Cathleen at August 8, 2007 6:40 AM
Amy is right about grammar and syntax. That is why it is so important to read to small children, but many parents are unwilling to even do that. I like number 10. By that age, people have the basics. If you don't want to be there, get a job doing something else. I have a friend who didn't graduate from high school, but makes three times more than I. He is a builder, and although he started out making less, as his business and reputation grew, so did his income. Trade school is the perfect option for those types. I don't agree with number 7, though. In rural areas, buses drive 20+ miles away from the school to pick up kids from the smaller towns in the county. The textbook thing is right on.
kg at August 8, 2007 6:45 AM
Penmanship, spelling and grammar are NOT TAUGHT AS PRIORITY.
In my house, they are! I will not let either of my girls hand in homework with misspellings. If they say the teachers don't care, I tell them, Well, I do, and so should you!
And I also agree that people who don't have kids shouldn't have to pay into the taxes that go to schools. This includes the elderly who may have had kids in the school system at one time, but no longer do. Once their kids are out of the system, they shouldn't have to pay into it.
The lottery and the casinos here in CT are (supposedly) paying into the education system, but the schools still do fund-raising in the form of magazines and such, and when I asked the PTA why, I was told that some of the field trips that the classes take weren't included in the school's budget. So I asked how much per child the fund raiser was supposed to generate, and was told about $25. I wrote a check to the school TPA for $50, for my daughter and one other, and said, here, my kid's not going door-to-door, and I'm not bothering my co-workers with this, simply because their children will be selling this stuff too, the workplace gets glutted with this stuff! I don't have a huge family that I can guilt into buying stuff, and the company I work for is too small, and about half the women here have kids that are in school. This fundraising crap if for the birds!
Flynne at August 8, 2007 6:46 AM
PTA not TPA! o_O
Flynne at August 8, 2007 6:49 AM
I went to private school my entire life. Parochial school as a child, and in 6th grade I transferred to a private all girls prep school. (8K a year, Thanks Dad) My parents payed for other kids to go to school WHILE paying even more for me and my sister. Kindof silly, but I think it was worth it.
lujlp,
4. Each school get the same funding, high school in Beverly Hills get the same amount of cash as south central LA
5. Any funding drives kids are sent on, i.e. cookies, magazines, light bulbs, what ever those prepubescent Amway people sell -it all goes in to one giant account and is split evenly between all schools in the state. Beverly Hills school raised 2 million, LA school raises $400 - into same account split between all schools, same with parental or business donations
I agree with #4, but not with #5. I think it is fair to split the taxes evenly across the state, after all these are public funds. I wonder what affect that would have on where students go to school though? In my hometown people would often pay extra for their kids to go to a school in a neighboring district if that school was better. Would dividing the funding evenly mean that students could attend any school in the state?
I heartily disagree with the idea of not allowing schools to keep their fundraising money. If a community can afford to spend more money on their kids education then I see no reason that that money should then be shared with everyone else. Sure it isn't "fair" that some communities have more money than others, but as long as the poorer communities are being funded adequately then I don't see why we should be stealing from the rich. (Currently I do not think the funding is adequate in many places and that needs to be remedied, but if a community wants to subsedize a school I do not see why we should prevent that.)
My funding solution would be that a student be funded, and not a school. Each student would be alloted X amoutn of state funds for school, this way a highly populated area with only one school would recieve funding based on how many students it serves, not how much the people nearby can pay in taxes. Also, this might give rise to different types of schools, places where where you pay small additional fees for certain focuses or smaller classes, also places where the public funds count towards the 8k in tuition.
But that could never work, it sounds way too much like capitalism.
Shinobi at August 8, 2007 7:05 AM
I was fortunate to have an education where spelling and grammar was emphasized. In high school, I was in classes where a single run-on or fragment sentence would earn you an automatic "F." If you're in an environment where something is that strictly enforced, you have little choice but to adapt. Then again, it was an honors program (If you couldn't make a decent sentence, transfer out and give someone else the seat.), so it wasn't universal to the school. However, even the remedial English classes were enforcing spelling and sentence structure, even if not quite as strictly.
Jamie at August 8, 2007 7:17 AM
In my house, they are! I will not let either of my girls hand in homework with misspellings. If they say the teachers don't care, I tell them, Well, I do, and so should you!
All-too-rare example of parenting! Kudos.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 7:28 AM
Well why not just say that about everything? We could say that only the folks who use what ever they use have to pay. At some point though, things are done for the good of all.
Everyone benefits from children in this country having a minimum education level. Since you also benefit, you should also pay. The problem lies with our present system of education, not the concept of public education. This is a point that has been made well by several commenters. The problem also lies with the preferred method of taxation, property tax.
The silly idea that only well off folks have kids and there for they should pay is just the sort of tripe I would expect from someone who has not had children. The truth is the overwhelming majority of parents’ barley make ends meet when their children arrive. Quite frankly the idea of yet another discriminational policy implemented by our government scares me. I am sick and tired of these policies. At what point do the earners give up and become wards of the state? You talk about socialism Amy? This leads to it; Yes, I think parents, except for those who are very poor, should pay for their own children to go to school. (I'm for the rest of us picking up the cost only for the very poor, in hopes of maintaining an educated populace -- necessary for maintaining a democracy.)
Truthfully, the government should not be able to discriminate against its citizens. Look at the mess our tax code has caused. Most of the things folks complain about wouldn’t occur if everyone had to pay taxes. Do you think folks would be so eager to tax and spend if they actually had to pay the tax?
Good Lord. If you don’t want children fine, but this axe you grind? It has been my experience, and I know it is not ubiquitous; folks that don’t have children are selfish. They live the high life free of responsibility or financial burden. They marry into financial arrangements, living out their lives with every modern convenience while self righteously lecturing all about the overpopulation of the planet. So of course you would argue why should I who has not born children have to pay? After all, it isn’t like you have a stake in the future of this country or anything.
rusty wilson at August 8, 2007 7:54 AM
"The truth is the overwhelming majority of parents’ barley make ends meet when their children arrive."
Just because you say it's the truth doesn't make it so. I would like to know what the real numbers are, what percentage of parents are barely making ends meet when they have children. I'll bet most of them have TV's and cell phones. If you actually can only barely make ends meet, for chrissake think of someone besides yourself (like maybe the children you want to bring into poverty) and don't have them in the first place!
"It has been my experience, and I know it is not ubiquitous; folks that don’t have children are selfish. They live the high life free of responsibility or financial burden."
Selfish? I'd call that SMART! Besides, now your jealousy is showing. Trying to get your hands on someone else's money is what's selfish.
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2007 8:11 AM
Rusty Wilson: Truthfully, the government should not be able to discriminate against its citizens. Look at the mess our tax code has caused. Most of the things folks complain about wouldn’t occur if everyone had to pay taxes. Do you think folks would be so eager to tax and spend if they actually had to pay the tax?
So, Rusty, you'll stop claiming those child tax credits, then? Since they discriminate against those of us who don't have kids? Yeah, everyone should have to pay taxes - including you who choose to have kids. Have 'em? Pay for 'em. Now that's fair.
BTW, your silly comments about childfree folks having no responsibility? That's just stupid. Some of us have very responsible jobs, or parents in need of care, or siblings in need of care, or volunteer to care for others in need, for example. It sounds to me like you envy folks who don't have kids and are demonizing them to make yourself feel better about your choices.
Lauren at August 8, 2007 8:28 AM
Pirate Jo,
Are you talking about high school kids? Well that would be kids that have been around for 14 years. I don’t think they are that old when they arrive. If you would like to know your self, then by all means investigate this. Since over fifty percent of the country is exempt from income tax, one can assume that over fifty percent of these parents fall in this category.
If you actually can only barely make ends meet, for chrissake think of someone besides yourself (like maybe the children you want to bring into poverty) and don't have them in the first place! That statement is always true, which is why by not having kids you are only thinking of your self, your needs. It is much easier to be self righteous and criticize others; you are doing both, with these statements. Having children means sharing most of your time with them, doing with out all of these things of which you speak, losing your personal time, and in short sacrifice. For you to paint that entire exercise as selfish is beyond the pale.
Selfish? I'd call that SMART! Besides, now your jealousy is showing. Trying to get your hands on someone else's money is what's selfish. What a load of bs.
My children are grown; I don’t have a dog in this fight other than our country. I pay more than my fair share. I try to spend time each week in charity. I started a company from scratch and now employ twenty five people. I also hand out well over the average benefits. If that is my jealousy showing than so be it.
I had and raised two kids. I came from a lower class family that never accepted a hand out. My children are in their early twenties. On is finishing School, the other runs computer systems. Both will be a welcome addition to the future. They will help defray your taxes. Your welcome Pirate Jo.
rusty wilson at August 8, 2007 8:38 AM
Lauren,
Yes. A fair flat tax is fine with me. I am not against taxes. I am against unfair taxation. At the very least, if you are not paying taxes you should not have a say in raising or spending mine.
Kind of like Amy’s abortion policy, right Amy?
That's just stupid. Some of us have very responsible jobs, or parents in need of care, or siblings in need of care, or volunteer to care for others in need, for example. It sounds to me like you envy folks who don't have kids and are demonizing them to make yourself feel better about your choices.
Get off your high horse. Here is a news flash, all of that also applies to folks with kids.
rusty wilson at August 8, 2007 8:42 AM
People with kids get a tax credit for a few years because they just CREATED another human to tax for our government. So? I get a few thousand dollar tax break for 18 years,ITS NOT MUCH TRUST ME, and the rest of my life I'll pay top dollar as the childless do and the 3 kids I produced just created revenue for THEIR lifetimes. It all works out.
I have 3 kids and I was broke as shit when I had them, stayed broke during their growth and now as they get older it's gotten better. There is NO WAY I would have done it any differently. It's a well known saying, 'If you wait to have kids 'til you can afford them, you'll never have them'. And while it works for some people to be childless by choice, it was not MY CHOICE. I don't badger and vilify childless people, and I damn sure don't live my life defending my decision to have kids.
And there are PLENTY of childless people who are pieces of crap and don't contribute to society in any way, so it's not like just cause a person has no kids they are this wonderful addition with no baggage to the country. Childless criminals in prison, anyone?? And then there are PLENTY of people on welfare continuing to have children ,sans birth control, and they and their progeny may not contribute to society either. Remember the poor people during Katrina? One mom couldn't get out with her 11 children under the age of 13!!
This country has the funds and can provide an education system for its citizens. It all needs better management and less bureaucracy. :)
Cathleen at August 8, 2007 8:46 AM
AMEN, Cathleen! ::stands and applauds::
Flynne at August 8, 2007 8:53 AM
"It has been my experience, and I know it is not ubiquitous; folks that don’t have children are selfish."
(shakes head) Argh.
There's nothing innately selfish about NOT having children. Nor is there anything innately selfish about having children. The reasons are the thing. If someone decides that they don't want to have kids because they know they wouldn't be a good parent, that's not selfish, it's admitting your limits. If someone decides they don't want to spend the money on supporting kids and would rather spend it on themselves...that is selfish, but it's honest and they're perfectly within their rights to do so. It's considerably better than someone that has a ton of spawn and expects welfare and such to pick up the tab. Which is more selfish?
For the record, I have a step-daughter, and another kid on the way. However, I'm the nurturing, responsible type, and like kids, and have no problem paying for their support...so it's not a bad thing.
Jamie at August 8, 2007 8:54 AM
Jamie,
Folks don’t have kids so that they can have more money, time, vacations, and etcetera. Furthermore, I stated from the start that this was a view based on limited sampling. So what is wrong with what I said?
Cathleen, ditto.
rusty wilson at August 8, 2007 8:59 AM
I don't remember grammar or syntax being such a big deal in grade school, but I do remember having a teacher in Jr. High who made sure we understood "it's" vs. "its" "their," "they're" and "there," "who's" vs. "whose," and I'm profoundly grateful for it.
Granted, one does not have to have perfect grammar and punctuation to convey thoughts, but English is now standardized. There are rules, arbitrary as they seem -- for instance, periods and commas go inside the quotation marks, question marks don't, unless the quotation is a question, and England has different rules -- the standards have to be held to, if people are going to understand each other. I was reading on a message board that someone called me a "hada." I had no idea what that was, but someone explained that it meant that I was a "hater." Apparently, "hooked on ebonics" was peeved that I disparaged Alyssa Milano for getting Shannen Doherty fired from the show "Charmed."
The mistakes that annoy me the most are:
1. "Irregardless." It's "irrespective" or "regardless." Don't never use no double negatives!
2. "Rediculous." Don't be rediculous. There's no "e" in "ridiculous."
3. "Assinine." You make an ass out of yourself if you use that, since the word is "asinine."
4. I really hate run-on sentences they are so hard to read I can never understand what someone is saying I really need punctuation so I can understand.
Patrick at August 8, 2007 9:02 AM
Oh, let's continue.
5. Do YoU eVeR gO oN a MeSsAgE bOaRd AnD sEe SoMeOnE tYpE lIkE tHiS? That is so irritating and childish! I'd rather deal with someone who didn't use caps at all.
6. although people who don't use caps really are annoying, too.
7. AND OF COURSE THERE ARE THOSE WHO TYPE IN ALL CAPS. THE EFFECT, OF COURSE, IS SCREAMING. If you have ideas worth sharing, then have the courtesy to share them in a way that people are used to.
8. I've known people who , for some reason , think that a space goes before all punctuation , which really looks odd . Punctuation is part of the word.
9. There is appropriate spacing in relation to punctuation,however.It goes after the period,comma,question mark,explanation point,semicolon,etc. Actually, the rule is two spaces after terminals. One for mid-sentence punctuation.
Patrick at August 8, 2007 9:12 AM
Pirate Jo: If you actually can only barely make ends meet, for chrissake think of someone besides yourself (like maybe the children you want to bring into poverty) and don't have them in the first place!
Rusty Wilson: That statement is always true, which is why by not having kids you are only thinking of your self, your needs. It is much easier to be self righteous and criticize others; you are doing both, with these statements.
Rusty, each and every adult has the responsibility to think first of himself and his needs, and make sure they are taken care of, before having kids and then having their needs to take care of as well. You're damn right I am self righteous and critical when it comes to people bringing kids into poverty when they can't even take care of themselves. THEY are the selfish ones, having kids because they want someone to love them or because they want to be the center of attention with their new baby. Their actions harm other people - the taxpayers who wind up bailing them out, and their kids, who don't have what they need.
I, on the other hand, am not hurting anyone else by not having children. Since I *do* take care of myself and my needs, no one else is forced to support me.
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2007 9:16 AM
Well, there is a difference between typing slang and actually not knowing how to write or speak....lol, rofl,ttyl etc....Leet speak, we understand it but it can be annoying. Like rediculous....my ex husband was TEmothy Dewayne. They were from the deep south NC mountains. The accent was unbelievable!! They pronounced it TEAM-othy. He called himself Tim, but spelled it Tem. They sounded it out like TEAMothy, so they used an E on his birth certificate!!!
They had the audacity to get angry at me for not naming my son as his junior!!
Cathleen at August 8, 2007 9:16 AM
"Folks don’t have kids so that they can have more money, time, vacations, and etcetera."
Oh get off the cross. Someone needs the wood. Some people want to spend their money on vacations, some people want to spend their money on children. It's your life, your money - spend them however you want. But don't expect anyone to give you a badge or kiss your ass just because you chose the children route - no one cares, and the martyr crap isn't working.
I'm sorry if the sticky kisses and refrigerator art weren't worth it to you, and you see kids as a sacrifice. That's the only reason I can think of for why you obviously see childfree people as "getting away with something."
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2007 9:21 AM
Pirate Jo,
As was stated earlier by other commenter’s, there are plenty examples of childless folks that are a drain on the system so I am not sure about what it is that you are saying.
If we are talking about the world in general, then let us address war. There are many who ascribe Muslim violence to polygamy, not Islam. Since these young men do not have mates, the mates are horded by the men with power and money, they go to war. Men with children are less inclined to wage war.
And as you just stated, you are only thinking of yourself, which is I believe what I said.
rusty wilson at August 8, 2007 9:27 AM
Well why not just say that about everything? We could say that only the folks who use what ever they use have to pay. At some point though, things are done for the good of all.
Everyone benefits from children in this country having a minimum education level. Since you also benefit, you should also pay.
Everyone benefits from cows being fenced in. So, should we all pay for the fencing for some livestock farmer's cows...or, maybe, just maybe, should he pick up the cost?
I'm not saying children should go uneducated, but that when tax time rolls around, if you're not sending your children to private school, you should get school fees sucked out for public school. And all of us should kick in for the desperately poor.
As Pirate Jo said above...you want to have kids...you pay! And we're sorry if the sticky kisses and the refrigerator art aren't quite payback enough for rehab and the totalled station wagon. Oops! Next time around, go for the Depo Provera.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 9:28 AM
If only people who have children should pay for school, then only people who have had children should receive Social Security.
See how that works?
Tolbert at August 8, 2007 9:29 AM
Pirate Jo,
I am not the one who runs a pro abortion anti kid anti marriage rant around here so don’t get mad at me for throwing my two cents in. Furthermore, I was responding to earlier comments, not building some cross with the wood you needed for your next vacation. In fact, all I am doing is saying enough, your points are one sided, here is the other view. Normally when one disagrees with the establishment they are not the ones on the cross.
As for this; I'm sorry if the sticky kisses and refrigerator art weren't worth it to you, and you see kids as a sacrifice. That's the only reason I can think of for why you obviously see childfree people as "getting away with something."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
rusty wilson at August 8, 2007 9:34 AM
"The truth is the overwhelming majority of parents’ barley make ends meet when their children arrive."
Children don't "arrive." People fuck them into existence. You can't afford kids? See the Depo Provera crack above.
Follow my lead as a dog owner. I wanted a dog from the time I was a kid, and it kicked in again really strongly at about 22, when I saw a this beautiful girl loping down a Manhattan street with a Yorkie bounding after her. But, I waited, and waited, until I had the income and schedule where I could pay for and care for a dog. Until age 35, that is. And a good thing it was that I did, since Lucy almost immediately required a $900 PET scan (hold the cracks about the name) and is going to a pricey eye doctor next week. (As a cost-saving measure, I did find an alternative to my vet's suggestion that I take her to...the Jules Stein Eye Institute!...and no, I didn't know they did dogs, either. While I do believe in caring adequately for my dog, I had a $25 opthamology appointment at Kaiser...she's going to the eye clinic in the Valley, thank you!)
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 9:35 AM
errr I meant pro abortion.
rusty wilson at August 8, 2007 9:35 AM
If only people who have children should pay for school, then only people who have had children should receive Social Security.
How about only people who pay into Social Security should get Social Security?
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 9:36 AM
"If only people who have children should pay for school, then only people who have had children should receive Social Security."
I would be delighted to opt out of the entire Social Security system.
I'm still trying to figure out how it's a bad thing for me to think "only" of myself when I am not responsible for anyone but myself in the first place. If I had kids and THEN thought only of myself, that would be wrong. But Rustybrain seems to think I have some pre-existing obligation to have kids which I am not fulfilling.
Great example, regarding fencing in the cows.
And Muslims don't make war because they are childless, they make war because they are religious fundienutters, brainwashed by a cult of violence.
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2007 9:39 AM
"I have no idea what you are talking about."
Of course you do. You're waiting around for someone to pin the Great Martyr Badge of Honor on your chest because of all the sacrifices you made raising kids, and waiting, and waiting, and in the meantime getting really irritated by all those vacations you seem to think I take. Hey, no one asked you to have kids, and no one cares that you had them. Presumably you had kids because that was your preference. If vacations were your preference, you could have taken vacations instead, and no one would care one way or the other about that, either.
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2007 9:44 AM
I would be delighted to opt out of the entire Social Security system.
Me, too.
As for thinking "only" of myself -- I happen to think of other people a great deal, but they're people I choose to put my time into. I don't just give my time or energy to anyone. But, to me, thinking of myself means living with a sense of personal responsibility; ie, I don't do things or buy things I can't pay for. More people should try living that way.
I was amazed, yet not surprised, the other day, in reading a post on Consumerist about a single mother with three kids and a mortgage and tight margins who had five iPods and a Mac laptop and had a son buying a $2,000ish Mac Book. Hello? Now, maybe he's shooting feature films and needs that level of computer. Or maybe they just live far beyond their means like so many people...including so many who have kids.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 9:47 AM
Again, with the 'out of my taxes' mentality....How much do you REALLY pay?? See my examples above. Does anyone here pay more than a few thousand dollars a year in taxes?? On your April 15th, are you writing out a check for 5, 10 or even 20k?? EVEN IF YOU ARE....ONE police officer makes 32K a YEAR.....you just pitched in to pay PART of ONE civil servants salary. So puhleeze...enough with the 'I don't have kids my tax dollars shouldn't pay for educating them'. YOUR tax dollars are barely paying a cop. And EVEN if anyone here had to pay OUT to the government 100,000$ a year...that is the equivalent of about 4 police officer's salary. How many cops in YOUR neighborhood??
It's not like anyone in here has the right to direct their tax money to the programs they want. I'd choose to opt out of the government giving 2.4 million$$ education grants to college professors to study the mating habits of the South American tse tse fly.
It's all in how you look at it. MY tax dollars go to a cop or a fireman (in my head). I mentally choose to NOT have my tax dollars go to feeding John Evander Couey for brutally murdering Jessica Lunsford.
PSSSTTTT...guess what....if you contribute taxes you are probably feeding him too!!! And I bet no one in here wants to do that either!!
Cathleen at August 8, 2007 9:57 AM
Having children is a choice. Being in the bank when it's being robbed is not a choice. I'm for taxes paying for our physical infrastructure, and cops, firemen, national defense, and the like. And I think we should help out the very poor, but I think everybody else should help themselves, and live within their means, which means you probably can't be a fulltime poet and have two children.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 10:21 AM
Rusty, you're completely missing my point. My issue is that you're making a overly-generalized blanket statement regarding childless people being selfish based on limited data. If you JUST said "the childless people I know are selfish," I wouldn't have any argument. You SAY it's based on "limited sampling", but still make the statement of, "Folks don’t have kids so that they can have more money, time, vacations, and etcetera." You're belying your bias.
I know plenty of people who HAVE children, not because they're selfless martyrs, but because they felt "that's just what you're supposed to do." They ran on auto-pilot, trying to get married in their first stable relationship, trying to have kids as quickly as possible, just because that's what their parents did/expected of them. And don't get me started on how many parents DON'T PARENT. Too busy with their own social/work lives (or country clubs, or sports, or reality tv) to have the slightest inkling of what their kids are doing. I have more issue with that sort of selfishness than the occasional DINK because they (and the welfare mom with 8 kids) do far more long-term harm than some DINK's that didn't breed. I waited until I was over 30 to have a kid, because I wanted to be mature enough, and financially sound enough, to provide for them. It was a deliberate choice, and I don't resent a single person that choses to NOT have kids, whatever the reason. If they think they're bad parents, they shouldn't have kids. If they just wanna play and have extra money, then they still shouldn't have kids.
I maintain that there is NOTHING inherently selfish about not having kids, nor is there ANYTHING inherently selfless about having children. It's a logical and rational conclusion that isn't based on anecdotal "evidence."
Cripes, let's get back on topic and talk about GRAMMER.
Jamie at August 8, 2007 10:22 AM
Cripes, let's get back on topic and talk about GRAMMER.
Right? There's another thread on Amy's blog for the kids/no kids debate.
Back to grammar, punctuation, et al: Is it "ya'll" or "y'all"? My vote is for the latter, but I could be wrong (which is what I'm trying to find out!)>...o_O
Flynne at August 8, 2007 10:31 AM
Amy,
How disingenuous of you. You know that this statement was not about a plea for sympathy; "The truth is the overwhelming majority of parents’ barley make ends meet when their children arrive." t was a response to this in your article; Yes, I think parents, except for those who are very poor, should pay for their own children to go to school. The point was that the majority of parents don’t have the funds when they bear children. Why do you need to twist things?
When I wrote folks don’t have a lot of cash after they have children at a young age, you to write this; Children don't "arrive." People fuck them into existence. You can't afford kids? See the Depo Provera crack above. How pathetic.
You think folks are perplexed when a kid appears? You don’t think they plan? How did you get here?
Are you confusing folks that have two or three kids with uneducated immigrants that have 10? Or welfare mothers that grow their income through procreation on the backs of the government?
Gee why is it that the uneducated have more kids than the educated? So you prescribe doing away with public education so that what? You can have more money? Could that possibly be short sighted?
You don’t think it is in the best interest of this country to provide education? What prey tell do you base that on? Data from the 1800s? Please enlighten me oh bitter one. Provide the data that shows how well countries do that don’t have public education verses the ones that do.
Why don’t you take a hard look at Australia? They lowered the age of Public education to tenth grade there. Of course the kids team up, collect the dole and surf through eleventh and twelfth.
rusty wilson at August 8, 2007 10:32 AM
My vote is for y'all, because you're contracting "You All" rather than "Ya All." That's my two cents, as being half hillbilly.
"Another thread?" More like dozens. :)
Jamie at August 8, 2007 10:35 AM
Vouchers solve the problem- take your tax money anywhere you want. Libs fight that one to the death every time it's brought up. What's that about?
I may not be popular for this one, but spending $900 on dog scans dosen't qualify you for points in my book, or at least not the kind of points you might be expecting. Funny how highly bred dogs seem to suffer from so many medical issues. But they're cute, huh?
Allison at August 8, 2007 10:37 AM
Are you confusing folks that have two or three kids with uneducated immigrants that have 10?
How many people can afford to send three children to college -- which, like it or not, often determines whether you'll have a high-paying or low-paying job? Spawn what you can afford to support, no more, and don't go into procreating expecting other people to pick up the slack.
Are there really a large number of immigrants out there with 10 children?
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 10:40 AM
Rusty, you're the only one claiming that anyone, anywhere, has said "all childfree people are wonderful, selfless, magnificent humans, devoid of inklings towards crime or poor behavior". I certainly haven't said anything that implied that people without children are inherently better than people with children. It's YOU who has claimed that people with children are better (by being unselfish) than people without. Anyone here who triumphantly cries "childfree people in jail!!" is an idiot. Of course there are. There are people of all stripes in jail.
But to attribute any one characteristic (ie, selfishness) to people based on their childed status is foolish. There's nothing about breeding that makes everyone better, or about not breeding that makes everyone worse.
My thoughts are that if you can pay for them, and care for them, *and want them*, go ahead. Just don't make me pay for them, via tax breaks and other perks. Don't BS me with the "it's only a fraction of what they cost" because *I don't care*. You don't subsidize my lifestyle choices, I don't subsidize yours - that's fair, don't you think? There's nothing magical about kids, no matter what their parents and grandparents say. They're a lifestyle choice, and it's not as if there's a shortage of people out there and we desperately need 'em.
Lauren at August 8, 2007 10:45 AM
"Vouchers solve the problem- take your tax money anywhere you want. Libs fight that one to the death every time it's brought up. What's that about?"
Teachers unions.
"You don’t think it is in the best interest of this country to provide education?"
I don't think it is in the best interest of this country for the GOVERNMENT to provide education. Some of the best ideas about education are here:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2007 10:53 AM
"Provide the data that shows how well countries do that don’t have public education verses the ones that do."
Because I think a country's commitment to free-education-for-all-its-young is an unobjectionable good, I've highlighted rusty's request.
Quite apart from a sneaking suspicion that any savings on education (due to the implementation of Amy's plan) would vanish long before they reached the pockets of the childfree-by-choice, I'm interested in Amy's answer.
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 10:54 AM
"Some of the best ideas about education are here"
Pirate Jo,
Just looked at your link.
Are you nuts?
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 11:02 AM
"Are you nuts?"
Wow, that's such a constructive conversation-starter, Jody! You get the meaningful dialogue of the day award.
His entire book is posted at that link - check out the history of the development of our government school system and tell me if you still think it's an effective educator.
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2007 11:09 AM
How about only people who pay into Social Security should get Social Security?
You obviously don't understand how the transfer of payments from the young to the elderly (which you will soon become a part of) Ponzi scheme known as Social Security works.
You want only the benefits of an organized society without having any of the responsibilities that accrue to being an adult.
tolbert at August 8, 2007 11:13 AM
I can appreciate that the format of public school teaching may not be suitable for everyone. I don't know how you'd customize school for each "learning style" even if you could figure out a way to define what that means or how to accurately categorize kids. But to say its a corporate conspiracy to build good consumers? That does sound a bit crazy.
I'd be interested to read the data Gatto uses to back up this claim.
Before "modern education" I thought boys learned the trades of their fathers and girls learned the trades of their mothers. I didn't think they had the luxury of finding some particular talent to develop to the maximum.
Now supposing Gatto's argument has some good rational behind it perhaps being good consumers and workers equates to "good people" and "good citizens"?
moreta at August 8, 2007 11:20 AM
"Wow, that's such a constructive conversation-starter, Jody! You get the meaningful dialogue of the day award."
And I accuse you of fully justified sarcasm, Pirate Jo:)
Look, the criticisms of the current system - as listed at your link - are sometimes sound (even then, I'm being generous!).
But it's no use waving "government conspiracy" around as a blanket condemnation!
And it's bloody pointless throwing about Great Folk From History Who Didn't Attend Public School as "proof" the modern society is shit at education!
Furthermore, even in my sunniest mood, I'm not going to bother with an entire book if he can't set out a decent stall by way of introduction.
Plus, how many "rights" does he want to dismantle in order to set free his educational utopia?
It's pie-in-the-sky (and horribly written, to boot).
Over to you P-J. What is his single smartest idea? (Not one of his volcanic criticisms, mind you - a positive idea!)
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 11:28 AM
Smartest idea: Stop making "schooling" mandatory, get the government out of the business altogether, and let choosy parents and competing market forces do for education what they've already done for grocery stores and electronics.
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2007 11:34 AM
cleep by #10 I meant that students who have shown no effert over their previous years to learn, students who are constantly disruptive. Students like the third of my graduating class that just ditched scholl or hung out in halway harassing those who acctully wanted an education. They might also have to take some kind of test, bt please note I never said they couldnt complete schooling, just that the state would no longer be responsible for funding those individuals educations.
And it is true that they would most likley be relegated topoverty or lower middle class - but that is simply the consequence of their own actions, they just might make their kids complete school so the next generation does better
Kg what I meant by #7 was the cost of gas doesnt come out of the fund for the school itself - it isnt fair to students of one district if 5% moe of their budget is being siphoned from educatio to pay for gas simply because gas is more expensive in their area.
lujlp at August 8, 2007 11:37 AM
I may not be popular for this one, but spending $900 on dog scans dosen't qualify you for points in my book, or at least not the kind of points you might be expecting. Funny how highly bred dogs seem to suffer from so many medical issues. But they're cute, huh?
You do what's required when you get a dog or have kids -- or should. Which is why you shouldn't have kids or a dog until you're financially prepared to deal with the unexpected expenses and problems.
They found that my dog needed to eat low-protein food. She eats it now. But, there are tradeoffs in everything. I purposely got a tiny dog so I could take her with me when I travel. I just answered a letter from guy whose two dogs cost $40/day to board. I've read elsewhere that you can board one for maybe $30...well, and then it can't be that fun for the dog. So, if you take 10 days vacation that's $300. Three vacations, and you're up to my dog's PET scan. And I'm romping around Paris with her for a month instead of leaving her home. When I do leave her home, she'll go in her litter box and then my neighbors bring her over at night and play with her. For that, I typically bring them home a Petit Bateau shirt for one of their kids, and take care of their kitty when they're away.
P.S. Other than the initial PET scan, and this eye issue, my dog has had a happy, healthy life, and she's 8 now. How do my costs stack up against, say, rehab and that smashed station wagon? Purse-sized doggie starting to look pretty attractive, huh?
Oh yeah, and I'm not asking you to kick in for my dog -- just as you shouldn't ask me to kick in for your kids.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 11:41 AM
Because I think a country's commitment to free-education-for-all-its-young is an unobjectionable good, I've highlighted rusty's request.
Free! Free! Free healthcare! Free schooling! Tra-la-la it's all free!! Can we please quit with the free?? IT'S NOT FREE!!! IT COSTS MONEY!! Great, big, huge money. In my state, we pay property taxes, gas taxes and lotto revenue, and probably a few more, all in the name of public education. |The schools take all that money, and still find the nerve to send school kids door-to-door hawking 8 dollar wrapping paper to pay for trips!
Jody, I'm not aiming the comment at you, I'm just tired of hearing how the government is 'giving' us all this 'free' stuff. We all ought to know its not free.
Hell, Amy, I'd love to pay for my daughter's education myself, if that would mean I could choose the school.
The quality of education in the public schools these days is unconsciable, and those of us who foot the bill are being brainwashed by constant media crap about how its all marvelous and free, courtesy of the government.
Allison at August 8, 2007 11:42 AM
You obviously don't understand how the transfer of payments from the young to the elderly (which you will soon become a part of) Ponzi scheme known as Social Security works. You want only the benefits of an organized society without having any of the responsibilities that accrue to being an adult.
Uh, I put away money for myself for my old age, and buy clothes on eBay instead of in department stores and take other means to live frugally so I won't be living what I call "The Purina Lifestyle" when I'm 80. I'd be thrilled not to be part of Social Security, and suspect there won't be money left when I'm an old bag.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 11:43 AM
Hey, Amy- your dog dosen't contribute to society. Your dog is never going to hold down a job, pay taxes or pilot the medivac chopper that picks you up when that skateboard of a car gets squashed under somebody's giant, gas-guzzling Hummer.
By the way, I don't ask you to kick in for my kid, either- the government made that call. If it were up to me, you could spend all your money on whatever it is that makes you happy- assuming you are- and I could send her to a school that will teach proper spelling and correct math.
Allison at August 8, 2007 11:48 AM
Thank you Pirate Jo,
"Stop making "schooling" mandatory...".
And you can stop right there.
I'm not being arch or quibbling for the sake of it: I'm asking you whether you believe kids - let's say your average six-year-old - would take themselves off to school every day if they didn't have to?
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 11:48 AM
"Because I think a country's commitment to free-education-for-all-its-young is an unobjectionable good, I've highlighted rusty's request."
Jody,
One must understand what is the real purpose for this 'free' education. Is it to create educated young adults or storage facilities for kids while mommy and daddy are at work?
What Amy and Pirate Jo are expressing is the need for alternatives to the current system. That also entails the public financing when people do not take personal responsibility for their lifestyle choices. (i.e. having children in an awfully expensive world.)
This includes our past discussion on evolutionary psychology. The current problem is in relation to having a natural biological capacity within a 'desire' based society. It was quite balanced when it was a 'needs' centered during the past 10,000 years. While the more educated and high earning members of the population are having less kids, but the poor are the opposite and acting out their natural biological drive without consequences. In some cases being rewarded by our generous welfare state.
Joe at August 8, 2007 11:50 AM
your dog dosen't contribute to society. Your dog is never going to hold down a job, pay taxes or pilot the medivac chopper that picks you up when that skateboard of a car gets squashed under somebody's giant, gas-guzzling Hummer.
Many people's children never will. We can't say they will until after they're adults. My dog will likewise never carjack you, kill you in a botched liquor store robbery, or maim you for life after driving drunk.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 11:51 AM
Your dog might not maim any one, at least not above the ankle. Unfortunatly, other breeds of dogs might maim people, if given the chance.
I can't speak for the world, but I plan to raise decent kids. If the govenment could drag it's freaking hand out of my wallet, I'd find that job alot easier. I'd also like to stop paying my hard earned money so that poor parents can have 3 times more kids than me. So when you end every statement with how we should all take care of the poorest folks, you're part of that problem.
Allison at August 8, 2007 11:58 AM
"Is it to create educated young adults or storage facilities for kids while mommy and daddy are at work?"
Joe,
That's a remarkably sneaky "or"!!
"And" will do splendidly.
It's both, of course.
Allison,
I withdraw the word "free" and substitute "tax-funded"!
(Yeah, Moore has got a lot of shit for harping on "free" when he clearly meant "tax-funded". I wasn't trying to be stupid).
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 12:00 PM
Your dog might not maim any one, at least not above the ankle. Unfortunatly, other breeds of dogs might maim people, if given the chance.
True, but I don't have another breed of dog, and I chose very carefully which breed I ended up with...including making sure I chose one of the few breeds that have hair, not fur, so I wouldn't cause allergy sufferers to, well, suffer.
Nice stretch, but I'm the wrong person to go after on the abdication of personal responsibility front!
As for poor parents, there's reallly an overestimation of how many "Welfare Queens" there are. Furthermore, we're all paying for them now...I just want to take all the middle class people's kids off the welfare roll of the rest of us. Again, can't afford three kids? Have two or one! Just pick up the costs, thanks.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 12:02 PM
Obviously, we should take care of them, I'm not for people starving or dying of preventable diseases, but it dosen't help us to lower everyone's standard of living until we're all the same, right?
I don't want to go to the community hospital when I'm sick or in labor, and I don't want to educate my daughter in a public school full of useless thugs who couldn't give a shit about education, and are only there to sell drugs.
Allison at August 8, 2007 12:02 PM
Amy/Joe/Pirate Jo:
Rusty's request (again):
"Provide the data that shows how well countries do that don’t have public education verses the ones that do."
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 12:06 PM
and I chose very carefully which breed I ended up with...
Ok, so when you make a choice that looks a little kooky to me, I'm to assume you thought carefully about society's interest first. However, us parents- we just "spawned" with no thought to anyone else, and are now just waiting around for- you, personally- to pay for our kids' education! Climb down off it, lady, I don't give a rat's butt what your taxes go to, and whether they finance some meager fraction of public education is low on my list of priorities.
I'm usually impressed with your advocation of personal responsiblity, although I think your motive is more self-aggrandizement than greater good. But this axe you constantly grind? Where the hell does that come from? Did your mom give birth to you, or did you just spontaneously spark to life from a grease fire on the stove?
If your interest is in reforming the public school monster, aren't there better places to start than your personal taxes, if it's the greater good you mind?
Allison at August 8, 2007 12:12 PM
Jody/Rusty:
First, provide a concrete criteria for 'well' and I will try to provide as much data as possible.
Remember I lived in both a desire and needs based societies through out my life. I could provide you with numerous of personal accounts about children who are illiterate, but are naturally more talented then over indulged western counterparts. What is missing is the lack of infrastructe from the various nations.
Joe at August 8, 2007 12:26 PM
As of this moment, we do not have to PAY up front for public education. Should something change in the future and the average American HAD to pay for schooling, then I think it would very well factor into the choice of how many children to have. For now, we have 'free' public education and that does matter for families and how much they'll grow.
Then like crazy lady Duggar and her 17...she home schools them all. I did not become a teacher because I don't particularly fancy being locked up in a room with 22 kids all day. Me home schooling my 3 kids are not an option, hence the reason I do not have 14 other children. I have a family member who is a racist. She did not want her son in public schools because of other races. She home schools him. Besides the fact he is being raised with her incredibly narrow viewpoint, he is the STRANGEST unsocialized kid I know.
The system here in VA is OK. Its not as bad as an inner city with crime and violence, it passes state standards for testing. Is it as good as a private school? Of course not, you get what you pay for. I would have LOVED if there had been some sort of paid-into school system that was better for the kids than just straight up public, but there isn't that choice.
I can only hope they get the basics they need from public school, then further their knowledge with college. When you pay for your education, I think you appreciate it more and try harder.
Cathleen at August 8, 2007 12:33 PM
Joe you are wrong. It's supposed to be:
"children who are illiterate, but are naturally more talented then over indulged obese western counterparts"
The fact that children are overweight, tells you alot about their parents.
PurplePen at August 8, 2007 12:40 PM
"First, provide a concrete criteria for 'well' and I will try to provide as much data as possible."
Shan't, Joe.
Because I know exactly where you're going with that - and I don't want to get into appearing to slag off some heart-breakingly doughty preteen whore of your well-traveled acquaintance who managed to clothe his entire family out of cigarette ends and who contrasts so favorably with any fat, spoilt American iPod idiot.
So maybe we should take concrete criteria away.
And you can have a go at explaining why we should destroy the potential of the tax-funded, mass public education system in America for a non-existent model?
Tho' maybe that's a somewhat weighted question!!
(And you can also quit with the schools=storage facilities=BAD red herring. Libraries are storage facilities too, after all!)
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 12:58 PM
Well, I'm turning my girls into skinny, anal-rententive grammar nazis, like their mother (and grandmother. It runs in the family.)! So sue me. o_O
Flynne at August 8, 2007 12:59 PM
No, nooooo Flynne, they are American...FEED THEM, feed them!! :)
Cathleen at August 8, 2007 1:06 PM
No, nooooo Flynne, they are American...FEED THEM, feed them!! :)
LOL! Oh Cathleen, believe me, they eat! They both just have these amazing metabolisms (that and they're pretty active) that allow them to eat whatever they want and still stay slender. The older one will put 6 scoops of ice cream in a bowl at once! I can't do that anymore, that's for sure! But long ago, when I was younger... :)
Flynne at August 8, 2007 1:18 PM
Thanks, purple. Even I need revising from time to time. ;)
Jody,
A temporary side note. Could you please tell me what is happening to many public libraries across the country? Outside the affluent area of NYC-Long Island.
Personally, I know what is happening, because I donated close to 3,000 untranslated books to a small university library that is planning their own Mid East Studies Department in the next 5 years. Now I could have sold the collection to an interested buyer from Lebanon.
A much longer response will appear later to your original questions and accusations towards my so called agenda.
Joe at August 8, 2007 1:33 PM
Wow, that's great, Joe. Libraries in Los Angeles are fantastic -- LA Public, that is. Santa Monica is kind of small, doesn't have the same selection. I can order a book from the downtown library to be delivered to my library a few blocks away, free of charge.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2007 1:54 PM
"Personally, I know what is happening, because I donated close to 3,000 untranslated books to a small university library that is planning their own Mid East Studies Department in the next 5 years. Now I could have sold the collection to an interested buyer from Lebanon."
Joe,
That is very public-spirited of you.
Tho' I'm not quite sure where you are going with this?
(I know many donations turn into white elephants without endowments for upkeep - which is why those lucky bastards in Texas can outbid for just about all yummy manuscript collections!)
I also fear a sense-of-humor failure coming from you!
No one should sneer at plucky kids making the best of dire odds. And I don't.
It's just there seems little point in tut-tutting over needs-based versus desires-based cultures if it always ends in blog stalemate.
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 2:04 PM
Don't worry, Jody. I wasn't going in that direction. LOL (sorry for the emoticon, Amy)
Joe at August 8, 2007 2:26 PM
Whoops, I got booted off the comments section when I tried repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) to post a link to the "Let a Thousand Choices Bloom" article from reason.com. I am on my home computer now and won't make that mistake again! But you can check out reason's website and find the article on their search engine - it provides several different viewpoints.
I don't expect many 6-year-olds voluntarily go to the schools they are in NOW - their parents bundle them up and send them.
As the grammar-police parent above said, a lot of parents have to teach important things to their own kids anyway, due to rampant dumbing-down in schools. ("Dumbing us Down" is another interesting Gatto essay collection.)
Kids need to learn how to read, spell, learn some basic math, how to read a nutrition label, load a dishwasher - a collection of basic things - in order to function in the world. With just a few exceptions, shouldn't parents be able to teach their own kids most of these things? For the exceptions, should it really cost the $13,000 per year per kid the way public schools do? Granted, if they wanted to play football, they'd probably just have to round up a few of their friends and go organize a game themselves, but what is wrong with that? They don't need multimillion-dollar stadiums to accomplish it.
Gatto thinks that instead of warehousing kids in rooms full of a bunch of other kids all within a year of the same age all day, they could be out working or volunteering and being part of society. Not a bad idea in my view!
Several parents here have said they would rather have other options for their kids too, but are forced to pay for the current system. One that was designed back in the industrial age and hasn't been updated much since then. Another great Gatto observation - the way schools teach kids to mindlessly obey rules and fit into a preconceived heirarchy. How well does this model apply in the information age? The problem is, better options have very little chance of flourishing when everyone is forced to support the current one.
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2007 3:33 PM
> Because I think a country's
> commitment to free-education-
> for-all-its-young is an
> unobjectionable good,
Not endlessly unobjectionable, right? At some point you'd concede that the problem isn't that distant people aren't doing enough to edujumicate the poor... Families that don't make learning important or who put too many distractions on the kid for learning to take place make the investment of others meaningless. Very few people, Charles Murray excepted, believe that the people in the inner cities are flatly stupid. Rather, they're under- and badly-stimulated in early years, and never equipped socially to catch up later. The liberal impulse to simply overwhelm this pivotal truth with compassionate lefty lovin' brings us to nightmares like the Stolen Generation. So we can't plug the dyke from the dry side.
Re: grammar & speling and punctuashin-- We do this for fun. Blog communiques should always be judged on how well the person makes their thoughts understood. We know that wisdom doesn't come only from booklarnin' and pinky-extended dinnertimes. We should set aside our prissy standards when expressing our ideas in this important new medium, and never ridicule an earnest participant...
...Unless you have a clean shot and you think it might be funny.
4
Crid at August 8, 2007 3:37 PM
"... Families that don't make learning important or who put too many distractions on the kid for learning to take place make the investment of others meaningless..."
Therefore you...take away school?
Bring back Boys' Towns (or similar)?
Phone Charles Dickens and ask what he thinks?
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 3:42 PM
> Therefore you...take
> away school?
Who said anything of the kind? (My words were "not endlessly unobjectionable.") There are limits to the value that the broader society can bring to a person's life at an intimate level... And I think the capacity to engage the world in the educated, curious and patient way is an intimate discipline indeed. Mom & Dad need to start with that the day you put on your first diaper.
Now Jody, you weren't trying to be simpleminded and alarmist, were you? It would be so unusual for you to manipulate the argument that way...
Crid at August 8, 2007 4:17 PM
Jody,
Be selective when selecting quotes from Rusty.
The Ruster is infamous for using vague generalities to masks his personal opinions as facts. (i.e. the whole Big Bang was noted in the Genesis myth and proves god's existence.) That could be determined as an example of a failure to understand Stephen Gould's NOMA principle or Shermer's different worlds model. Logical fallacies? The differences between abductive, inductive and deductive reasoning too. How about the proper application of common sense? Could that be a failure of our publicly funded education system? Universities too, because he claimed to have a degree or two. Actually, its based on his personal psychological makeup, the way he was raised and genetics. I know you probably hate the adaptionist approach to human psychology.
My personal accounts of children in the developing world was a way of answering an original vague Rusty quote with my own. If you want cutesy National Geographic-like stories about children in the developing world… I will provide them. It wasn’t all bleak, depressing and gut wrenching. I wouldn’t have lasted 9 years.
Second:
Did I support the complete destruction of our publicly funded school system? I never provided any examples for reform, because others already did and I hate being repetitive. The first comment by lujlp on this particular thread was quite adequate.
Everyone knows the failures of the public schools. 2/3 of US students cannot even point the USA on a world map. I could go on and on. Hence, the current system is a dismal failure for the sole global superpower. Throwing more money doesn’t solve the problem. Personally, I would like to see US public schools modeled after the continental European. (mainly the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany) Even Bill Gates finally admitted that throwing money at the problem won’t solve it. Actually, his words were you cannot finance a broken system.
Third:
“Change is the only constant.”
My comments on desire/needs based cultures has to do with the underclass within the USA. (both rural and urban) Remember what was living like 10,000 years ago for the typical nontraditional family unit of that time. A truly bleak and dismal existence. Compare it today. What is the number one health problem for the poor in the USA? Is it malnourishment or obesity?
I will be arrogant and admit openly that we succeeded where so many failed in the past. Our modern desire based culture does have a major drawback… our natural biological capacities. You mix that with our consuming self based culture and you will have societal problems. Especially with adults who do not want to take responsibility for their lifestyle choices. (i.e. children)
T.A.N.S.T.A.F.L. “There aint no such thing as a free lunch.” Robert A. Heinlein
Everyone pays, even the underclass. If society’s underachievers want the perks of being on the dole as a lifestyle… they will have to give up some things. Such as the regulation of how many kids may pass through their birth canal as an example.
PS Libraries between NYC and LA are closing down, especially in small towns. The main cause is the rise of the internet, the large book chain stores and the affordability of mass produced books. Public libraries were essential when they were started in the 19th Century, but have run their course.
Joe at August 8, 2007 4:18 PM
Vouchers do not solve the problem. Never did. Never will. First, you are assuming that a voucher will actually cover the tuition of the private school. Hey, get a voucher and you can send your kid to Andover, where Bush went. Dream on. A voucher wouldn't cover 1/10th of the tuition of Andover. And you also assume that there are enough slots in private schools to accomodate every kid who has a voucher. Again, dream on.
Patrick at August 8, 2007 4:28 PM
> A voucher wouldn't cover
> 1/10th of the tuition
> of Andover.
Jesus Christ, do we have to pay to send every student in the country to the one of the most elite prep schools in the country before we've met our responsibility? Game over... We're fucked.
Seriously, seriously... How did that institution come into your mind as standard we should aim for?
Crid at August 8, 2007 4:52 PM
Excusez-moi, Joe.
"...Such as the regulation of how many kids may pass through their birth canal as an example."
Well, that's a pretty 19th century view from someone denigrating the public library as a worn-out invention!
They were getting pissed off by the fecund stupid hoi polloi in my neck of the woods before the Pilgrims had even figured out the corn thing.
Yet most us - who don't count ourselves as pointless breeders for various reasons - become a bit coy about how we introduce "the regulation."
Thoughts?
Joe - you also mentioned certain Euro models for a better public school system. Which bits? (I'm assuming you know the wee problem two of these systems have with the gobsmackingly mature graduates still gobbling in the public trough? The "haves" seem to finally graduate practically a full generation later than Americans!).
Crid,
Some parents can't even spell diaper, granted.
So isn't even a shitty school system better than nothing for their sprogs?
I don't grasp what you are proposing instead?
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 5:29 PM
I'm saying that we should think clearly about what the problem is and how we can (or if we could) solve it.
And that we recognize that when you tell any profession --whether it's teachers with low-performing students, lawyers with minor ongoing conflicts, or spy agencies with international clashes-- that they can enjoy a career spending a bottomless budget on an unsolvable problem, you deserve what happens to you. And your money.
Crid at August 8, 2007 5:56 PM
Okay, so that's teachers, most government alphabet organizations and lawyers.
Anyone else you wanna piss off before the debate starts:)
(I know Crid, I know - unresponsive!)
Jody Tresidder at August 8, 2007 6:07 PM
Vouchers do not solve the problem. Never did. Never will. First, you are assuming that a voucher will actually cover the tuition of the private school.
Hey Patrick, the only thing I'm assuming is that it's my money and my kid's education. If I want to put it towards the cost of private school, rather than dumping it into the vast coffers of our failed public system, what's your problem with that?
Allison at August 8, 2007 6:28 PM
> unresponsive!)
Yes! What are you trying to say? You're arguing with someone who says only that there should be some theoretical limit on how much we spend for education before considering, when schools fail, the what the school brings to the student is not the only possible problem.
Crid at August 8, 2007 7:21 PM
that what etc
Crid at August 8, 2007 7:22 PM
(Rereading)
You're being dense. I keep saying we should think about where the problem is, and you keep saying So we should close the schools? Watsupwiddat?
Crid at August 8, 2007 7:24 PM
let choosy parents and competing market forces do for education what they've already done for grocery stores and electronics.
We have had more school choice recently in the UK, and it has had unintended consequences. What happens is that schools become ghettoes. If a school has more than a certain percentage of black kids, say, then white parents tend to move elsewhere, so you get a positive feedback loop. For black/white you can substitute anything you like: rich/poor, religious/secular, etc. What was intended as an engine for driving up school performance (as happens for grocery stores) ended up as an engine for tribalism.
Also, the idea of "you only take what you can pay for" sounds great but I don't think it can work 100% of the time. We had that in the UK under Thatcher. To begin with it sounded sensible, but I now think that it leads to gated communities, with security guards and fierce dogs around the perimeter. I've seen places like that and I don't want to live in such a society. On the other hand, unbridled socialism doesn't work well either, and leads, as far as I can tell, to a police state. What I don't have is a clear idea how to steer a middle course. Without such a compass, you inevitably keep drifting from one extreme to the other, because you don't know how far you've gone until you go too far.
Norman at August 9, 2007 12:58 AM
Crid,
The "dense" problem is not entirely my own.
You're like a civil servant/policy wonk identifying areas for further diagnosis or focus points for the Ministry/Department, nicely supported with a blizzard of memos - but no clear idea to what sort of government you're reporting and what their taste is for action.
So we've got theoretical caps on spending tied to performance, some tough words about tenure for the unions, a broadside about off-message parents and ...a lot of trees cut down.
Everything seems to be in your pending tray.
Maybe we should move you to corn oil subsidies?
Jody Tresidder at August 9, 2007 5:05 AM
"What was intended as an engine for driving up school performance (as happens for grocery stores) ended up as an engine for tribalism."
So what? People can raise their kids however they want. If black parents don't want their kids in school with white kids, that's their business. If religious parents don't want their kids in school with heathens, that's their business. In the end, their kids will have to find their way in the world, off the public dole, and will either be well-prepared for it or will have some stupid ideas to outgrow. That's inherent in the idea that parents raise their own kids, as opposed to the government raising them.
Pirate Jo at August 9, 2007 5:55 AM
Crid,
My bottom line is - yeah - simplistic.
Alternatives to public education for all our young can only be developed while keeping public education for all our young, as a right, not an airy-fairy privilege.
And I'm not sure Joe's back-door eugenics is even really related to education at all.
Jody Tresidder at August 9, 2007 5:57 AM
> focus points for the
> Ministry/Department
Ministry? Department? The thing I loathe above all evils is technocracy. My whole point is that there are problems beyond the range of the committee and its snowy memos. Heal thyself! The solution will not come from government.
> but no clear idea to
> what sort of government
> you're reporting and
> what their taste is for
> action.
That's a handsome construction, because it appears very allusive, as though you're saying and you know what I'm talking about here, when no one who's read this thread could possibly have a clue. You're dancing. You're blowing smoke! You're scampering! Ah-hahahah! 'Fraidy cat!
> So we've got theoretical
> caps on spending tied
> to performance
I never even said that. And I find your description of caps as "theoretical" somewhat telling... You just can't permit anyone to dream of not pouring money into edjumication. So no level of investment could ever be enough. If a student costs $10,000 a year, we should pay! If he costs $45,000 a year, we should pay! If he costs $574,000 a year and has never opened a book or turned in a piece of homework for third grade, we should pay! And you never ever want to stop.
Or am I misreading you?
> tenure for the unions,
> a broadside about off-
> message parents and
> ...a lot of trees cut
> down.
Huh?
> Everything seems to be
> in your pending tray.
On what issue am I stalling? Here, take a free shot, my chin's out. Ask anything and I'll answer you right back. (Gotta drive a friend to the airport, but you know what I mean.)
> Alternatives to public
> education
...Are not of interest! I want public education. I insist only that it work if I'm expected to pay for it.
> as a right, not an
> airy-fairy privilege.
Jody, they (inner city, impoverished, etc) have that right. And in fact, they have the practical access. What they don't have is the wherewithal to exploit the opportunity. The problem is not that schools aren't being provided to poor people, or that anyone wants to take them away. The problem is that the students don't learn.
96.
Crid at August 9, 2007 7:12 AM
Pirate Jo, here's the link you were trying to post. The software should let you post one link. If you want to post two, just post them in separate comments.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36332.html
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 7:17 AM
Actually, Gregg just installed Akismet and other spam protections and it seems it doesn't like reason.com...odd. Ate my comment, too. If that happens to you, please e-mail me ASAP and I'll rescue it (also, don't want to delete real comments as spam and have spam filter think you're a spammer)! You can always post without the live linkage - remove the http//: at the front and the .html at the back.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 7:27 AM
"The problem is not that schools aren't being provided to poor people, or that anyone wants to take them away. The problem is that the students don't learn."
Well it is true that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. What Crid fails to recognize is the obvious solution - to spend more money on the water. ;-)
Thanks for getting the link fixed, Amy!
We didn't always have government schools in the USA, but already people imagine that if we didn't have them, there would be hordes of illiterate savages running around. How can they not have noticed that we ALREADY have hordes of illiterate savages running around? Dumb people breed, and their offspring are going to be illiterate savages no matter what we do. There is no reason to trap everyone else in a classroom with them.
Pirate Jo at August 9, 2007 7:27 AM
Actually, you have to remove the www. too
So:
reason.com/news/show/36332
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 7:28 AM
> the obvious solution - to
> spend more money
You're fucking with me again! You're fucking with me again!
This to me is like Iraq only backwards. People like to straighten their backs and pull down their chins and knit their brows and somberly bemoan the ancient, intractable cultural traditions which prevent the (Iraqis/Africans/Whomever) from embracing representative government and capitalism, but there it is, so by golly we ought to bring the boys home and let the savages do what they need to do. But a few miles away in South Central, where the problem is just as surely a cultural one, it's assumed that a distant government moving aggressively enough will be able to fulfill the goals.
101.
Crid at August 9, 2007 7:40 AM
My idea is to have people like me (ordinary people from ordinary homes who are not making moviestar or basketball legend money, but have cool jobs) go talk to kids in schools in the inner city to give them tangible evidence that with a little work, you can do something with your life.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 7:50 AM
"... an engine for tribalism." So what?
So we get riots in the streets, that's what, because this group of people have been raised to believe they are fundamentally different from that group, and they are taking our jobs/claiming our benefits/stealing our women/worshipping the devil or whatever. I don't mean metaphorical riots - literal ones.
This is the basis for state schools which are secular, open to all, and with a national curriculum. Everyone's welcome to teach their kids their own personal values and weirdness out of school hours, but the result of state schooling should be educated citizens who can go anywhere and do anything in their own country. Not members of a tribe at war with other tribes in the hood.
Normann at August 9, 2007 8:05 AM
Uh, Norman, we do have members of a tribe at war with other tribes in the hood, and school is free.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 8:08 AM
Gang warfare is "suspected" in this story. Either way, I'm pretty sure all had access to free education:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/08/09/schoolyard.killings/index.html
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 8:11 AM
"Jody, they (inner city, impoverished, etc) have that right."
Super. Long may they keep it.
"What they don't have is the wherewithal to exploit the opportunity."
That, Crid, is a butt-ugly construction!
Good luck on the Inner City School Failing Students Wherewithal Campaign.
Amy,
If you had the guts to do what you suggested, I cannot think of a better role model. I am well aware it would cost you (as a self employed goddess), the return impossible to quantify etc etc. But for someone in your position - and with your dash - to even toy with the idea is brilliant. (Not an iota of sark, either!)
Jody Tresidder at August 9, 2007 8:27 AM
"So we get riots in the streets, that's what, because this group of people have been raised to believe they are fundamentally different from that group,"
Most people partially shape their identities through belonging to various groups, which are always going to disagree with other groups. Usually, they simply want to avoid those other groups and surround themselves with people who share their own views. So a white person who looks down on black people can, if he wishes, go live someplace where there aren't many black people. An atheist who doesn't want to be surrounded by bible-thumpers will probably gravitate toward coastal metropolitan areas and away from the deep south, and gays will head for San Francisco. This happens all the time, because that's just the way people are. Seldom does it lead to actual riots or warfare. The less the government meddles, by trying to force these groups of people together, or grant special tax benefits to some groups at the cost of others, the better everyone gets along.
"This is the basis for state schools which are secular, open to all, and with a national curriculum."
Big problem right there. What should the national curriculum be? And secular? There are millions of fundies living here who would disagree. I think fundies are the dumbest creatures alive, but I still think they have the right to BE fundies, and to raise their kids that way. Yes, it means we have all kinds of dullards walking around thinking the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the Left Behind series is a documentary and not a work of fiction. They equate these silly views with morality, and they're not going to change their minds no matter what we do. Besides, the way I see it, it just opens up more science and technology jobs for the rest of us.
Pirate Jo at August 9, 2007 8:31 AM
Tressider, you're a snot.
> Long may they keep it.
The sarcasm doesn't help you take this point: Nobody, no one, zero person, is suggesting that they won't keep that right. You tussle with imaginary demons as real ones eat your young.
> butt-ugly construction!
Care to say why?
> Failing Students Wherewithal
> Campaign.
In your (typically) backhanded way, I suppose this is your abject concession. Not only do you ridicule the wording ("wherewithal –noun
1. that with which to do something; means or supplies for the purpose or need") without faulting the meaning, you caustically return the onus to a "Campaign", presumably something governmental. You simply can't imagine having an effect on the life of another human being without going through the government. And when someone sincerely suggests something a little more personal and fleshy (and spiritual in the best sense), we hear:
> If you had the guts
Amy has good reasons not to ride her little tin microcar into Watts to teach them how to plan trips to Paris. You're right: Her self-starting independence, tidy commerce and bitch-slapping optimism are exactly what they need. But her fears, if you want to call them that, are not groundless. It's better to say that her measure of the costs and benefits are as accurate as you'd expect from an entrepreneurial businesswoman. She's not a coward.
You have this abiding belief that all the problems in the world live in the hearts (and budgets) of those who are doing well.
If only.
I don't like you.
Crid at August 9, 2007 9:40 AM
If you had the guts to do what you suggested, I cannot think of a better role model.
Actually, it's not guts that are stopping me; I don't have time to create and manage the program at this point in my life/career. Should somebody else start it, I'll show up and talk. I'll even bring my micro-dog.
Oh...I see Crid said that above. Thank you. And exactly right.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 9:51 AM
Yes, my household does. And FWIW, that's just on April 15 and that money doesn't fund police and fired departments. The large tax that I pay every January does that.
miche at August 9, 2007 9:59 AM
That should have been fire departments.
miche at August 9, 2007 10:00 AM
"Nobody, no one, zero person, is suggesting that they won't keep that right."
Crid: Two people here suggested public education for all should not be a right.
"Here is how I think education should be.1. It is not a right, it is a privilege."(lujlp)
"Smartest idea: Stop making "schooling" mandatory, get the government out of the business altogether, and let choosy parents and competing market forces do for education what they've already done for grocery stores and electronics." (Pirate Jo)
Amy has consistently argued public education should be paid for by parents who are not poor. That it should not be, as at present, a given right to parents of means via the taxpayer.
I don't believe the government cures everything.
I do acknowledge that public school is a government-run system. And that a movement for much-needed reform needs to work within the system - not from a blank page.
Your definition of "wherewithal" only proves my dismissal of that noun. Fowler defines it as a "courtesy noun" frequently emptily resorted to by writers attempting quaint effect or who suffer from "pedantic humor".
You wrote: "[Amy's] fears, if you want to call them that, are not groundless," about my comment that she'd need guts to go and talk to schools.
I didn't say Amy had groundless fears. I said the opposite and immediately mentioned why it would be a special burden in her case.
I've given an inner city talk to fifth formers (legal school-leaving age kids) in east London. I was freelance. It was a mixed bag experience for all. I loved it.
Jody Tresidder at August 9, 2007 10:31 AM
> Two people here suggested
> public education for all
> should not be a right.
I've got to stop coming into these fights late. But I don't understand why you kept saying it to me. (Lujlp- Tsk. PJ- Tsk.)
> And that a movement for
> much-needed reform needs
> to work within the system
Only if the system is where the fault is. You're trying to fix the I-35W bridge by tweaking your carburetor.
> Your definition of "wherewithal"
> only proves my dismissal of
> that noun
Jody, HOW?!?!! Do you think that inner city kids who go to school and are equipped but are somehow being let down by the processes that work for all the others? Or is it something else?
> Fowler
Who?
> attempting quaint effect
I was entirely sincere. I don't think the impoverished and those from inner cities are equipped to take advantage of school. School is not the problem. Could this have been clearer? Are there other words you can warn us to avoid?
> I didn't say Amy had
> groundless fears.
"Guts."
> It was a mixed bag experience
> for all. I loved it.
Kind of a discontinuity there, but if you were really a courageous, noble, and literate human being, you'd go back again and again, and you'd bring sandwiches and video games. Whatarya, wimpy?
Crid at August 9, 2007 10:54 AM
"I do acknowledge that public school is a government-run system. And that a movement for much-needed reform needs to work within the system - not from a blank page."
The system doesn't need to be reformed as much as it needs to be totally re-imagined.
And Crid, what are you Tsk'ing me for? I think the government - particularly the federal gov't - needs to get out of the education business. Its current involvement is unconstitutional. If the states want to try things, let them do their experimenting at the state level. You make a comment like this: "you caustically return the onus to a "Campaign", presumably something governmental. You simply can't imagine having an effect on the life of another human being without going through the government." and seem to be saying the same thing.
Pirate Jo at August 9, 2007 11:07 AM
Amy - Uh, Norman, we do have members of a tribe at war with other tribes in the hood, and school is free.
It's not the cost that's the issue, it's excessive parental choice of schools. (I don't know how much is excessive.) My favourite one here is that we have Catholic schools and secular state schools. So kids get segregated, and they learn to hate each other early. It's wrong to do that to children. School should be a common denominator; if you want to pass on your religion, you can send your kids to Sunday school or whatever at your own expense and in your own time.
Pirate Jo - This happens all the time, because that's just the way people are. Seldom does it lead to actual riots or warfare. The less the government meddles, by trying to force these groups of people together, or grant special tax benefits to some groups at the cost of others, the better everyone gets along.
I'm not talking about adults choosing how to live their lives. I'm talking about adults choosing their children's schools. As for riots, the violent factions in Northern Ireland are split on sectarian lines, and these start with sectarian schools.
What should the national curriculum be? Teaching kids how to read write and count, history, geography, science, religion, art - that sort of thing. It's not difficult to devise one; we've had a national curriculum in the UK for god knows how long. Anything else, the parents can provide for themselves. Home school if they want; that doesn't seem to cause any problems.
Norman at August 9, 2007 11:15 AM
> Its current involvement
> is unconstitutional.
You sound like Raddy when he complains about Congress' failure to declare war. At some point, you have to acknowledge that the people and their government have decided what's constitutional and what's not. The best part of constitutional arguments is their sparkiness, ie, they tend to get adjudicated. Eventually.
As regards booklearnin', I want every parent to take a personal interest in teaching Junior and Sissy how to read. That would fix the problems in the underclass and the middle class. The rich ones appear to be doing that already. But meanwhile let's not pretend that we'd all have been as well-educated and sensible as we are if there'd been no schools. Many if not most of the people who comment here would be much less is expressive, if we'd learned to read at all.
I loves me some free markets, but we can't get carried away. Pretty soon you can hear yourself saying "And everyone should have to pave their own roads instead of having the gummint tax us for them!" Next thing you know you're on a boat with people like this:
http://www.alternet.org/story/57001/
Crid at August 9, 2007 11:23 AM
Better link.
Crid at August 9, 2007 11:25 AM
Crid,
You now write: But I don't understand why you kept saying it to me. (Lujlp- Tsk. PJ- Tsk.)
I was answering precisely what you wrote here: "Nobody, no one, zero person, is suggesting that they won't keep that right."
You suggested: "but if you were really a courageous, noble, and literate human being, you'd go back again and again".
I don't have unlimited airmiles, Crid.
I gave the talk in east London. I now live in the USA. My specific experience of barging my way into an editorial position in UK newspapers before I went to university was relevant to UK pupils under the (sometimes) flexible rules of the National Council for Training of Journalists.
The NCTJ "officially" prevented internships (of the sort widely available here) unless accompanied by fixed indentures (a union obligation). This was a problem for UK school leavers without connections in an increasingly graduate-dominated industry.
I never thought this would be much use to USA teens.
You write: "...School is not the problem".
Most of the comments here have been about the problems in public education.
I grant you the subject of "wherewithal" is probably worth further investigation.
Repeating "guts" on its own seems pointless as an argument about the unpleasant meaning you seek to find in my comment to Amy.
It reminds me of the bullying Fox-style baiting of liberals "you dare to call our troops cowards, sir!".
Fowler wrote a decent guide to Modern English usage. It's a dated volume at times, but sound on quaint usages and a template for many modern guides.
Jody Tresidder at August 9, 2007 11:46 AM
So Norman, are you suggesting Catholic or other religious schools be abolished? Why are they not okay, but homeschooling is?
Crid, federal gov't involvement in education IS unconstitutional and is making the situation ten times worse. ('No Child Left Behind' for example.) How about we leave it to the states, if there is to be gov't involvement?
"But meanwhile let's not pretend that we'd all have been as well-educated and sensible as we are if there'd been no schools."
Where did you get the idea there would be no schools? The government doesn't run supermarkets, but we still have them all over the place and people visit them all the time. Try the converse - try to imagine what grocery stores would look like if the government DID run them. I will check out your link - sounds funny.
But puhleeze, with the remark about paving roads. That is largely a local/state government function - you can't compare something like that to the bloated federal education bureaucracy. Social Security is probably a better comparison.
Pirate Jo at August 9, 2007 11:49 AM
> Most of the comments here
> have been about the problems
> in public education.
Why assume the problem is with the schools and not the students? Because you know (from your experience in London or other plain thinking) that it's difficult to move individual hearts productively? So you're back to working from the government side of the equation. Maslow: "To the man who only has a hammer, everything he encounters begins to look like a nail." My tax bill is your hammer.
> the bloated federal
> education bureaucracy.
Word. My aunt used to work for the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, and she said everything changed (for the worse) when Carter split off the Department of Education. Suddenly the director was a Cabinet official with a limousine and bodyguards. You're indisputably right that this is a bad arrangement.
But to say it's unconstitutional when no one has the wherewithal t... Excuse me, when no one can muster the interest for a court fight suggests that there are Bigger Trends at work. Same as with the Iraq war. People want Bush impeached, but Congress is held in even lower esteem. The will of the people is thus made clear.
> Where did you get the
> idea there would be no
> schools?
I think public schools mean there's more literacy than there'd be without them, that's all. I might be wrong, and would still like to see a lot more vouchers... If there's one thing Americans are good at, it's shopping for bargains with things they care about.
Crid at August 9, 2007 12:11 PM
I didn't say Amy had groundless fears. I said the opposite and immediately mentioned why it would be a special burden in her case.
I spent weeks driving around South Central looking for my Rambler, and I've lived in the hood in Venice. I was in NYC during the riots, but my pal Rainer held off rioters from burning down our place with a shotgun from the roof. I might be from da burbs, and whiter than rice, but I think I could probably manage to get in and out of some Watts elementary school alive.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 12:29 PM
"Why assume the problem is with the schools and not the students? Because you know (from your experience in London or other plain thinking) that it's difficult to move individual hearts productively?"
Actually, I think individual role models and mentors are priceless, Crid.
Jody Tresidder at August 9, 2007 12:32 PM
PJ - So Norman, are you suggesting Catholic or other religious schools be abolished? Why are they not okay, but homeschooling is?
It's not a matter of principle, because I don't know what the principles might be. But in practice, separate religious schools seem to provide the right kind of soil for sectarianism to take root, if not flourish. Home schooling, in practice, doesn't seem to cause any problems. As far as I'm aware.
How would you feel about schools based on other divisions than faith? (Faith of the parents, that is.) Would you allow race-based segregation? Or political - a school for Marxists, say?
Before state schools were started and paid for by tax, school was only for the rich. How would you pay for your non-gummint schools, PJ? The kids are the ones who benefit - I suppose they should pay for it?
Norman at August 9, 2007 12:38 PM
"How would you feel about schools based on other divisions than faith? (Faith of the parents, that is.) Would you allow race-based segregation? Or political - a school for Marxists, say?"
I think people should be able to send their kids to any type of school they want. Austrian economics, Marxism, whatever. As the reason article suggests, let a thousand choices bloom. Although I don't expect you and I are ever going to agree on this, when you've made a comment like "excessive parental choice of schools." From my way of thinking, I don't see how choice can BE excessive. The wider the variety of choice, the greater the competition, and the greater the quality and the lower the price.
Fundamentally, you think it's "society's" (read: the government's) responsibility to educate children, where I think it is the parents' responsibility. Neither one of us is saying children shouldn't be educated, but the question is by whom. I say by whoever the parents decide, you say by the government. So then everyone fights about what the proper "national program" is. I don't think homogeneity in education is necessary.
"How would you pay for your non-gummint schools, PJ?"
Who pays for the kids' food, clothing, and shelter? Why should their education be any different? Only for the rich? Hells bells, my dad went to school in a one-room schoolhouse in rural Iowa, and his math skills could run circles around those of most people. I can assure you, they were not rich. School is only expensive because the government is running it. I think education would be even cheaper if it was privatized - and better quality, too.
Pirate Jo at August 9, 2007 12:54 PM
> individual role models
> and mentors
I hate calling them that, because they're bloodless words for a really personal set of encounters that we need these children to have with middle-class people. I think the world and all of your experience and Amy's impulse, but what we really need in these communities is an investment of sane masculinity, that is, father-types. And as you seem ready to acknowledge, that's not going to get done by the Department of Education. And it probably shouldn't, otherwise you get Stolen Generations.
After the first or second(!) day of the '92 riots, busloads of cheerful homeowners from the Valley were showing up with shovels and rakes in South Central to clean up debris. I had this fantasy that some of the kids were seeing how things worked in loving homes... Seeing Dads who were good for more than alcoholic depression and the occasional scrap of sportswear.
Crid at August 9, 2007 1:21 PM
Who pays for the kids' food, clothing, and shelter? Why should their education be any different?
Exactly.
Why? Why? Why?
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 2:50 PM
Because because because you benefit from their general literacy in ten thousand little ways. After a little education, you're much less likely to need to worry about those other needs, they'll be able to handle them themselves
Crid at August 9, 2007 2:55 PM
"I hate calling them that, because they're bloodless words for a really personal set of encounters that we need these children to have with middle-class people."
Jesus wept, Crid.
Now I come back to see "bloodless words" is your latest objection to what I wrote!
The consistent mentoring group we support here is called "Big Brothers/Big Sisters".
Is that, y'know, okay with you?
I didn't mention the Big Brothers name because I thought you'd take a pot shot at its unlikeable NY snottiness/condescending liberal sentimentality as per the odious drift of your other comments to me today.
That's why I opted for the more neutral mentor/role model description (which is, in fact, dead accurate).
"And as you seem ready to acknowledge, that's not going to get done by the Department of Education."
The fuck I am.
I've never remotely suggested that the young should rely solely on the government for help.
You also owe me an apology for the implication I trashed Amy as a coward.
Look again at what I wrote:
"Amy,
If you had the guts to do what you suggested, I cannot think of a better role model. I am well aware it would cost you (as a self employed goddess), the return impossible to quantify etc etc. But for someone in your position - and with your dash - to even toy with the idea is brilliant. (Not an iota of sark, either!)
Amy said her idea was "to have people like" her to go into inner city schools. I said if she had the guts to do it - bombs away!
Yet you still went Hannity on my ass after I explained.
You admire Hitch so much. Why not try his brand of deadly courtesy when you want to be cutting with dignity?
Jody Tresidder at August 9, 2007 3:01 PM
Because because because you benefit from their general literacy in ten thousand little ways.
I benefit from the guy sitting across from me taking baths and wearing clothes, and from him chewing with his mouth closed and not robbing the place -- but that doesn't mean I should bathe him, clothe him, give him lessons in manners or morality. Most people aren't going to be of great benefit to most other people. I'll turn the question around: If we're all paying for Junior's school, why not his socks, clothes, toys and toiletpaper?
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 3:25 PM
I said if she had the guts to do it
This suggests I do not have the guts. For the record: I'm frightened out of my shoes at the prospect of being in the Beverly Center on a Saturday afternoon -- but not at all of being in Watts on a school day.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 3:28 PM
"This suggests I do not have the guts."
Granted, Amy, had I just written the one phrase. But I did not.
I only meant walking into an inner city school to give a career pep talk to an unfamiliar mob of adolescents can be incredibly intimidating. And the rest of my comment made clear my admiration even for the idea alone. Plus the hassle it would involve. Which I then underlined with the "no sark" PS.
Crid seemed to be deliberately taking the O'Reilly low road even after I'd explained.
And that's infra dig.
Jody Tresidder at August 9, 2007 4:20 PM
I only meant walking into an inner city school to give a career pep talk to an unfamiliar mob of adolescents can be incredibly intimidating.
Thanks for thinking of me, but I'd find it invigorating.
Amy Alkon at August 9, 2007 4:40 PM
Wow, 132 messages! Sorry, I was a bit busy with a lab crisis within the last 19 hours after my last post.
Joe at August 9, 2007 4:43 PM
"Sorry, I was a bit busy with a lab crisis within the last 19 hours after my last post."
Thought you were doing your matador of ripe tomatoes in Spain thing, Joe?
Jody Tresidder at August 9, 2007 5:23 PM
My little sister has been searching for an educational match for her family. This is what she and her husband are considering.
http://freeunioncountryschool.org/index.html
It looks lovely to me.
miche at August 9, 2007 5:38 PM
> Jesus wept
? Meaning...
> "bloodless words" is your
> latest objection
Yes. We've covered this in earlier years. Amy should publish a primer of everyone's Big Themes from previous comments. One of mine goes like this-- The idea of the "role model" is a despicable relief valve by which incompetent, unprepared and usually single parents expunge their guilt for raising their children without consistant and competent affection... Which usually means, Dad's divorced Mom to start a new family in Florida and doesn't even send checks anymore, let alone attend soccer games and Christmas pageants. Role Modeling mocks an important truth of human development which every parent complains about: Kids need what they need when they need it, and kids see what they see when they see it. They're completely resistant to time-management techniques. Any adult blessing that you can bring them that can be indexed on Microsoft Outlook is probably not going to be the nurturing one that carries them from vulnerable childhood to sane grown-upedness. When people talk about giving kids role models, they're usually trying to use scientific words to hide either their own fear of strangers or their own failure.
> called "Big Brothers/Big Sisters".
A private initiative, no? It may have been Catholic or something. But not from a government office.
> more neutral mentor/role model
Do troubled kids need "neutral" interest?
> never remotely suggested that
> the young should rely solely
> on the government
But you just said "the fuck" about the department of Ed. Jody, do you or do you not think government can provide the interpersonal guidance children need to excel in competitive educational and economic settings?
I say no. Spiritual is a dirty word on this blog. But I think the connection with an adult that kids need to find success in an environment so richly blended with challenges and cooperation is a spiritual one. If they don't get it from parents, it has to come from some other long-term person. Government doesn't count. Hillary is wrong; keep your freaking village away from my kids.
> Look again at what I wrote:
> "Amy, If you had the guts
That's the part that was freaky... There was a bunch of nice stuff after that but it was still inane.
> went Hannity on my ass
> the O'Reilly low road
Basic cable is my life.
> You admire Hitch so much
We spoke this afternoon... He thinks you're wrong about this, too.
> Most people aren't going
> to be of great benefit
> to most other people.
Listen, we don't have to be socialist (like Hitch was) to acknowledge that we're all tremendously reliant on each other. That's what a successful economy means. I've been reading an excellent book about the 1906 earthquake, and it made this morning's little shaker a lot more dramatic. When the Big One comes and we're all scrambling for food and water and a good place to take a leak, you're going to be really glad you're living in 2008 Los Angeles instead of 2003 Bam or even 1985 Mexico City, and broad literacy is going to be a big part of what gets you through it.
Crid at August 9, 2007 5:49 PM
Its the last week of August, Jody.
I've already got my "God Bless America" T-Shirt (Front is in English and the back in Spanish) ready. Actually, I enjoy the all day/night parties leading up to the fight. This will be my fourth time at the La Tomatina festival with my friends from Spain.
Then 3 weeks of relaxing with relatives in Italy.
Joe at August 9, 2007 8:18 PM
Pirate Jo - From my way of thinking, I don't see how choice can BE excessive. The wider the variety of choice, the greater the competition, and the greater the quality and the lower the price.
That's what we thought would happen in the UK. It didn't.
a one-room schoolhouse in rural Iowa I live in rural Scotland and we have primary schools like that. It's very folksy but 99% of people live in cities and it's not a model for them. Still, as far as I know, there's nothing stopping anyone from setting up a school like that, even here in the UK, so surely it's the same in the US? All you need to do is find premises, pupils who can afford to pay, and run a one-person business. It's economically and educationally feasible, at the primary level.
I don't think it's educationally feasible at secondary level. You need expertise in a wide range of subjects, and expensive facilities such as science labs and sports fields. So you need a lot of pupils to spread the cost - but that means more staff and bigger premises.
In other words there's a minimum feasible size which means you won't get the local graduate starting a secondary school in their garage - you'll get Wal-Mart schools, Church schools, Mafia schools - organisations that have an axe to grind. They'd have to be controlled to ensure they were not abusing the kids in one way or another.
It could work, perhaps. It would certainly be an interesing experiment. How would competition work? Would you have two half-empty schools next door to each other competing for pupils? How would you prevent monopolies forming? What if none of the schools wants your funny-looking kid or can provide the wheelchair ramps or whatever that your kid needs? If your child went to Wal-Mart for a couple of years, would you be willing and able to move them to the local Microsoft school? New friends, new books, new subjects. Not an easy choice to make.
Norman at August 9, 2007 11:52 PM
If your child went to Wal-Mart for a couple of years, would you be willing and able to move them to the local Microsoft school? New friends, new books, new subjects. Not an easy choice to make.
Oh, give me a break- college works on a free market- I teach at the local community college, most students go there so they can later transfer to a university. The ones who make the best grades are the ones most likely to have their choice of univeristies. No, not everyone gets to go to Harvard. That's why employers find it impressive when you do.
Allison at August 10, 2007 7:15 AM
Allison-
Comparison with college is not valid. College students can pick and choose between all the colleges in the land, so competition can work. School kids can't do that. They have to go to a school within a short distance of home. The opportunity for competition is much reduced. You can't have lots of schools in a small area because they can't all be viable.
An essential feature of competition is that poor businesses go bust. If that happens to a school, you'll have several hundred kids on the street. Some may find other places, but in a free market system there's no guarantee that education will be available for all, so they could lose out for several years. Their parents might move house, if they can.
In the UK it is a requirement that children under a certain age must be in full-time education. We have truant officers going around to catch any playing hookey. Would you have that in a free market system? It's not much different from saying that if you drive a car you must have insurance. But what happens if there's no local school?
Norman at August 10, 2007 8:04 AM
"...most students go there so they can later transfer to a university."
Allison,
The potential mobility of older students to make the best "free market" college choice is a crucial point.
School pupils don't have that freedom, typically. (Which is why realtor adverts make such a song and dance about good local school districts as an inducement.)
Jody Tresidder at August 10, 2007 8:04 AM
"Some may find other places, but in a free market system there's no guarantee that education will be available for all, so they could lose out for several years."
Funny you should say that, Norman!
I'm old enough to have been caught in the closing-of-the-direct-grant-grammar-schools mess in the UK (London). It was chaos - though, for a while, of great financial benefit to here-today, gone-tomorrow free market "crammer" schools.
Jody Tresidder at August 10, 2007 8:17 AM
Ooof, I guess that would be true. *captian obvious, leaving the building* The problem that I'm having is that in ensuring the poor kids have access to education, we're sentencing all the kids to the same lousy, default education. I don't want my kids going to the state's main ISD, which is notoriously terrible, not only in quality of education, but in crime level. My good friend is a highschool teacher, and tells the story of when the power went out one year, the kids actually rioted- SWAT had to be called out. If I don't want my daughter in a school like this, my options are to buy a house in one of the better suburbs, where the prices are outrageous, because the schools are good, or to send her to private school, which is even pricier. Or I could homeschool, which seems to me like a rather prohibitive outlay of time, and seems rather limiting for the kid in terms of exposure. I'd like the opportunity to take my tax money to other, better schools than the one that's perhaps down the street from me, but I can't, because that would perhaps screw someone else's kid's chance at school. It's all well and good to worry about the disadvataged, but at what point can we shake them off our backs and demand that they stand on their own feet? I'm getting where Amy's coming from on this. The vague benefits I get from widespread literacy are rather offset by the contortions I have to perform to get my kid a decent education, prompt service at an emergency room, or any other number of other things that the government has seen fit to bundle into the greater socialist good.
Allison at August 10, 2007 11:39 AM
Allison- You're right, it's a hard choice. You want the best for your own child, but when that is clearly at the expense of a less advantaged (= less middle class) child, can you do it? In the UK we have lots of church schools, and they generally get better results than the ordinary state schools. But this seems to be a self-perpetuating state of affairs with no real basis. Because they have better results, they are in demand, and only the more advantaged (= middle class, again) can move house or pretend to have the necessary faith to get their children in. And they tend to have brighter children. All this is good for them, of course, so the schools get good results - but the direct consequence is that some state schools, which cannot turn pupils away, become sinks where the worst go because nowhere else will have them.
How to pay for it? If it's left to parents, history shows that only the rich will get more than a basic education. In a generation the US will be manual labourers with Chinese and Indian supervisors.
Norman at August 10, 2007 1:02 PM
I love Ching Chong and Nahasapeemapetilon.
PurplePen at August 10, 2007 1:24 PM
TO: Amy Alkon, et al.
RE: Hmmmm....
...I'm suddenly reminded of a Billy Joel song from the 70s-80s....
She's Always a Woman to Meeeeeee.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Must be something in the jeans....]
Chuck Pelto at August 10, 2007 4:24 PM
TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Education! It's a "Family Affair"
"I'm for the rest of us picking up the cost only for the very poor, in hopes of maintaining an educated populace -- necessary for maintaining a democracy." -- Amy Alkon
Glad to hear you support 'home schooling'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[In loco parentis??!??! My fourth-point-of-contact. Witness Bailey, CO and that Amish school back East. The teachers left their children behind to be raped and murdered.
Show me a blood-parent who would allow that.]
Chuck Pelto at August 10, 2007 4:28 PM
Norman, yeah, I think it's really several larger societal issues are cratering right now, it's not just the schools. We are going to have to reform welfare before we can get real school reform, because the least functioning people are having a lot of kids. I'm not even talking about the welfare queens Amy mentioned, I'm talking about people who would rather live on a $500 government check than get a job at Wal Mart. The government pays them by the kid, and their kids are the ones who would be left behind in the worst schools if the rest of us bailed, because the parents are too stupid, disinterested or plain lazy to take an interest. I'm not unsympathetic- my mother in law raised her kids in a project, my husband can tell stories of digging in dumpsters for food and chasing rats around in their apartment. He's the first one to rail about government assistance- the government only does that to keep people down. My husband dropped out of school in the 8th grade- he still makes nearly what I do, and I have a Master's degree. (It's in psychology, so it and a buck will buy me a cup of coffee). Education is important, but it amounts to nothing without fortitude, and motivation. Jeez, no answers here. But thanks for giving me a place to rant, Amy.
Allison at August 10, 2007 8:02 PM
i want a job please sir
najeeb at August 16, 2007 8:30 AM
if yoou need any legal support i recommend you to get direct legal support from http://directlegalbenefits.com/
Mac Magallon at May 21, 2011 8:44 PM
The Dems will continue to control congress after Nov, and Obama gets reelected in 2012you geniuses are going to burn out on your juvenile anger and will be sitting around watching TV all day long for the next 6 yrsenjoy!
Wilton Chawla at August 9, 2011 3:50 PM
Leave a comment