Do socialist programs like public schooling teach entitlement?

[Beavah]

Yah, figured at least someone would want to respond to my statement in da parent thread. Figured I'd spin this off to prevent da hijack in advance.

 

The quote was:

 

In some ways, I think socialist programs like public schooling do teach entitlement to both kids and parents.

 

Beavah

 

[sheldonsmom]

Beaveh,

In some ways, you are quite correct. Education is not a constitutional right and it is not the job of the FEDERAL government to provide for the education of my children. Until really the last century, schools were paid for by the parents of the children taught. Some large cities ran the schools but in rural areas, a school would be run by the parents of the children who would hire a teacher and build a building, etc.

We homeschool our children. I still pay taxes for the public schools but do not access the "education" they provide. My children know how much their books/supplies cost, what the standardized tests are, and are taught to think for themselves.

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, While I tend to agree with the statement, I wonder if your reasoning is the same. So...please explain your reasoning?

[Bando]

Yeesh. Public Schools are now considered "socialist?"

 

I don't even know where to start with that.

[evmori]

I think entitlement is taught at home not school.

[packsaddle]

Ed, I can partly see your point. Public schools could be viewed as enabling or providing the 'example(s)' for the lessons. BUT, for example, when child and parent(s) are told by the school officials that they are 'entitled' to free breakfast and lunch, when they are told that they are 'entitled' to free access to books and other learning resources, this is a lesson to both student AND family that they are 'entitled' to something provided by the government. It is a very short step from this to their 'expectation' of the services and goods for 'free' as part of 'their' entitlement.

 

Bando, public schools are 'owned' by the government. They are staffed by government employees. Citizens must conform to government regulations in order to attend. The costs are borne by the entire tax-paying population, not just those who 'use' the schools. Is this concept clearer now? What is it about public schools that you think contradicts the 'socialist' claim? Please keep in mind that I strongly support public education and that the schools in my area are outstanding by most measures.

[Eagledad]

>>BUT, for example, when child and parent(s) are told by the school officials that they are 'entitled' to free breakfast and lunch, when they are told that they are 'entitled' to free access to books and other learning resources, this is a lesson to both student AND family that they are 'entitled' to something provided by the government. It is a very short step from this to their 'expectation' of the services and goods for 'free' as part of 'their' entitlement.

[Basementdweller]

Since when is Socialism a bad thing?????

 

 

Isn't that what one of the Woodbadge games is advocating???? Make sure everyone is taken care of in an equal and fair manner.

 

Leaving the woodbadge course looking around the parking lot there were a lot of vehicles that cost more than my house. Just sayin that's all.

 

Socialism is more in line with the Scout oath and law than Capitalism.

 

 

 

Let the attacks and debate begin.

[perdidochas]

Most state constitutions make free public education a right in the state (or the providing of education a responsibility of the state). Feds should stay out.

 

That said, a certain amount of socialism is needed to keep a country running smoothly. The military, the police, fire departments and libraries are all examples of socialism, but I wouldn't want to get rid of them. Education is no different.

[Beavah]

Yah, Bando, as packsaddle describes, that's what socialism is, eh? When da government owns the means of production, taxes all da population to deliver the product to some of 'em, and determines the nature of the product rather than letting the consumer decide. And like all socialist programs, da quality is mediocre and da product is a one-size-fits-all thing. Remember da 1970s Wendys commercials? No choice. Yah, as packsaddle describes, it's better in areas where people are more politically connected, of course, worse in others, but overall mediocre.

 

Da biggest socialist programs in da U.S. are public schooling, Medicare, and Social Security. Da new complicated mess of a health care law doesn't come close. The latter two only corrupt da old folks, as we consistently vote to maintain our entitlement at da ever-increasing expense of the young and da country.

 

But public schooling teaches the young that they're entitled to other peoples resources even if they don't study, bully others, etc. Even if yeh get expelled you're still entitled to a free public education at an even more expensive "alternative" school. And it teaches da parents that they are entitled to free day care so that they can go work, and that it's someone else's job to teach their kids everything from arithmetic to how to play well with others. Yeh should see da lawsuits that get filed against schools on a daily basis demanding everything from accommodation to a guaranteed spot on da varsity. .

 

Most importantly, when I talk to kids, even scouts, they are rarely grateful for their public education, eh? They and their parents really do see it as an entitlement. Unique among our socialist programs, public schooling corrupts da attitudes of the young.

 

Had a friend once say that kids should be provided with a free public education ... once. If yeh fail da first time, the do-over is on your own dime. It's a nice sentiment. Would never work as a policy, of course, because some kids come from family backgrounds that don't prepare 'em for success in school, and because it would give districts an incentive to fail people to make more money.

 

All that's before getting into da staff entitlements like what Eagledad describes.

 

Beavah

[Lisabob]

It is true that a lot of folks are not especially "grateful" for their public schooling. I teach a lot of college students who, upon entering college, discover the long-term impact of the severe deficiencies in the education that their public schools offered to them. In many cases, these are students who appeared to have been successful within the confines of their public schools, only to learn that the benchmarks were so intolerably low that they are, none the less, totally unprepared to compete in the real world.

 

On the other hand, I have a sizable chunk of students who do not fully understand what a good (free) public education they received, until they are seated next to kids from school districts that failed to deliver.

 

And of course, home schooling and private schooling offer some different avenues. For most of us though, if you can read, write, do basic math, and function effectively in the larger world, you likely have some dedicated public school teachers in your past to thank for some part of it.

 

Maybe we should consider what our society might look like if free (and effective) public schooling did not exist as a "right."

 

Maybe employers (and co-workers) should consider what the cost of doing business would be, if you could not rely on the majority of people in the workforce and in the consumer base having had a solid, basic, education. In fact I also hear a lot of complaints about how employers feel the school system isn't adequately preparing people for the realities of today's work force - in other words, those darned employers feel "entitled" too.

 

Many state constitutions identify access to free k-12 schooling as a right. A few even try in various ways to mandate that it be of good quality (novel concept). There's a good reason why states seem to believe that public schooling is a good idea, even though in these times it is ever-popular for state politicians to dump on the schools for every conceivable social and budget problem, and to gleefully cut to the bone (and beyond) the school budget, all while expecting more and more out of the schooling system.

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Basementdweller, my view is that it's structure is closer to Soviet or Chinese communism than socialism. Most scouters seem to disagree.

 

Lisa, with regard to quality, I see this as something that government can only accomplish in a ham-handed, often inadequate way...coming from the direction of government. To really get schools to be high quality requires that the demand come from the community, with or without the government - and with community investment to back up their demands. Moreover, as I've written before, the investment is not merely $$$ but also time, participation, interest by parents and community leaders, AND, yes, debate with school and government leaders if needed.

In this model, if the families and community are invested well, the school becomes an extension of the 'home-schooling' idea - with education starting as an ethic taught first in the home and extended to the community, using the schools as tools to extend the educational opportunities for the families. In this way the school becomes an integral part of the family as well as the community and helps link the families to the community through the shared educational process.

At least that's how it works here. The local private schools are not doing very well (except for Montessori) - some have closed and some are struggling with declining enrollments. Home-schooling is rare. But the students at the public schools are doing quite well, well-prepared for college or other directions in life. Not all families take advantage of these opportunities but the ones who do demand it and take advantage of it make those opportunities available for everyone. The entire community benefits along with the individual students and their families.

[JoeBob]

Two more embers for the fire:

 

1- Education before the government takeover was better than now. As evidenced by the grammar and the eloquence of letters written by lowly privates during the War of Northern Agression, those little one-room school houses could do a pretty good job.

 

2- There is no longer an immediate penalty for not having an education. You will be fed and housed by (socialistic) welfare or charity unless you choose to be homeless. You need to be educated in order to increase your earnings if you work. If you choose to not work, why bother to be educated?

[perdidochas]

Joebob:

 

1) But the percentage of people who could not read/write at all was much higher. Yes, those who could write could write well, but think of all the people that were not taught at all.

 

2) True

[packsaddle]

Did those lowly privates split their infinitives?