<p>^Haha nice—you helped prove my point!!!</p>
<p>^Always glad to be of service [noparse];)[/noparse]</p>
<p>
I think that educated or wealthy parents have the right to help their children get the best education possible. A lot of this happens outside the formal schooling system.
There is no magic solution. In general, I’d say that it is important to pay for high-quality teachers, especially in at-risk areas. Safety in and around schools is also vital.</p>
<p>Will there be inequality? Of course. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. The only way to ensure “equal” education would be to implement compulsory government boarding schools for all kids in the country, and I think that infringes too much on parents’ rights.</p>
<p>I am not arguing for the status quo. The status quo sucks. But I don’t agree that educational equality is achievable or even desirable.</p>
<p>^Your points are interesting. Why is educational equality not even desirable?!?</p>
<p>And just because perfect equality can’t be attained doesn’t mean we couldn’t come closer and closer.</p>
<p>And I would never do away with private schools—I’m talking about making public schools equal.</p>
<p>So can we focus on public schools here, recognizing that, yes, private schools will be separate (and perhaps better). But I’m talking about public schools, where the vast majority of kids go.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what about poorer people? They shouldn’t have this right? Or is this just a private school thing?</p>
<p>Yes I know that there never has been a 100% communist nation, there has never been a 100% capitalist society either. They are just ideas. That is the point. All people love to do all day is talk and do nothing. Complain about whats not fair and just sit. Frankly, I am going to secure a better future for myself thank you. </p>
<p>This world isn’t going last forever.
@ChocolateBanana: there is a lot you have to learn. . . But don’t worry. Just keep believing what people want you know so you can be happy temporarily. </p>
<p>Many of these ideas just try to fix problems fast, but it’s the long run that counts. Here’s a short story I found:</p>
<p>"An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.</p>
<p>That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked, and that no one would
be poor and no one would be rich — a great equalizer. </p>
<p>The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade, so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. </p>
<p>After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. </p>
<p>As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. </p>
<p>When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. </p>
<p>The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. </p>
<p>All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."</p>
<p>^ That story has been circulating for a VERY long time, WAY before Obama :rolleyes:.</p>
<p>There are so many things wrong with that story. For one: it assumes that the people who worked really hard AUTOMATICALLY will get an A. Just like everyone IRL that works hard will AUTOMATICALLY be wealthy. Secondly, it assumes that everyone is being taught the same material and is given an equal oppurtunity to succeed. That does not happen IRL. </p>
<p>Oy vey.</p>
<p>Equal educational opportunities are good, at least for high school. However, I think that at the college level, the disparity in ability requires that some who can not handle it not be admitted. Theoretically they would have had equal opportunity to get in because they were given the same opportunities in high school, but the “outcome” of being accepted into higher level schooling would be different. Does that sum it up nicely noimagination? I think that’s what you were trying to get at.</p>
<p>
Because I think that families have the right to use their own abilities (education level, wealth, etc.) to improve their children’s education. Equalizing public school funding or whatever it is I suspect you really want is not the same thing as saying that people should have equal educational opportunities. Much of education happens outside of school anyway. “Equality” has distinct philosophical implications (especially when we’re talking about governmental obligation) that definitely do not accept “coming closer”.
See, you’re actually increasing the disparities that exist in the status quo. Now only those who live near excellent private schools (or have the wealth to travel to one and pay tuition) can get a more advantageous education. You’re promoting a total oligarchy of knowledge.
Once again, you simply raise the income bar necessary to get a better education by restricting it to private schools and still totally fail to provide for a truly equal education at public schools.
Not quite. I don’t think admissions really enter into this equation, at least not beyond the level of less-selective state institutions. My basic thought is that society should not aim to educate everyone beyond basic competence and therefore that any equality will necessarily involve pulling others down to that level as well.</p>
<p>AHHH! Okay, apparently I’m not being clear. And by no means am I implying I know <em>how</em> to implement all this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hm…Yeah, I would say I would want (at least) equal funding for public schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? This doesn’t make sense. I am talking about getting as close to (if not fully) equal as possible…if you disagree with the “philosophical implications” of that, fine. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice try. No, I’m saying that the vast majority of the population who goes to public schools will have great educations, hopefully. I go to a public school, and I’d put it up against any of the private schools I live near. Any of them. But I think my public school is pretty good, so hopefully others can be made as good (better?) than mine. “Oligarchy of knowledge” sounds smart and all, but if those few people want to pay tens of thousands of dollars for their kid’s education, I would never deny them that. I’m talking about public schools (where MOST people go) being better. To say that all private schools would be better than all public schools is completely inaccurate. I’m talking about public schools being able to give a great education. And I don’t think this would cause those people in private schools to attain an oligarchy; in fact, it’d be more the opposite…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? When do I do anything? I don’t understand what you are saying here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that those in power may want certain educational opportunities for their kids but deem “basic competence” for poorer people, thus perpetuating poverty and it just maintains a cycle. Don’t you see how this thinking is looking down upon others? Saying they are only worth “basic competence?” And how would one determine that. This is where so many problems come from, when you have this bar set low. but raise it only for the few who you believe deserve it. </p>
<p>Why does it have to involve pulling those people down?</p>
<p>For example, I read one study that showed that an influx of less-academically successful children to a great school had NO effect whatsoever on the successful kid’s performances; in fact, what happened was that the less successful people improved!</p>
<p>How great was this influx? I have seen similar studies as well, but I wonder what would happen after these “low achievers” reached a certain threshold. Would their “culture” of mediocrity overwhelm that of success? Because from the studies I have seen, what happened has that the influx was not a majority.</p>
<p>Feel free to prove me wrong. I’m just asking questions.</p>
<p>^Huh…? Why would them getting better to a certain point all the sudden bring people who having doing great down…?</p>
<p>Um…I can try to find the one I’m talking about. I might have bookmarked it.</p>
<p>Culture of mediocrity? Really?</p>
<p>There are Scandinavian countries where taxes are so high … people have to work multiple jobs.</p>
<p>Because Socialism encourages people to not work at all :rolleyes:</p>
<p>^Um…what? Random. No one brought up socialism…I don’t think.</p>
<p>
[Equality</a> (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](<a href=“http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/]Equality”>Equality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))</p>
<p>If education needs to have equality of opportunity, that would imply that the government is obligated to ensure some sort of equality there. Quite apart from the fact that such equality is inherently impossible without forced relocation of pupils, it implicitly violates the idea of education as a communal project that individual subgroups can collectively implement. Communities exercise their own control over their community-funded schools.
The fact that some public schools do well now is precisely because we don’t have equality of education. It is and always will be easier to pull the top down than bring the bottom up. I think that the conditions in America’s worst schools are deplorable and that the students there deserve better, but it is neither feasible nor necessarily beneficial for those students to expect magnet-school performance. And therefore, in order to uphold educational equality, we have to pull down the magnet schools to a single standard level.</p>
<p>Therefore, only students who attend private schools would be able to realize their full potential, restricting the pool far more than simply happening to live in an area with good public schools. In other words, an oligarchy.
I don’t have a problem with setting a high bar for basic competence and giving schools the funds and personnel they need to achieve that level. But that isn’t the same thing as equality.
Crossapply my above points. Your example is invalid because we are talking about schools, not children. The school remained “great” and inequal with regards to its peers and their relative educational environments, which is exactly why its students did well.</p>
<p>Have you read The Tipping Point? I’m wondering if this may be one of those things, where the the “low achievers” benefit up to a point, but then after that, there are so many “low achievers,” that it lowers the standard and affects the high achievers. That’s what I’m wondering.</p>
<p>^No, I haven’t. Elaborate upon that…</p>
<p>^^^Ugh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s right. </p>
<p>But I’m not talking about nationalized standards (I hate NCLB) or a loss of local control. I guess what I’m talking about is equal (equitable, perhaps) funding, but the people controlling the money can use it how the please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Instead of relocating, make the schools better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So we shouldn’t try?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why isn’t it feasible? Or as you say “necessary?” If they deserve better, why wouldn’t we try to give it to them? You seem to advocate giving up and just letting things be–you are the one who is supporting this so-called oligarchy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This logic does NOT check out. BS. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t you see the problems this would cause…?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, if it works in one school, it can perhaps (PERHAPS) be generalized. </p>
<p>So you talk about how what I would create is an oligarchy, but that system is already in place and one you support…</p>
<p>
At this point, we’re done. There’s no need to worry about anything else you say because you do not really advocate for equality of education. Let’s look at a few things:</p>
<p>The “people controlling the money” in public schools will be government employees, analogous to the government as an acting party. If we were talking about government ensuring equality, that would require the government to treat all people in the same fashion. You just said that they wouldn’t actually need to do that.</p>
<p>Contrast this with human rights. No one would advocate for equal funding but different implementations of human rights across segments of the population precisely because we view human rights as inalienably equal among all persons.</p>
<p>^Hm…The reason I can’t say treat everyone the exact same is because I don’t believe education is one-size-fits-all. But I don’t understand why this makes it “done.” You don’t seem to support equal (or equitable) funding for all schools, while I do. It’s impossible obviously to be equal, because how are you going to make sure each and every math teacher is equal? You can’t really. I know that. But equal funding is something that can be controlled and government CAN be a part of ensuring that schools aren’t below standards simply due to money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m not advocating that everyone takes the same courses at the same time or something like that, but I am arguing for funding to be equal and to not have some schools be deprived when there are ways to fix that. </p>
<p>You are simplifying the situation.</p>