Should public education be funded?

[spot]

I made an abortive attempt at this topic last night in, I'm told, the wrong forum, with the wrong title, with a misleading original post and with no hint that I was being either philosophic or political. As if I ever would. Rather than uncivilly distract that thread from its current preoccupations, I'll try again here.

This is a discussion of the philosophical basis for, and political argument related to, the public funding of education.

In the US, Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand (who have I left out that posts here?) education between a specified minimum and maximum age is compulsory.

Some families haven't the means to pay for this compulsory education and our systems currently deal with this by funding the full education costs of all children participating in the state system from taxation.

All families in these countries have the right to educate their children outside of the state system, without state contribution.

The thread is a call for reasoning rather than opinion. Unreasoned opinion is the bane of the television age.

Could society run just as well without compulsory education across this whole age group? Or across all ages? Taxation would drop markedly. Some children would find no access to education at all outside of the compulsory years (which is true now anyway). Where does society's best interest lie, and why? What reason underlies current state funding? What changes if the law imposing compulsory education were abolished? Who would suffer? Who would gain? Where does the advantage of the majority lie? Should we seek the advantage of the majority?

Does the question relate more to social engineering than to education itself?

[georgie girl]

Interesting question ... Hmmmmm

definately relates to social engineering.. but im a marxist at heart and as such v. paranoid (nietzschen soul)

Public education is just that, for the public good and like all public goods is not necessarily an individual good. It has to be funded by taxation because, from a Uk perspective, it is designed as part of the welfare state and is central in breeding new workers and compliance into the social system, it is for this reason that it is funded.. but it doesn't necessarily have to be funded...

yours gg fighting little person syndrome (dogmatic impluses, makes for vgood dictators)

[spot]

I don't much like "breeding new workers and compliance into the social system". I breed, you breed, governments can only encourage us to breed.

I've never found the state school system to be biased toward civics, though I accept that these classes did start on a compulsory basis this decade. I've no idea how informative or propagandist they are.

If you think that state schooling currently exists to socialize children into a lifetime of subservience then I note firstly, they're not being hugely successful now, secondly they've been even bolshier in the past and thirdly they were set up initially for very different and explicit reasons. Is it an unwritten underlying assumption of government that this is what state education is for, or is it published anywhere?

We're discussing state schooling across all the countries in the original post. Is socializing children into a lifetime of subservience the desired end result in the US etc. as well as the UK, or is it just us?

I'm prepared to believe the governments when they say they're trying to socially engineer a fair start for all children regardless of the income of their parents. Without state education, competition would begin at birth. Under the state education system, competition begins at school-leaving.

Is there any reason why it should be that age and no other?

[chonsigirl]

Originally Posted by spot

I don't much like "breeding new workers and compliance into the social system". I breed, you breed, governments can only encourage us to breed.

I've never found the state school system to be biased toward civics, though I accept that these classes did start on a compulsory basis this decade. I've no idea how informative or propagandist they are.

If you think that state schooling currently exists to socialize children into a lifetime of subservience then I note firstly, they're not being hugely successful now, secondly they've been even bolshier in the past and thirdly they were set up initially for very different and explicit reasons. Is it an unwritten underlying assumption of government that this is what state education is for, or is it published anywhere?

We're discussing state schooling across all the countries in the original post. Is socializing children into a lifetime of subservience the desired end result in the US etc. as well as the UK, or is it just us?

I'm prepared to believe the governments when they say they're trying to socially engineer a fair start for all children regardless of the income of their parents. Without state education, competition would begin at birth. Under the state education system, competition begins at school-leaving.

Is there any reason why it should be that age and no other?

There are pros and cons to advancing the age limit of government sponsored schooling.

Pros: It would make it easier for those who want to go to college, to attend. Many students in the U.S. cannot afford college, and must either take out loans, work during their schooling, or work for several years to save up for it. Many choose to pursue college at a later age in their life, giving them a delayed start in their field of choice.

Cons: Taxation rates would go up, but maybe it would equalize the various colleges. They vary from state to state, and the system might become more organized.

It would better prepare a larger number of people for the workforce, with skills that are needed in this technological age, with specialization being a key ingredient of job placement.

[K.Snyder]

Originally Posted by spot

Could society run just as well without compulsory education across this whole age group?

No.

I dropped out of high school because I hated it. I thought it was boring, but the main reason ironically enough, was due to the fact that I had chosen to attend a career center for my junior and senior year only to find out that the courses were practically 8th and 9th grade material. I found them rather dull, and after enrolling into a landscape design course I had found out that all we did throughout the year was actually grounds maintenance for the school. After asking to go back to my original high school they said that I could not, so I decided to drop out, and made an average of about $14 hour.(Greasing racks in which bricks are to be placed in for cross country hauling - absolute grunt work - but I loved it....made alot)

Morale of the story is, I didnt really desire an education at that time being young. Now, however, I would like to enroll in college courses for extended knowledge on building high performance engines. Make it mandatory absolutely - they will thank you when its all said and done, and will regret it upon neglecting their ability to learn as I have.

[georgie girl]

Bear with my quoting technique it is work in progress.. really sorry its horrible i know .. will try harder

PHP Code:

[quote=spot]I dont much like "breeding new workers and compliance into the social system". I breed, you breed, governments can only encourage us to breed.[/quote] 


Originally Posted by spot

Compulsory is hardly encouragement

PHP Code:

I've never found the state school system to be biased toward civics, though I accept that these classes did start on a compulsory basis this decade. I've no idea how informative or propagandist they are. 


We only have to think about the history taught at schools kinda whitewashes whole empire built on slave trade.. me I went to Welsh school therefore had welsh history lessons.. increasingly schools are more informative but propaganda is implicit in system..

PHP Code:

If you think that state schooling currently exists to socialize children into a lifetime of subservience then I note firstly, they're not being hugely successful now, secondly they've been even bolshier in the past and thirdly they were set up initially for very different and explicit reasons. Is it an unwritten underlying assumption of government that this is what state education is for, or is it published anywhere? 


Implicit..
how success is measured is important here, for example we have a flexible labour market children apathetic to education are more likely to accept this, maybe its good for the economy to have different degrees of education, even the most disadvantaged education (huge generalization here, im not saying working class kids get working jobs... i havent)..

subsveriant to whom the state or the market? to me state is the market, societies are definately subserviant to the market... rampant consumerism has to begin somewhere and the market ethos is now a part of how the state provides education

Being bolshier in the past makes it no less relevent to social control issues today

PHP Code:

Were discussing state schooling across all the countries in the original post. Is socializing children into a lifetime of subservience the desired end result in the US etc. as well as the UK, or is it just us? 


Have opinions here but as I know more about UK and generalizations are dodgy at best of time will stick here... at guess though Id say yes.

PHP Code:

I'm prepared to believe the governments when they say they're trying to socially engineer a fair start for all children regardless of the income of their parents. Without state education, competition would begin at birth. Under the state education system, competition begins at school-leaving. 


Engineering a fair start may benefit more from alleviating inequality, poverty.. Uk has extremely high rate of illiteracy how much of that do you think is located in the upper echlons of society.... so I would say competition does begin at birth not at school leaving..

PHP Code:

Is there any reason why it should be that age and no other? 


This shows how cultural and 'state breeding' it is, choice begins here only for those who have it those who are unable (economically or otherwise) to progress further have to leave school, economically viable fodder perhaps?

yours gg Oh God Im off again

[spot]

Originally Posted by chonsigirl

It would better prepare a larger number of people for the workforce, with skills that are needed in this technological age, with specialization being a key ingredient of job placement.

That would be true of state funding of college or university education only if it increased the proportion of children who stayed on to take a course and qualify.

In England the government pays all but a flat rate $5000 a year of university tuition costs (we don't have a "college" concept here as part of tertiary education). Last year in Britain 493,111 students applied for 390,000 places, out of a total population of 800,000 school leavers. I have no idea how that proportion compares with other countries.

If it were true that the tax spent on tertiary education was more than recouped by higher earnings over the lifetime of the graduate, and that the more graduates the higher the earning potential of the population measured on the world market, then the national economy benefits from such taxation costs. I think it's reasonable to assume that the investment does pay on that timescale, to the state as well as to the student.

Is the same true of tax money spent on earlier education? My own opinion is that not demanding compulsory education would tie parents to bringing up those unschooled children during the day, and the loss to the economy of their labor would be greater than the cost of the missing education. Do please criticize that as harshly as you can, especially if it's demonstrably false.

[chonsigirl]

Originally Posted by spot

That would be true of state funding of college or university education only if it increased the proportion of children who stayed on to take a course and qualify.

In England the government pays all but a flat rate $5000 a year of university tuition costs (we don't have a "college" concept here as part of tertiary education). Last year in Britain 493,111 students applied for 390,000 places, out of a total population of 800,000 school leavers. I have no idea how that proportion compares with other countries.

If it were true that the tax spent on tertitary education was more than recoupled by higher earnings over the lifetime of the graduate, and that the more graduates the higher the earning potential of the population meansured on the world market, then the national economy benefits from such taxation costs. I think it's reasonable to assume that the investment does pay on that timescale, to the state as well as to the student.

Is the same true of tax money spent on earlier education? My own opinion is that not demanding compulsory education would tie parents to bringing up those unschooled children during the day, and the loss to the economy of their labor would be greater than the cost of the missing education. Do please criticize that as harshly as you can, especially if it's demonstrably false.

You have the advantage of the government paying for college, there is only the form of grants and scholarships here, and they are difficult to obtain. The numbers of college openings look more equitable there then here also, but I would have to pull up numbers for comparisson. I know for example, my daughter and I split her college expenses, they run $10,000+ per year for a state college. In one year, when she wants to attend graduate studies, they will increase by 50%. We do not opt for loans but pay for it yearly. I want her to have a good start in life.

Tax money spent on early education on an economic analysis would be as you described. Although I do not consider schools as day care centers, and only providing education as a secondary priority. Alas, it is looked upon that way at times. Since rising costs require usually both adults in the household to work for income, the need will increase for more specialized workers, and there should be an increase in college graduates to fill these postions as time progresses.

*off topic*
How did Georgie do that to the quotes?

[K.Snyder]

Originally Posted by spot

My own opinion is that not demanding compulsory education would tie parents to bringing up those unschooled children during the day, and the loss to the economy of their labor would be greater than the cost of the missing education.

I agree, although I think the amount of parents being forced to educate their children would have to be significantly higher than that of the unemployment rate. Having said that, I think the affect of such would vary from region to region. IMO of course.

[spot]

Originally Posted by chonsigirl

*off topic*
How did Georgie do that to the quotes?

*off topic* I could tell you but, believe me, we'd all have to shoot you afterwards.

I'll take Georgie aside at some point and bring her back... different.