Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

Right to education not US-constitutionally protected


Recommended Posts

instead it's protected by individual state constitutions which usually say something like "SCHOOLS MUST EXIST" and pass their responsibility onto individual districts, which may or may not be able to fund schools adequately based on property values etc. which results in the huge gap in school quality, reflecting the class and income gap that is well known to everyone in the United States.

the lack of protection was used in a Supreme Court case (San Antonio vs. Rodriguez, 1973) when someone tried to say that inequities in school funding are a form of wealth discrimination that worked against everyone functioning as a strong citizen. The opposing argument that the Court upheld was basically "Inequities in food, water, housing are also a form of wealth discrimination but nobody is about to take action regarding that.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/LitigationCon.htm

If you think the right to (a hopefully equal) education should be constitutionally protected here's a petition. Names/addresses/additional comments are not available to the public so do not worry about giving too much information. Note that only students can sign (ages I think 13-24?) because that's what they're going for but most people here are that age anyway :D

http://www.oured.org

If you don't think it should be post why and you'll get banned we can discuss this maturely. xD No really, I signed the petition going by ideals, but I'm not sure if it would have negative effects on some districts/people esp. Native American reservations where the majority of people just want self-determination. And a lot of people are against national standardization but I never heard why, there must be good reasons though.

Also, opinions on the No Child Left Behind act! I don't really see what's wrong with this again (besides that the mentally disabled are held to the same academic standards as other students) but again a lot of people have problems with this so if you do, state yo problem plz

Link to comment

I don't believe in public education, and this is one of the reasons. OF course there are many other reasons I don't believe in public education among them are that it is an extended governmental power that should be checked, it's goal is to graduate students rahter then really TEACH them a high level of understanding, and that because it is "free" and mandatory students don't take it as seriously as they should.

I think what most students forget is that the education they are recieveing BELONGS to them by right. Their parents paid taxs that fund the school, the education, the books, the building belongs to them. This idea should be better transated to students, however even that won't make students want to do better if this education is "free".

That reason leads into the wealth issue, mandatory public education forces students into the school that is closest. If that students is the next Einstine or Robert Heinlein he is going to suffer under mediocore conditions and will not bealbe to reach his full potental. This also creates a class unbalance. Upper classes property value is higher, so their education is better. This idea is only favoring the rich, and is not allowing the less fortunate the tools they need to pull themselves up and make their lives what they want them too be. It is comdeming them to a vicious cycle.

This is a problem, and as a Libertarian the steps to solve the problem are clear. Remove the government from control of the schools and let them into the free market. As opposed to useing money to fund the whole schools you use tax money (which will be reduced) to aid less fortunate families with bright children have access to the education they deserve. By entering schools into the free market you will have students picking a school they truely want to go too, and perhaps even a speciallty school based on what they want to do with the rest of their lives and with classes designed for that goal. You have competition, which means schools competing for students. This will lower costs of expensive private schools like we have today and raise the average teachers saleries. With the raise in saleries you have a much greater base to pull teacher from, the majory of teachers will no longer come from the bottom 10% of college classes.

Link to comment

This is a problem, and as a Libertarian the steps to solve the problem are clear. Remove the government from control of the schools and let them into the free market. As opposed to useing money to fund the whole schools you use tax money (which will be reduced) to aid less fortunate families with bright children have access to the education they deserve. By entering schools into the free market you will have students picking a school they truely want to go too, and perhaps even a speciallty school based on what they want to do with the rest of their lives and with classes designed for that goal. You have competition, which means schools competing for students. This will lower costs of expensive private schools like we have today and raise the average teachers saleries. With the raise in saleries you have a much greater base to pull teacher from, the majory of teachers will no longer come from the bottom 10% of college classes.

Assuming that we are going into your system from the current one the main problem I see is that the choice of whether or not to educate a child is put in the parent's hands. "Gee, well, I could buy some school for my daughter but I'd prefer alcohol. Hey, Julie, would you rather I buy you school or that new whatever you really want. School is dumb, btw". No amount of financial aid could offset this because with children not mandated to go to school, incidence of child labor would increase (even if new libertarian laws did not permit it), so even sending your child to school for free would be "negative value" compared to making him/her work in the back of your retail store, etc.

Link to comment

Assuming that we are going into your system from the current one the main problem I see is that the choice of whether or not to educate a child is put in the parent's hands. "Gee, well, I could buy some school for my daughter but I'd prefer alcohol. Hey, Julie, would you rather I buy you school or that new whatever you really want. School is dumb, btw". No amount of financial aid could offset this because with children not mandated to go to school, incidence of child labor would increase

Well of course they'd be laws that children HAVE to be sent to school for a number of years. Of course in modern times where a degree is required to have a good paying job child labor and school dropout will not be as high as they were in the 1910's or 1920's. Yes, there is a possibility that some children will have to leave school after a certain age, but with limited government aid such cases will be kept to a minimum.

Link to comment

Well of course they'd be laws that children HAVE to be sent to school for a number of years. Of course in modern times where a degree is required to have a good paying job child labor and school dropout will not be as high as they were in the 1910's or 1920's. Yes, there is a possibility that some children will have to leave school after a certain age, but with limited government aid such cases will be kept to a minimum.

:\ Requiring families to pay for school?

Link to comment

:rolleyes: to the "I don't believe in public schools" thing.

But yes...this is obviously just another thing wrong with capitalism. This arguement basically erupted when I created a thread on affirmitive action a while ago. Even if it's not feasible that schools should get totally equal funding, the poor should obviously have a much easier time getting scholarships, tutoring, into colleges ect.

Link to comment

I have to agree with the whole private schools over publics schools thing. The public school system is horrible. It's god awful. It does not prepare you for the future in the slightest. I cruised through highschool, not having to do an ounce of studying and getting by with doing barely any homework and I graduated with over a 3.8 GPA, and I was taking the highest level classes available at my school (My senior year consisted of Physics, AP chemistry II, AP English 12, and Pre-Calc, all of which were a joke except for chemistry, which was actually challenging). Then I got to college and had a big wake up call. At college, they don't spoon feed you everything. They assume that you want to be there and you want to be learning, otherwise why would you be spending your (or your parent's, in my case) hard earned money? As a result, it's expected that you study a large amount of the material on your own, as opposed to being fed everything you need to know day after day after day in highschool. I struggled quite a bit in college up until now, and I partially blame myself for being a lazy asshole. But I still leave a great part of the blame on the public school system for being unable to properly prepare you for what life brings at you.

Link to comment

The more discussions about public school I see, the more I am convinced that my school is perfect.

Maybe I'll rant about it later.

Point is, I see no good reason not to have public school. I mean, it needs not to suck, but the logic of "Public school sucks, let's privatize education," is about the same logic as "My arm is broken, let's amputate it because I don't want to go through the hassle of having a cast, then we'll replace it with a robot arm."

Link to comment

Point is, I see no good reason not to have public school. I mean, it needs not to suck, but the logic of "Public school sucks, let's privatize education," is about the same logic as "My arm is broken, let's amputate it because I don't want to go through the hassle of having a cast, then we'll replace it with a robot arm."

That's true, but at the very least the public school system needs to be reformed. America's public schools are a joke right now compared to other places.

Link to comment

As someone who has spent their entire lives in private education. I can say that going to a school where teachers don't have to worry about pissing off a certain group of people (or just one person) makes the education much better and helps create a much more open-minded view on the world. The whole idea of a Catholic school slanting the teaching to conform to them is totally off base as in my 4 years I've had 3 non-religion teachers I'd consider to be somewhat devout.

Point I'm making is that there are a lot of problems with state-controlled education. The first and foremost being the "can't piss anyone off" education that inevitably comes with it.

Link to comment

What is the purpose of public schools? If it is to keep kids off the street, then it is partially succesful. It stops or controls the immediate problem, but does not alleviate the long term problem. It does nothing to stop the problem after the chldren leave school. If the goal is to educate children, then the schools are successful in the suburbs. For the vast majority of students, those who live in the city, it fails. Proper early education leads to higher education, which leads to productive citizens. This means that once the children leave high school, they are not part of the problem, they are part of the solution. Competetive, challenging schools, with alternative schools for unwilling students can help solve the problem. This puts the power, and the responsibility, in the hands of the children and their parents. If shools are not determined by location, and thus by money, then they may face the prospect of closing down. I believe that the government should help fund this only by assisting those who cannot pay on their own, and by operating the schools only if necessary. The law should state that all people must graduate high school; exceptions will be made for the learning impaired. if the schools are forced to compete, then they will also be forced to educate their students. Educated students will result in higher quality colleges, more college graduates, and more highly educated people in the workforce.

Link to comment

If you think the right to (a hopefully equal) education should be constitutionally protected here's a petition. Names/addresses/additional comments are not available to the public so do not worry about giving too much information. Note that only students can sign (ages I think 13-24?) because that's what they're going for but most people here are that age anyway :D

Nay...

I'll post why later today. ( Just got up. :sleep: )

*PM me if I forget*

Link to comment

But GPS doesn't supply an all too easy way of getting rid of him.

Plus this board would be 70% less hilarious without him.

Anyway, to respond to Arcane's post, yes, I believe that public school needs a serious kick in the ass.

To respond to Darkon, about the not pissing off certain people (I'm assuming you mean parents) that's one thing my school does that is great. They pretty much never talk to my parents unless I want them to. I do let my counselor and parents coorespond about how I'm doing in school, but if I didn't want to, they would have to stop immediately. This is a public school, I might add.

If you want a link to the school's website, it has some information about the school... But it's not great. I wish there were more internet resources for it.

Anyway, I think it's a perfect example of how great public education can be.

Link to comment

The idea of privatizing schools in order to create competition, which I believe is a good idea. But, it doesn’t really do any thing to solve the problem of wealth discrimination … think about this example…

Say there is a decent size town; there are 3 high schools. These schools are competing with each other. School 1 is the best of the 3, so more students will desire to go to school 1, so this will allow school 1 to charge more for its services. Think about it like the current collage system… an Ivy League school can charge significantly more for its services because it is a better school and many more people want to go to it.

So we come back to the issue of wealth discrimination…wouldn’t this system also lead to the rich going to better schools and the poor going to worse ones?

Link to comment

The idea of privatizing schools in order to create competition, which I believe is a good idea. But, it doesn’t really do any thing to solve the problem of wealth discrimination … think about this example…

Say there is a decent size town; there are 3 high schools. These schools are competing with each other. School 1 is the best of the 3, so more students will desire to go to school 1, so this will allow school 1 to charge more for its services. Think about it like the current collage system… an Ivy League school can charge significantly more for its services because it is a better school and many more people want to go to it.

So we come back to the issue of wealth discrimination…wouldn’t this system also lead to the rich going to better schools and the poor going to worse ones?

It might, but school one will want the smartest students. It will want students who can succeed so that it can keep its reputation as long as it gets money, it doesn't care who those students are. You also forget school 2. School 3 may be as bad as current public schools, but school 2 will fill in a seperate niche, and some children will get better education.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...