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.
Would there be a large decrease in population or would it remain the same (just with more uneducated people)?
What would happen if taxes for education were cut and parents of children had to either teach them at home or send them to private school and pay for everything themselves?
Would this lead to a more productive society?
Your question makes the assumption that children are planned. The bulk of children are accidents. So no the population would not decline.
To assume that all children would see comparable interaction with those outside their race, socio-economic status, and/or religious background, without the experience offered by public schools, is also a bit naive.
Many parents already do everything they can to control their children's activities or limit their participation to activities with others of the same race, socio-economic status, or religious background.
What a ridiculous statement.
In this day and age, it's impossible NOT to interact with people from other races, other socio-economic classes, and other religious backgrounds - unless you stay inside your home, with the radio/TV/computer shut off, and you do not read the newspaper or any magazines.
In this day and age, it's impossible NOT to interact with people from other races, other socio-economic classes, and other religious backgrounds - unless you stay inside your home, with the radio/TV/computer shut off, and you do not read the newspaper or any magazines.
Ehh? Who said anything about NO interaction? I said a COMPARABLE interaction.
Watching the television (many do not have TVs), reading magazines, or browsing the web is not the same as learning side-by-side with others of different backgrounds, 8 hours a day, 180 days a year, for 12 years. The latter helps a child grow into a well-rounded, culturally-aware adult while the former may or may not.
Ehh? Who said anything about NO interaction? I said a COMPARABLE interaction.
Watching the television (many do not have TVs), reading magazines, or browsing the web is not the same as learning side-by-side with others of different backgrounds, 8 hours a day, 180 days a year, for 12 years. The latter helps a child grow into a well-rounded, culturally-aware adult while the former may or may not.
Way to miss the point.
If one wishes to prevent their child from the influence of people who are of different races, socio-economic classes, and religious affiliations, then not only can they not allow their children to leave the house, but they can't even allow their children to consume media while locked inside the house.
Of course, your point reveals your underlying presupposition that private schools are open only to white children.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
The beauty of public education is you get a chance to take a child born into a crap home environment and expose them to mainstream ideas and people, otherwise almost no kids growing up poor would move up in economic status as adults. Did you know most small business owners and many millionaires grew up poor?
The latter helps a child grow into a well-rounded, culturally-aware adult while the former may or may not.
The latter can also have many undesirable influences some of which are going to be a matter of opinion. Unless they are raising their kids to be criminal the parents rights to raise their child how they see fit is exclusively their domain making your opinion of what they expose their children too irrelevant.
The beauty of public education is you get a chance to take a child born into a crap home environment and expose them to mainstream ideas and people....
That may be true if the school they are attending is a good school, clearly education is one of the keys to getting kids out of poverty. The issue is school is not the only answer nor is it the dominant answer. For most of these kids until their home environment changes they aren't going anywhere.
The bigger issue as I see it is students in a good home environment forced into accepting poor public education. If you have parent that lives in an area with abysmal public schools that has taken the initiative to make their children's lives better we must give them the tools to do it, that tool is a voucher.
And no, comparing schools to prisons is not a good analogy, in fact, it's a terrible analogy. The logical extension of such is comparing children to prisoners, which is both unconscionable and irrational.
oh my gawd..unconscionable? Give it a break. The comparison is intended to demonstrate that private enterprises have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit, public entities do not. If you give a private school a fixed budget per student to educate kids and the costs exceed what is allocated what is going to happen to the kids? Will the school just say "well it would have been nice to make a profit but it's ok that we won't because we need to educate these kids" -or- will they find a way to transfer the expensive to educate kids out, or cut corners on educating kids.
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.
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.
