Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope you read my post above. A government mandate makes it a legal fact that these courses are part of the curriculum. In my opinion, this is wrong. This is a family obligation. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The government cannot convince me that something is RIGHT just because it is LEGAL.
Education is not just readin', writin', 'rithmetic.
That is a very old-fashioned view of what it means to be educated. That was what was taught back in colonial times, but eventually, other subjects were added because to be educated included the arts, music, physical education, etc.
Music is associated with mathematics, patterns, and memory function. Art stimulates a part of the brain that has been linked to writing proficiency. Music and art programs do add to our children's academic progress and should be a regular part of their school curriculum.
Education is not just readin', writin', 'rithmetic.
That is a very old-fashioned view of what it means to be educated. That was what was taught back in colonial times, but eventually, other subjects were added because to be educated included the arts, music, physical education, etc.
Well, I didn't say that arts, music, PE, foreign languages, technical classes, etc aren't important or complementary to education. Far from it. I just think that parents should pay for it, not the taxpayer. Love Edutopia, by the way.
Well, I didn't say that arts, music, PE, foreign languages, technical classes, etc aren't important or complementary to education. Far from it. I just think that parents should pay for it, not the taxpayer. Love Edutopia, by the way.
And for children who have no parents, let's bring back the workhouses. These children need to start earning their keep. How dare they think that they deserve the same kind of education as children who had the sense to be born to well-off families!
And for children who have no parents, let's bring back the workhouses. These children need to start earning their keep. How dare they think that they deserve the same kind of education as children who had the sense to be born to well-off families!
ALL our children are going to be in workhouses if the tax burden is not lightened from the middle class.
ALL our children are going to be in workhouses if the tax burden is not lightened from the middle class.
Yes, it's all right for other people's children, as long as it's not your own. That's what makes a country strong--having an uneducated, illiterate, underemployed proletariat while ensuring that middle class children are guaranteed a much better standard of living all around so that they can maximize their potential and be upwardly mobile.
Yes, it's all right for other people's children, as long as it's not your own. That's what makes a country strong--having an uneducated, illiterate, underemployed proletariat while ensuring that middle class children are guaranteed a much better standard of living all around so that they can maximize their potential and be upwardly mobile.
Wow. The US has been the most prosperous country in the world exactly because we have had a strong middle class, and there exists the possibility of upward mobility, especially from the poorer lower classes to the more wealthy middle class. By destroying the middle class through over taxation, we are becoming a country of very poor, and very rich- and the very rich are able to shelter their money (which comes from investment income rather than wages, usually). So.....who's going to pay for public education then?
They may be defined by government, and I accept that, as I pay my boatload of taxes promptly and completely. HOWEVER....I disagree that they are part of the basic curriculum. I believe that I am still entitled to disagree with what our government decides?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3
I hope you read my post above. A government mandate makes it a legal fact that these courses are part of the curriculum. In my opinion, this is wrong. This is a family obligation. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The government cannot convince me that something is RIGHT just because it is LEGAL.
Well my opinion is that you haven't a clue about what constitutes a total education, which is great than just math, science and English.
It takes much more than that to build a total human being.
Further, your opinion is flat wrong as is evidenced that fine arts courses are indeed part of the curriculum.
Well, I hope those textbooks don't cost even a fraction as much as college textbooks do, because there would be a hell of a lot of kids without books. So, no, unless the book is damaged.
On average the cost is between 50-75% of the cost of the average new to used college textbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Free education is free education. When any part of it has to be paid for, then it is not free anymore, and there is then no difference between the USA and Congo.
Tell the State of Indiana that then. They require a textbook fee (the one and only year we were there with a kiddo in school, it cost us $120 for the fee for a 1st grader! )
Apparently, there are 3 states that charge textbook fees for public school students, and they range from $100-400! Hell, my books from last fall's semester didn't even cost $400, and I got to keep the books; this fee is just a rental!
I disagree with a textbook rental fee for public school.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.