🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan13.021201.18514@mixcom.com> daniel.offutt <daniel.offutt@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:
>voucher system.  But there is no reason to belive that.  The worst
>schools in a competitive system would be better than the worst schools
>available now, under the public school monopoly.

Dan, can you provide PROOF for this statement?
(and answer this: is NO school better than a BAD school?)

>First, the literacy rate in the United States, prior to the introduction
>of the public school system, was higher than it is today.  Second, no

Please provide PROOF of this.  As my foggy memory kicks in, Thomas
Jefferson (great man, IMOSBOT) suggested the first govenment
sponsored school.  And given the timeframe of Thomas Jefferson's 
life, I also remember the %age of educated vs non-educated people
was rather low.  Now if you can prove otherwise, feel free to do so,


>I'm all for parental involvement, but I cannot accept the assumption implicit
>in your argument that the lack of involvement of parents of public school
>students derives from the attitude of the parents. 

What would it take you to convince you?
What data would have to be provided for you to re-think that, just perhaps,
the parents of America want a 'nice, simple, low-cost (time and $$) solution'
to a very complex problem.

> It is possible that they
>are not *permitted* by the public school system to be involved in the way
>that parents in the private and parochial schools are permitted to become
>involved. 

Or, gosh, I work 9-5 and when I get home/on the weekends I don't
want to spend any time WORKING, or calling up/meeting the people who
run the schools....no, watching the Super Bowl is more important.  

> One way to enable parents of children to become involved is to
>empower them with the choice of which public school their children will 
>attend.  Introducing competition to defeat the public school monopoly is
>a large part of what is needed.

And once you 'pick' the school, your work is done.  Lazy,lazy, lazy.

>I haven't seen the facts, but this seems pretty much in accord with common
>sense.  The problem is that it costs somebody money to do this, while school
>choice costs neither parents, nor taxpayers anything, and can be expected
>to reduce costs.

Ahh, we get to the heart of it!  Not only do 'we' not want to have to 
take time to get involved in the education of the child, but we also
don't want to spend any additional money to make things better.

And I suppose we want the schools to act as baby-sitters too?

(not that throwing money at the problem will solve things either.
 I find it interesting no one has commented on the idea that perhaps
 the present MODEL for education is wrong, and perhaps some of the new
 tools (aka computers) should be exploited.  Ideas?)


(I also find it interesting no one has asked the following "Is the 
statement "Schools today are WORSE than yesterday"" revisionist 
history?  How many of the 'problems' of the schools are just that?!?)

-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.