homeschooling

[Virgil]

Wow :-)
Not a communist, but just pointing out that in the U.S. we have for some time sought an egalitarian society, and have a concern for the education of all children in the society. You must be a feudalist ;-) (j/k)

The public eduaction system in the US is currently egalitarian. I know of no one who is denied a public education. In fact it's the law that you must send your kids to school until they are sixteen.

Vouchers for everyone including the poor would not make it non-egalitarian.

And I dispute whether we have sought an egalitarian society. Thank God we have not. That's not feudalism. That's free market capitalism that occured during the enlightment and which has led to the most prosperity in the history of mankind. It's socialist who are really the feudalists.

[OrphanPip]

"Capitalism" and "socialism" make wonderful buzz words in arguments, but I'd rather focus on issues at hand rather than determining what ideological umbrella an opinion falls under.

There are numerous reasons why investing in quality public education is good. Reform Liberals will argue that children have a right to equal opportunity and equal education, socialist will argue that it is necessary to create an egalitarian society. However, just from a practical viewpoint, no nation benefits from allowing talented individuals, i.e. children with real potential, to slip through the cracks and not achieve their utmost. Moreover, an educated population is a necessity in today's international economy. Funding public schools seems equivalent to funding the military on some level, it is necessary to make your nation a serious contender on the international stage.

I don't doubt this is the reason behind China's heavy investment in public education, more so than its supposed communist ideals.

[billl]

The public eduaction system in the US is currently egalitarian. I know of no one who is denied a public education. In fact it's the law that you must send your kids to school until they are sixteen.

Vouchers for everyone including the poor would not make it non-egalitarian.

I agree with this, as long as the voucher is sufficient to ensure a good education for all (I think you mistook my earlier post about this). I've just read on Wikipedia that in Milwaukee, the voucher system is more expensive that the non-voucher approach. And it seems that, in the U.S., vouchers are mostly seen as a way to inject accountability and improve the performance of schools in underperforming school systems. Sounds good to me.

And I dispute whether we have sought an egalitarian society. Thank God we have not. That's not feudalism. That's free market capitalism that occured during the enlightment and which has led to the most prosperity in the history of mankind. It's socialist who are really the feudalists.

I am pretty sure I know what you are saying here--and, again, I'm not saying we can't have people with different levels of success, etc. But I think Americans also believe in equality of opportunity--perhaps not in the strictest sense at all times, but in the workplace (ideally), between races, and for most of us, between children. Perhaps not completely equal all the time, of course, but I think public schooling was a good idea, and that it had broad support where it sprang up in U.S. history.

The feudalism joke was about the radical position that things would be best if, in a society of both rich and poor, people just pay for their own child's education. Anyhow, not a communist! Has the U.S. been communist these past decades?

[Virgil]

Ok, we probably agree most of the way Bill. I am for equal opportunity. I believe in a solid school system for everyone, especially for the lower economic people. Frankly one can argue now that the poorer people who are stuck in rotten school districts have no means of changing their situation. That's because all free choice has been taken away from them. That's not freedom. And a student who is placed in a classroom with a bad teacher has practically no way of changing that situation. The customer has no rights in the current system.

[billl]

Yeah, I think it can be a thorny problem, though, here and there, trying to asses responsibility for outcomes, esp. without context. Seems like a tough job, that's for sure.

[Dave Scotese]

However, just from a practical viewpoint, no nation benefits from allowing talented individuals, i.e. children with real potential, to slip through the cracks and not achieve their utmost.

I do not understand this - the bolded part. I mean, it sort of makes sense, but like this: "allowing the cat to muddy itself and fall in the water." or "allowing the strongest people to be crushed by the loads they decide to carry."

These things don't happen.

Of course, you can push a cat into a muddy puddle, or pile rocks into the box that a strong person carries to crush him, and I think that might be why it seems to make some sense. I am with Virgil in the quest for freedom, and I feel school takes freedom away. Perhaps my faith in the human organism is misplaced, but I have attempted to protect my children from the impositions of school, and they are all developing quite nicely and continue to enjoy learning things on their own or with some help when they ask.

Perhaps the data I used to make the claim about literacy in early America is bad, and perhaps my claim is wrong, but perhaps it isn't. In either case, I see compulsory school as mostly a drag on the intellect and creative powers of youth, and the potential of non-compulsory schools to be wings.

There's another thing Billl mentioned:

Seems like a tough job, that's for sure.

The insinuation is that there is a job to be done (and I agree). The problem is that the responsibility to do that job is perceived to lie with the system and not the individual. Of course it lies with the individual and not the system. If (and because) the system takes that responsibility (away), the system becomes a crutch for the individual, and every effort "to asses responsibility for outcomes" or provide a quality education, or whatever, seems like the right thing to do, when in fact, the more technologically advanced and effective the crutch, the faster the leg goes lame. There's an age - 2nd or 3rd grade - when kids tend to stop being curious and bugging the crap out of everyone with questions. To me, that is the onset of atrophy, and the leg just gets weaker after that.

Of course very well educated kids are great at what they are taught, but what was their passion, and has it been squashed? What greatness and love for life do they lose when we control the direction of their learning toward academics?

[stlukesguild]

"...allowing talented individuals, i.e. children with real potential, to slip through the cracks and not achieve their utmost."

I do not understand this - the bolded part. I mean, it sort of makes sense, but like this: "allowing the cat to muddy itself and fall in the water." or "allowing the strongest people to be crushed by the loads they decide to carry."

These things don't happen.

Of course, you can push a cat into a muddy puddle, or pile rocks into the box that a strong person carries to crush him, and I think that might be why it seems to make some sense. I am with Virgil in the quest for freedom, and I feel school takes freedom away. Perhaps my faith in the human organism is misplaced, but I have attempted to protect my children from the impositions of school, and they are all developing quite nicely and continue to enjoy learning things on their own or with some help when they ask.

Perhaps the data I used to make the claim about literacy in early America is bad, and perhaps my claim is wrong, but perhaps it isn't. In either case, I see compulsory school as mostly a drag on the intellect and creative powers of youth, and the potential of non-compulsory schools to be wings.

There's another thing Billl mentioned:
Quote:
Seems like a tough job, that's for sure.
The insinuation is that there is a job to be done (and I agree). The problem is that the responsibility to do that job is perceived to lie with the system and not the individual. Of course it lies with the individual and not the system. If (and because) the system takes that responsibility (away), the system becomes a crutch for the individual, and every effort "to asses responsibility for outcomes" or provide a quality education, or whatever, seems like the right thing to do, when in fact, the more technologically advanced and effective the crutch, the faster the leg goes lame. There's an age - 2nd or 3rd grade - when kids tend to stop being curious and bugging the crap out of everyone with questions. To me, that is the onset of atrophy, and the leg just gets weaker after that.

Of course very well educated kids are great at what they are taught, but what was their passion, and has it been squashed? What greatness and love for life do they lose when we control the direction of their learning toward academics?

Somebody's been reading far too much Rousseau... or one of his followers... and has very little idea of reality. Individuals do not fall through the cracks? Oh... yeah... right. Nietzsche, right? "That which does not kill me only serves to make me stronger." Thus if the child was truly strong (and worth saving) he or she would rise to the top... whatever his of her circumstances. This is the continual argument of far-Right reactionaries. If Obama could do it... then any can. The reality is that not everyone has the exceptional drive and/or intelligence (and often the family support system) that allows them to rise above their circumstances.

Every year I watch as the 8th graders move on to high-school and I look at any number of the brightest among these and I wonder which ones will make it... which ones will be strong enough to survive in this tough urban school district... and I realize that any number of these students will drop out... and the great majority of them will never go on to college... never achieve their full potential... never achieve what they might have achieved... what would be nearly taken for granted... if they were the students of wealthier parents living in the prosperous suburbs with access to well funded schools.

Challenging a fair, free, and equitable education for all on the concept of freedom is a dated fantasy at best... (Oh yeah... no school. It's just a crutch... Instead the child will learn by osmosis... why that worked wonders a 100 years ago and more when almost no one... except the children of the wealthy... attended school. The reality is that this is selfish and hypocritical and worst. Who decides that a child need not attend school? The parent? Are we to give them that right to so stunt a child's growth and so limit his or her possibilities? Certainly, I have nothing against home-schooling... as long as the parent is qualified and meets minimal requirements so that the child may succeed. Or the child? Are we now assuming that children have the capability to decide not only what is best for themselves and their future, but also that of the nation as a whole? School squashes children's passion for learning? That's just latent hippie nonsense. Yes, some children are more successful within the school environment than others and it is for this reason that educators continue to push toward teaching to a variety of learning styles as opposed to the old "one size fits all" methods passed on from industry to education. Home schooling a child, however, simply replaces the outside professional teacher with the parent as teacher... the child is still being schooled... and if the parent is to succeed he or she will certainly impose limitations and expectations.

As Orphan Pip suggested, the value of education to the nation has nothing to do with Egalitarianism or promoting some social ideal, but rather it has everything to do with the fact that an educated population is a necessity in today's world if a nation is to compete on the international scale now that we are no longer living in an Agrarian or Industrial era. Undoubtedly there are certain social ideals connected with this, such as the belief, that one would hope is shared by all, that every child is deserving of minimal standard of education fitting of the demands of the time and the wealth of the nation as a whole. What the individual does with his or her education... as a child... and as an adult... is not something that can be mandated... and here is where free choice enters in.

I have repeatedly sparred with Virgil on the issue of public education. I agree with his suggestion that charter schools may offer an alternative to those students trapped in the worst schools. Many public schools are beginning to establish their own charter schools. The problem remains that these charter schools... just like the private schools or parochial schools... succeed for the very reason that they are able to "cherry pick" students. Students who are more difficult to teach, whether this be as a result of behavioral issues, lack of parental support, emotional, cognitive, or physical "handicaps", etc... may be refused. These schools are also able to mandate parental involvement. Parents sign off that they understand their responsibilities with regard to their child's behavior and may be expected to sit with their child in class or in detention if necessary. Failure to meet expectations on the part of the parent or child may result in expulsion. These are not options open to the public schools who must make a concerted effort to teach every child... no matter how disruptive... no matter how emotionally disturbed... no matter how violent... no matter how far behind he or she is academically... no matter how un-supportive his of her parents are.

The reality is that the public schools which are doing the "worst" according to test scores have simply been set up for failure. They are forced to teach a majority of the most disruptive students as well as most of the students with special needs and most of the students who have fallen far behind academically. In most cases, they are expected to do this with one arm tied behind their back, as it were: with inadequate funding, inadequate staffing, inadequate materials, supplies, books, and access to technology. The problem with charter schools and vouchers is that they have only made this divide worse and no one has addressed the issue. What we have seen here, in the heartland of the charter school experiment, is that shady business operators jump into the charter school business making inflated promises to the parents in poor and poverty-ridden neighborhoods... and then they take the money and run. Their scores are worse than the public schools, and they have a habit of expelling students after January when the state has finished with its accounting and they have got their money. And where do these children go? Back to the public schools, which must educate them without any added money to their budget.

[Virgil]

I have repeatedly sparred with Virgil on the issue of public education. I agree with his suggestion that charter schools may offer an alternative to those students trapped in the worst schools. Many public schools are beginning to establish their own charter schools. The problem remains that these charter schools... just like the private schools or parochial schools... succeed for the very reason that they are able to "cherry pick" students. Students who are more difficult to teach, whether this be as a result of behavioral issues, lack of parental support, emotional, cognitive, or physical "handicaps", etc... may be refused. These schools are also able to mandate parental involvement. Parents sign off that they understand their responsibilities with regard to their child's behavior and may be expected to sit with their child in class or in detention if necessary. Failure to meet expectations on the part of the parent or child may result in expulsion. These are not options open to the public schools who must make a concerted effort to teach every child... no matter how disruptive... no matter how emotionally disturbed... no matter how violent... no matter how far behind he or she is academically... no matter how un-supportive his of her parents are.

It seems like a never ending discussion. Yes, and for the record let me counter that they have not established specialized schools for those types of needs. Those kids with emotional or home problems need a very different type of learning structure and it's not being provided.

[The Comedian]

As an educator, I hate the idea that students and parents are "customers" more than any other idea out there. I've been a customer. I've been a student. And I've been a teacher. And man, students are not "customers". That's an idea that MBA graduates recently hired to manage something that they know next to nothing about like to use.

So what's the difference between a customer and a student?

A customer gets what he or she wants. A student gets what he or she needs.

My wife is a doctor and the MBAs running her clinic pull this "customer" crap too.

Patients are not customers either. A patient walks into my wife's office. He says he's in pain. He says what he really needs is a prescription for morphine. He says he's got the cash and that he knows that morphine will ll cure his pain lickety-split. If this fellow were a "customer", he'd get what he wanted. "There you go sir!" my wife would say.

This happens all the time to another Doc: He says, "you need to lose weight and exercise -- that will help you feel better and prevent further health problems". Patient says, "okay". Later, patient comes back with a new, related problem. "Have you lost weight or started to exercise?" the Doc asks. "No" says the patient. "It's too hard. I want you to make me feel better". Later, the patient posts a complaint to the MBA in charge that the Doctor isn't helpful and won't help him. Nice. Same goes for education: homework, effort, exertion are all a part of the school experience that that professor/teacher cannot do for the student.

Move this to the "customer" example -- let's say I buy a new car. Only I don't change the oil, filters, and such. And sometimes I put diesel in the tank because it's cheaper than gas. Then the damn car stops working! I take the car back to the dealer and say that he's a crappy salesman and the engineers at the manufacturer don't know what they're doing. They're just rippin' off the customer!

A student comes into my class: "Professor Comedian", he says, "I want an A in this class. I never have to write nor to I plan to ever write. This class is worthless. I just need an A to keep my GPA up so that I can get my financial aid checks commin' in".

If this fellow is a customer, then I say, "No problem Junior. One A, sans learnin' for you!"

I once did a poll in an introductory writing class. I asked them this:

"Which would you rather -- (1) get an "A" in this course under the stipulation that you learn NOTHING at all, or (2) get a "C-" and learn a lot (whatever that means to you). These are your only two choices."

You know which choice was VASTLY more popular? Yep. Choice 1. But that response says a lot of things -- only some of which are pertinent to this rant of mine here.

The truth of the matter is that teachers have to teach the unwilling along with the willing. And that sometimes, students (and I include myself in this number) don't know what they don't know and certainly don't know what they will need later. No one can predict the future. My daughters don't want their boost shots. They tell me that they "won't get sick" and that they'll "wash [their] hands all the time" so that they'll never get sick. They tell the MA/nurse this too. "I don't want a shot!" they yell to them. "I don't like you!" But they get one anyway.

They also don't like spinach and broccoli. They'd rather eat lollipops. But they eat spinach and broccoli because I make them. They're not customers.

Yesterday I was a customer. I bought a new fridge. I said I wanted a black, textured fridge, with no ice/water capabilities. And it needs to fit in a 35" wide space. And that's exactly what I got.

EDIT: And one more thing. I'm not denying that there's a business aspect to both medicine and public education. There is. But it's a hellova leap to say that education IS a business. It's like saying cars have tires. True. So tires ARE cars! And, as a consequence, we should treat cars exactly like tires.

[stlukesguild]

...in the US, the public education system has been abused toward indoctrinating children into a misplaced faith in government so much that the "gap in class difference" is thus bridged by making sure we poke everyone's left eye out, instead of only the poor kids' left eyes; public school does kids more harm than good. Of course, I'm comparing it to colonial America, where there was no compulsory schooling and the literacy rate was higher than it is now.

This is just patent misinformation...


Misinformation, indeed. The sources sited in support of this are clearly biased against public education and employ statistics in a misleading manner that is essentially blatant falsehood. Literacy has never been a fixed stable concept. In the distant past, literacy meant the capacity to speak and sing, to use spoken language eloquently for public purposes. As recently as 100 years ago in the United States, the ability to sign one's own name on a land deed or bank check was the socially accepted mark of literacy. Merely being able to mark an "X" on a deed at times made one literate. By this standard a vast majority of the population was considered "literate"... although as one of the sources sited states: "One estimate is that during 1640-1700 the literacy rate for men in Massachusetts and Connecticut was between 89-95%" It is highly unlikely that this percentage was "functionally literate" by today's standards (The person can read at a minimum of a 6th or even 8th grade level). The stated fact also conveniently ignores the literacy of women... who were afforded even less access to the least education (But then they didn't need it, right?), to say nothing about Native American, African-Americans, etc... The very idea that a population without access to any form of formal education would be more literate than the same population afforded such an education makes no sense whatsoever and flies in the face of all we know of literacy in the general populace in the past.

However, I can pretend to believe the same illusion that most Americans do, that public school is actually providing a benefit. If a child's parents work very hard so that they have extra money, haven't they earned the right or should we disallow them from providing their kids with advantages simply because that makes it unfair? But I see that I ought also to pretend to believe in another illusion: people who can afford private school are generally "evil capitalists" whose effect on society is negative, rather than positive. Hmm... If I go that far, then I will have to agree that we should hold them back somehow, perhaps by forcing them to put their kids in public school. But that's based on a firm belief in those two illusions.

A strawman, and displaying simplistic black/white thinking.

I wouldn't even afford such ideas the benefit of being seen as "simplistic thinking". It is pure and simple political skewing of the issue. There is no law that disallows parents with the wherewithal from sending their students to the best private or parochial schools that they can afford. On the other hand, the current method of funding public schools on the basis of local property tax places those children born into poorer neighborhoods at a distinct disadvantage. Yes, inequalities exist in life and as adults we must take the responsibility for our own actions... but we are not speaking of adults here, but of children, and the notion that some children should be disallowed access to a a safe, orderly, well-staffed, and well-supplied school that meets certain minimal standards of education in a nation as wealthy as the United States is not only criminal... but short sited, as well. The Agrarian and Industrial ages are long past. If we as a nation are to continue to compete on an international level we cannot afford to throw away large portions of our population.

[stlukesguild]

It seems like a never ending discussion. Yes, and for the record let me counter that they have not established specialized schools for those types of needs. Those kids with emotional or home problems need a very different type of learning structure and it's not being provided.

The problem is that "those kids"... the ones who are not seen as profitable to charter schools and private schools... are far greater in number than you might believe. We are not only speaking of the large number of children with behavioral, cognitive, and physical issues, but also of children living in neighborhoods that would be deemed "unprofitable" whether this is due to excessive costs of security or transportation for children living in rural communities that are miles from the nearest town. The private sector is based upon profit and loss. Any child or community that is not deemed profitable will simply be left behind to the public schools which are not based upon that concept, but upon the idea that every child deserves a quality education... but these same public schools struggle to offer this education on ever decreasing budgets.

[stlukesguild]

As an educator, I hate the idea that students and parents are "customers" more than any other idea out there. I've been a customer. I've been a student. And I've been a teacher. And man, students are not "customers". That's an idea that MBA graduates recently hired to manage something that they know next to nothing about like to use.

Indeed. We no longer even have a superintendent, but a CEOs. A good majority of these school administrators have little or no practical experience in education, and approach the schools as a business. Loopholes are found to beat the standardized tests (because the test is everything) rather than offering a full educational experience. Continually disruptive students face minimal consequences because the schools don't wish to possibly lose another "customer". The "best and brightest" students are moved into special schools that can be touted in the press as an example of success, while the most difficult students are left behind and then the same administration berates the teachers and staff of such "failing" schools in spite of the fact that these schools were set up for failure.

The reality is that if I am running a business I have the option to refuse any substandard material from a supplier or to take on any job in which I will be unlikely to make a profit. Public schools are not businesses. They do not have the option to refuse students who are extremely difficult to teach or students whose cognitive abilities will likely damage their test scores. The push toward a profit-based schooling on a national level ignores this reality: that a large number of students will be left behind as "unprofitable" and this is unacceptable.

The same problem has afflicted our colleges and universities in which

So what's the difference between a customer and a student?

A customer gets what he or she wants. A student gets what he or she needs.

My wife is a doctor and the MBAs running her clinic pull this "customer" crap too.

Patients are not customers either. A patient walks into my wife's office. He says he's in pain. He says what he really needs is a prescription for morphine. He says he's got the cash and that he knows that morphine will ll cure his pain lickety-split. If this fellow were a "customer", he'd get what he wanted. "There you go sir!" my wife would say.

This happens all the time to another Doc: He says, "you need to lose weight and exercise -- that will help you feel better and prevent further health problems". Patient says, "okay". Later, patient comes back with a new, related problem. "Have you lost weight or started to exercise?" the Doc asks. "No" says the patient. "It's too hard. I want you to make me feel better". Later, the patient posts a complaint to the MBA in charge that the Doctor isn't helpful and won't help him. Nice. Same goes for education: homework, effort, exertion are all a part of the school experience that that professor/teacher cannot do for the student.

Move this to the "customer" example -- let's say I buy a new car. Only I don't change the oil, filters, and such. And sometimes I put diesel in the tank because it's cheaper than gas. Then the damn car stops working! I take the car back to the dealer and say that he's a crappy salesman and the engineers at the manufacturer don't know what they're doing. They're just rippin' off the customer!

A student comes into my class: "Professor Comedian", he says, "I want an A in this class. I never have to write nor to I plan to ever write. This class is worthless. I just need an A to keep my GPA up so that I can get my financial aid checks commin' in".

If this fellow is a customer, then I say, "No problem Junior. One A, sans learnin' for you!"

I once did a poll in an introductory writing class. I asked them this:

"Which would you rather -- (1) get an "A" in this course under the stipulation that you learn NOTHING at all, or (2) get a "C-" and learn a lot (whatever that means to you). These are your only two choices."

You know which choice was VASTLY more popular? Yep. Choice 1. But that response says a lot of things -- only some of which are pertinent to this rant of mine here.

The truth of the matter is that teachers have to teach the unwilling along with the willing. And that sometimes, students (and I include myself in this number) don't know what they don't know and certainly don't know what they will need later. No one can predict the future. My daughters don't want their boost shots. They tell me that they "won't get sick" and that they'll "wash [their] hands all the time" so that they'll never get sick. They tell the MA/nurse this too. "I don't want a shot!" they yell to them. "I don't like you!" But they get one anyway.

They also don't like spinach and broccoli. They'd rather eat lollipops. But they eat spinach and broccoli because I make them. They're not customers.

Yesterday I was a customer. I bought a new fridge. I said I wanted a black, textured fridge, with no ice/water capabilities. And it needs to fit in a 35" wide space. And that's exactly what I got.

EDIT: And one more thing. I'm not denying that there's a business aspect to both medicine and public education. There is. But it's a hellova leap to say that education IS a business. It's like saying cars have tires. True. So tires ARE cars! And, as a consequence, we should treat cars exactly like tires.

[Virgil]

As an educator, I hate the idea that students and parents are "customers" more than any other idea out there. I've been a customer. I've been a student. And I've been a teacher. And man, students are not "customers". That's an idea that MBA graduates recently hired to manage something that they know next to nothing about like to use.

So what's the difference between a customer and a student?

A customer gets what he or she wants. A student gets what he or she needs.

My wife is a doctor and the MBAs running her clinic pull this "customer" crap too.

Patients are not customers either. A patient walks into my wife's office. He says he's in pain. He says what he really needs is a prescription for morphine. He says he's got the cash and that he knows that morphine will ll cure his pain lickety-split. If this fellow were a "customer", he'd get what he wanted. "There you go sir!" my wife would say.

This happens all the time to another Doc: He says, "you need to lose weight and exercise -- that will help you feel better and prevent further health problems". Patient says, "okay". Later, patient comes back with a new, related problem. "Have you lost weight or started to exercise?" the Doc asks. "No" says the patient. "It's too hard. I want you to make me feel better". Later, the patient posts a complaint to the MBA in charge that the Doctor isn't helpful and won't help him. Nice. Same goes for education: homework, effort, exertion are all a part of the school experience that that professor/teacher cannot do for the student.

Move this to the "customer" example -- let's say I buy a new car. Only I don't change the oil, filters, and such. And sometimes I put diesel in the tank because it's cheaper than gas. Then the damn car stops working! I take the car back to the dealer and say that he's a crappy salesman and the engineers at the manufacturer don't know what they're doing. They're just rippin' off the customer!

A student comes into my class: "Professor Comedian", he says, "I want an A in this class. I never have to write nor to I plan to ever write. This class is worthless. I just need an A to keep my GPA up so that I can get my financial aid checks commin' in".

If this fellow is a customer, then I say, "No problem Junior. One A, sans learnin' for you!"

I once did a poll in an introductory writing class. I asked them this:

"Which would you rather -- (1) get an "A" in this course under the stipulation that you learn NOTHING at all, or (2) get a "C-" and learn a lot (whatever that means to you). These are your only two choices."

You know which choice was VASTLY more popular? Yep. Choice 1. But that response says a lot of things -- only some of which are pertinent to this rant of mine here.

The truth of the matter is that teachers have to teach the unwilling along with the willing. And that sometimes, students (and I include myself in this number) don't know what they don't know and certainly don't know what they will need later. No one can predict the future. My daughters don't want their boost shots. They tell me that they "won't get sick" and that they'll "wash [their] hands all the time" so that they'll never get sick. They tell the MA/nurse this too. "I don't want a shot!" they yell to them. "I don't like you!" But they get one anyway.

They also don't like spinach and broccoli. They'd rather eat lollipops. But they eat spinach and broccoli because I make them. They're not customers.

Yesterday I was a customer. I bought a new fridge. I said I wanted a black, textured fridge, with no ice/water capabilities. And it needs to fit in a 35" wide space. And that's exactly what I got.

EDIT: And one more thing. I'm not denying that there's a business aspect to both medicine and public education. There is. But it's a hellova leap to say that education IS a business. It's like saying cars have tires. True. So tires ARE cars! And, as a consequence, we should treat cars exactly like tires.

Oh please. You're analogy is ridiculous, No one is saying that a professional should violate professional ettiquette and standards. But within those standards the customer is king.

If I as an engineer am hired to build a bus station, I don't tell the customer what he really needs is a train station. And if he wants the walls painted blue, I'll have them painted blue.

A parent has no say in where a child can go to a public school or pull his child from a very poor teacher. If a doctor treats you badly, one goes to a different doctor. If a school treats you badly a parent has no options, sucks it up, and suffers.

In New York City it costs over $18,000 a year to send a kid to school for a year, and the results suck. And essentially the only right a parent has is to pull his kid out of school and pay for a private education or homeschool. Who the hell created a fascist enterprise in a free country? Where is the liberty of that parent to get value for his money?

And every damn political year it's always the same damn nonsense about the poor kids need more and more money for a better education. I've yet to see any positive results. And the majority of middle class and lower class parents have no abilty to change the course of their childen's future. That's a failure to support the customer.

It's amazing. Every single teacher - just look at the American teachers here on lit net - they all defend the status quo. All the teachers defend the status quo because they don't want to answer to customer wishes. The status quo sucks. And poor kids are the ones that suffer.

Create voucher programs so that parents can send their kids to the school of their choice. Then the schools will listen to the legitimate customer wishes and be at their beck and call. Not for the parents to be at the beck and call of the education department. That's socialism and socialism fails. And no surprise our education system fails.

Is it a surprise that American universities where there is real choice for the customer are among the best, if not the best, in the world, while our state run lower education systems fail? No that is not a surprise at all!!!!!

[Virgil]

It seems like a never ending discussion. Yes, and for the record let me counter that they have not established specialized schools for those types of needs. Those kids with emotional or home problems need a very different type of learning structure and it's not being provided.

The problem is that "those kids"... the ones who are not seen as profitable to charter schools and private schools... are far greater in number than you might believe. We are not only speaking of the large number of children with behavioral, cognitive, and physical issues, but also of children living in neighborhoods that would be deemed "unprofitable" whether this is due to excessive costs of security or transportation for children living in rural communities that are miles from the nearest town. The private sector is based upon profit and loss. Any child or community that is not deemed profitable will simply be left behind to the public schools which are not based upon that concept, but upon the idea that every child deserves a quality education... but these same public schools struggle to offer this education on ever decreasing budgets.

The charter schools that exist were created against the wishes of the teacher's unions. It was only after great political struggle did the teachers go along wit this, and they went along kicking and screaming.

You don't understand. Disband the entire public school system and create private schools and give the parents a voucher to which school they want to send their kid.

[The Comedian]

Oh please. You're analogy is ridiculous, No one is saying that a professional should violate professional ettiquette and standards. But within those standards the customer is king.

If I as an engineer am hired to build a bus station, I don't tell the customer what he really needs is a train station. And if he wants the walls painted blue, I'll have them painted blue.

A parent has no say in where a child can go to a public school or pull his child from a very poor teacher. If a doctor treats you badly, one goes to a different doctor. If a school treats you badly a parent has no options, sucks it up, and suffers.

In New York City it costs over $18,000 a year to send a kid to school for a year, and the results suck. And essentially the only right a parent has is to pull his kid out of school and pay for a private education or homeschool. Who the hell created a fascist enterprise in a free country? Where is the liberty of that parent to get value for his money?

And every damn political year it's always the same damn nonsense about the poor kids need more and more money for a better education. I've yet to see any positive results. And the majority of middle class and lower class parents have no abilty to change the course of their childen's future. That's a failure to support the customer.

It's amazing. Every single teacher - just look at the American teachers here on lit net - they all defend the status quo. All the teachers defend the status quo because they don't want to answer to customer wishes. The status quo sucks. And poor kids are the ones that suffer.

Create voucher programs so that parents can send their kids to the school of their choice. Then the schools will listen to the legitimate customer wishes and be at their beck and call. Not for the parents to be at the beck and call of the education department. That's socialism and socialism fails. And no surprise our education system fails.

Is it a surprise that American universities where there is real choice for the customer are among the best, if not the best, in the world, while our state run lower education systems fail? No that is not a surprise at all!!!!!

Wow!

I'll back away. . .s-l-o-w-l-y. . . . .