Schooling

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:33 pm

May we consider a matter that I consider central to a discussion of the American Way[1], please.

In the US there is the concept of the Public School.

I understand that most American children are educated at these institutions.

I understand that provision of places at these schools is paid for from taxation.

Why is this?

(if anyone wants to inform the thread in terms of the proportion of American children educated at these institutions, or the source of taxation in terms of city, state or federal funding, or the average cost per pupil, I'd be interested in that detail too, but predominantly I'm chasing the question as raised. Other items of fact that would be informative is the legal basis for such payment and attendance, and when it dates back to).

[1] This the the old-fashioned generic sense of the term, not People For the American Way (PFAW) which, as Chonsi points out below, has confused the use of the words within the USA itself.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:52 pm

Here is a link to begin with, Spot. It is a timeline.

I will look up specifics on my state, for a case example.

http://www.cloudnet.com/~edrbsass/educa ... eline.html

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:02 pm

I think it's significant to note that education was never meant to be run by the federal gov't, but by state & local gov'ts. Our Constitution disallows federal meddling in most of our institutions, though that minor detail is largely ignored nowadays.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:04 pm

http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/msde

Maryland Department of Education

http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/budget_d ... Report.pdf

2006 Budget for the State

Page 138-139 have the figures for costs, with a total listed for federal and state funds.

Ghads, that was a big document to look at.....................:p

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:12 pm

Accountable wrote: I think it's significant to note that education was never meant to be run by the federal gov't, but by state & local gov'ts. Our Constitution disallows federal meddling in most of our institutions, though that minor detail is largely ignored nowadays.
I'll agree, with the No Child Left Behind legislation, federal involvement in public schools has increased to tyrannical proportions.

1. Only highly qualified teachers can teach. Well, they should be certified in their areas, or they should continue their education further.

2. But, if you are a highly qualified teacher, teach in a Title I school, you can not change your school, unless another highly qualified teacher replaces you. Sounds good, but for example: my school is Title I, low income, urban setting. Pretty harsh environment in there, and some teachers would like to move out. You can only do that if you get someone to replace, or you get hired by another school district. For this state, there are only 14 districts, along county lines. So, you have to drive far for a better job, or it takes alot of work to move.

3. Funding never goes directly to the students-at my school we did not meet state standards for the second year in a row. My school was punished-and you know how? They cut teacher staff by 8. Kind of backward thinking, if the children need more learning, you need more teachers and smaller classes. Also, they took away one prep period for next year. I will teach 6 clases in 2 subjects. Many teachers are not coming back and getting regular jobs, at higher pay, and better working conditions. That is sad.

So, I will work twice as hard, with less time to prepare, and have larger classes. My disadvantage, because I am credentialed in 3 areas. So, I took the extra classes and exams to teach more subjects and be a useful addition to my school, and I got slammed for it.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:22 pm

It's going good so far, Chonsi, we'll all come together, as the Bishop told the choir, but let me nudge very gently: I understand that provision of places at these schools is paid for from taxation. Why is this?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:30 pm

I feel like I'm being herded, so I'll sit back & watch awhile.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:34 pm

You would have to go through the timeline I provided, link by link, Spot. It began with cities, then states mandating education be provided for free. Then it came under the "umbrella" of the federal government. This is legislation passed at the local, state, and federal level.

http://www.schoolmatters.com/

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:42 pm

I'm not trying to herd, I'm just seeing whether I can focus on the OP here - and truly I'll stretch out to the additional settings too, once we're started. And I really want Acc being jolted into action as well.

For what reason does the US electorate in 2006 allow the education of children to be at the public expense. Why do any funds whatever get committed from government sources at any level - city, state or federal - toward the education of any children at all.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:53 pm

There are cumpulsory laws requiring children attend school until a certain age. This is at the state level. Each state has mandated legislation requiring this, some began this in the late 1880s and by 1900 31 states had laws on the book to require attendance.

The federal government began to intervene when specific court cases came to the Supreme Court. Then when the Judiciary decided a specific case, if a decision required a change in a state or county's education system to be applied, it was, at the federal level.

Example: Brown v Board of Education 1954

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=483

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:04 pm

So there is a liberal tradition of legislating for compulsory schooling, and it's been in place for around a hundred years, and the core compulsory ages have expanded from 7-12 to what it is now (presumably 6-16). There's no constitutional issue that I can see which demands that education should be universal or compulsory, just that provision should be equally available regardless of (especially) race.

So tell me why that liberal tradition continued from last year to this. Why did the legislators not reduce public expenditure by abolishing those laws and removing the financial subsidies per student which are (from Chonsi's references) of the order of $11000 per year per student. Who is supposed to benefit from this enforced education? The child? The nation? Is the provision altruistic or is it a measure of self-interest on the part of society as a whole?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:14 pm

The philosophy behind contains many issues.

Alturism, it most definitely is. It may not be written in the Constitution, but it would rank up there with the First Amendment as far as freedoms go.

The child-of course. If you cannot read or write, or do math, how can you function in an urban centered world?

*I will not go into tangets about exceptions to this at this time, like tribal schools and bilingual education*

Self-interest-a child does not know those things at their age, that is why they need to be taught to use their mind. Unless parents are dedicated to home schooling as an alternative, or private institutions, then public education is available to help a child learn.

Society-yes, it is American society that considers this a necessary component of a child's upbringing. That they be educated.

Liberal-not at all. It is sound principle.

Please define your definition of liberal in your first sentence.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:23 pm

Liberal in the following sense. Society has a need for laborers as well as academics. Many families can afford to put their children through school. The liberal stance is to refuse the suggestion that the poor should supply the next generation's illiterate laborers while the rich children inherit the managerial posts. The liberal position is to level the starting point not (as the previous picture painted) at birth but at school-leaving.

If the starting point were set at birth, some children would be taught very little and start work at an earlier age than is customary today. Some would be creamed into a scholarship system as currently happens, on the basis of application by the needy at an age of, say, five. Some could afford schooling all the way to 16 (as happens now in Private Schools). None of this involves any level of state provision.

The liberal system is as we now know it, and has historical roots. The result is (ideally) that all school-leavers have had an equal opportunity at the start of their lives to acquire the learning necessary to their future financial well-being.

If all school funding were withdrawn and taxes correspondingly lowered, would society suffer?

If it wouldn't, what legitimacy is there in the current public funding?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:32 pm

spot wrote: Liberal in the following sense. Society has a need for laborers as well as academics. Many families can afford to put their children through school. The liberal stance is to refuse the suggestion that the poor should supply the next generation's illiterate laborers while the rich children inherit the managerial posts. The liberal position is to level the starting point not (as the previous picture painted) at birth but at school-leaving.

If the starting point were set at birth, some children would be taught very little and start work at an earlier age than is customary today. Some would be creamed into a scholarship system as currently happens, on the basis of application by the needy at an age of, say, five. Some could afford schooling all the way to 16 (as happens now in Private Schools). None of this involves any level of state provision.

The liberal system is as we now know it, and has historical roots. The result is (ideally) that all school-leavers have had an equal opportunity at the start of their lives to acquire the learning necessary to their future financial well-being.

If all school funding were withdrawn and taxes correspondingly lowered, would society suffer?

If it wouldn't, what legitimacy is there in the current public funding?

I understand the difference between the school system there and here. I do not agree with the system there, where they are tested at specific grade levels to take classes towards college level and non-college level education. It cuts off the opportunity level for many students to expand their educational experience, and eventual life's goals.

If school funding were lowered, society would suffer. So your ending question doesn't need an answer.

Well, I am not going to continue if you keep suggesting it is a LIBERAL SYSTEM, that is your definition, not mine. We are talking about education, not politics. I suggest you read some of the links I provided, since you have not responded to them at all. I will check on this thread in the morning, have a good evening Spot.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:41 pm

chonsigirl wrote: I understand the difference between the school system there and here. I do not agree with the system there, where they are tested at specific grade levels to take classes towards college level and non-college level education. It cuts off the opportunity level for many students to expand their educational experience, and eventual life's goals.

If school funding were lowered, society would suffer. So your ending question doesn't need an answer.

Well, I am not going to continue if you keep suggesting it is a LIBERAL SYSTEM, that is your definition, not mine. We are talking about education, not politics. I suggest you read some of the links I provided, since you have not responded to them at all. I will check on this thread in the morning, have a good evening Spot.You're closing your eyes to the question, Chonsi, and I do wish you'd not, I'm only part-way along my path. Besides, you're very confused.

I'm not contrasting a UK system with a US system, I'm discussing education in the United States. Furthermore the picture you draw of English schooling is at least thitry years out of date if not longer. We have a single examination system for all primary and secondary schooling here.

"If school funding were lowered, society would suffer" is the key sentence, all we need do is to establish why that's the case. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying we've finally arrived at the crux of this preamble. Why is it true? It's not self-evidently true at all. It's true that, compared to now, fewer children from a poor background would reach middle-income jobs, I think, and that fewer children from middle-income families would end up being poor themselves. How do those facts imply that society would suffer? Or are there other reasons I've not thought of?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:47 pm

State your agenda up front, if you please.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:51 pm

Accountable wrote: State your agenda up front, if you please.The entire question of the age at which this notional level starting point should be set, nothing but that. Stop being so defensive. At the moment, from what I can see, it's set at the age a child leaves school. Why is it set there?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:20 pm

spot wrote: May we consider a matter that I consider central to a discussion of the American Way, please.

In the US there is the concept of the Public School.

I understand that most American children are educated at these institutions.

I understand that provision of places at these schools is paid for from taxation.

Why is this?

(if anyone wants to inform the thread in terms of the proportion of American children educated at these institutions, or the source of taxation in terms of city, state or federal funding, or the average cost per pupil, I'd be interested in that detail too, but predominantly I'm chasing the question as raised. Other items of fact that would be informative is the legal basis for such payment and attendance, and when it dates back to).

I was reading this with quite a bit of humor until I got to the point -

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:02 pm

Well, I'm puzzled that people have trouble discussing this. It seemed a sensible question.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:07 am

Diuretic wrote: I'm not American so I probably don't have a dog in this hunt (I love that saying) but I'm interested in the topic.

Spot - what is it you are asking? Sorry to sound (a) blunt and/or (b) confused but I have to ask for clarification because of (b). I need to know to be able to follow the conversation.
OK, I've collated all of my attempts to kickstart this conversation. Every word of this, while it may seem circular, specifies exactly what I'm trying to enquire about. It could as easily be asked about schools in Australia or the UK, but I have the US school system in mind.

Choose your preferred wording from these questions, since they are (to my mind) identical:

Either: In the US there is the concept of the Public School. I understand that most American children are educated at these institutions. I understand that provision of places at these schools is paid for from taxation. Why is this?

Or: For what reason does the US electorate in 2006 allow the education of children to be at the public expense. Why do any funds whatever get committed from government sources at any level - city, state or federal - toward the education of any children at all.

Or: Why did the legislators not reduce public expenditure by abolishing those laws and removing the financial subsidies per student which are (from Chonsi's references) of the order of $11000 per year per student. Who is supposed to benefit from this enforced education? The child? The nation? Is the provision altruistic or is it a measure of self-interest on the part of society as a whole?

Or: If all school funding were withdrawn and taxes correspondingly lowered, would society suffer? If it wouldn't, what legitimacy is there in the current public funding?

Or: Why is it true that "If school funding were lowered, society would suffer"? It's not self-evidently true at all. It's true that, compared to now, fewer children from a poor background would reach middle-income jobs, I think, and that fewer children from middle-income families would end up being poor themselves. How do those facts imply that society would suffer? Or are there other reasons I've not thought of?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:57 am

spot grinds his teeth and wonders what's so evil about the question that nobody can bring themselves to address it.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:47 am

Diuretic wrote: Oh well, just to prove that fools really do rush in.

There's no such thing as altruism in education funding policy. Public education is necessary for a sociey to function and to ensure that it has to be guaranteed by legislation requiring minimum levels of education for all and this has to be funded from the public purse.

Of course that's a general view. I can't address the US-specific issues.
Yes, required minimum levels of education for all has to be funded from the public purse, I think we can tick that one as a given. If you enforce education at any age you can only do it by guaranteeing the funds from public money.

So, can society function with a reduced proportion of the children being educated -let's take a guess and say 60% fully schooled, 20% schooled to the age of 11 and 20% never attending, with all payments made by parents and reduced taxation to compensate those with a significant income. If it can't then we've justified public education. Why can society not function with only 60% of the children educated to the age of 18? You can assume that the same numbers will go on to college and university as do now (between 40% and 50%).

Bear in mind that I've provided private scholarships for the academic top 10% of children from indigent households.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:12 am

Diuretic wrote: I think a society could. I wouldn't want to live there but it can function in the sense that it would still go bumping along. Over time though it would start the descent into a dystopia.That is the statement that I'd like to see turned from an opinion into a reasoned projection. If we can show that it has by precedent, or by reasoning, then we've reached a conclusion that public funding is inevitable. I've yet to see anything stronger than a feeling emerge so far.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:48 am

spot wrote: The entire question of the age at which this notional level starting point should be set, nothing but that. Stop being so defensive. At the moment, from what I can see, it's set at the age a child leaves school. Why is it set there?Take it as a sign of respect for your intellect.

I'm sure the age was quite arbitrary when it was first set, then it stuck just because it was easier to accept than to research and change. 18 is our age of majority (despite the age for legal drinking being 21). It is the age our citizens are declared mature enough to make adult decisions for such things as voting and joining the military without parental consent. Thus, it's the starting point for all adults - the point that should be as close as possible to level for everyone.

Anything from me is pure conjecture and opinion, but I'll try to add value where I can.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:17 am

Accountable wrote: I'm sure the age was quite arbitrary when it was first set, then it stuck just because it was easier to accept than to research and change. 18 is our age of majority (despite the age for legal drinking being 21). It is the age our citizens are declared mature enough to make adult decisions for such things as voting and joining the military without parental consent. Thus, it's the starting point for all adults - the point that should be as close as possible to level for everyone.

Anything from me is pure conjecture and opinion, but I'll try to add value where I can. :)So you're adopting the Liberal consensus here, that universal child education should be a public charge? Diuretic's quite right, what I'm doing is "like trashing motherhood". I'm establishing foundations.

I think the "descent into a dystopia" feeling isn't supportable, myself. I think that society can do quite well with an uneducated minority offering manual skills and an educated majority performing the full range of employment tasks that society requires. An important provision is that nobody talented is left behind from the poor sections of society because the academic top 10% of children from indigent households are freely educated on private scholarships.

I think the reason there's universal child education is that this "all start with the same opportunity" notion is ingrained. Without the public provision, we all start with the same opportunity at birth. With it, we start with the same opportunity at the age of eighteen. At different times in the last hundred years it's been 12, 14, 15, 16. In England it still is 16, it's legal to leave school and find employment then if you choose to, and as Diuretic says the age limit rises as political demands become overwhelming. Free places are available for the subsequent final two years if the child wants to attend, in England.

So, can we agree for the moment that it's not a necessity in order that society functions, but rather it's a matter of fairness, that we provide universal public education? Or do we need to delve more before we can say that?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:28 am

SpotÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s original post:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“May we consider a matter that I consider central to a discussion of the American Way, please.

In the US there is the concept of the Public School.

I understand that most American children are educated at these institutions.

I understand that provision of places at these schools is paid for from taxation.

Why is this?

(if anyone wants to inform the thread in terms of the proportion of American children educated at these institutions, or the source of taxation in terms of city, state or federal funding, or the average cost per pupil, I'd be interested in that detail too, but predominantly I'm chasing the question as raised. Other items of fact that would be informative is the legal basis for such payment and attendance, and when it dates back to).Ã¢â‚¬Â

Comments:

1. Be specific when using the term American Way, it has two meanings here. A better choice would have been American way of life. American Way is also an organization, which is a discussion in itself-and not always positive. (I think that was just not knowing this on your part, Spot, not a negative comment towards you)

2. You asked why taxes were allocated to pay for them. I gave you historical and judicial references. You did not respond to my posts about them, only the dollar amount. Why is that, Spot? The subject was still being discussed, and you closed it down. To put it politely, that was not nice.

(my comments are in blue)

SpotÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s amended agenda: (done at his whim, not at mine, since I was in a discussion format, but my replies were not being addressed but ignored)

Ã¢â‚¬Å“OK, I've collated all of my attempts to kickstart this conversation. Every word of this, while it may seem circular, specifies exactly what I'm trying to enquire about. It could as easily be asked about schools in Australia or the UK, but I have the US school system in mind. (why not discuss your system as a compare and contrast?)

Choose your preferred wording from these questions, since they are (to my mind) identical:

Either: In the US there is the concept of the Public School. I understand that most American children are educated at these institutions. I understand that provision of places at these schools is paid for from taxation. Why is this? (been answered, waiting for you to go back and read posts and reply)

Or: For what reason does the US electorate in 2006 allow the education of children to be at the public expense. Why do any funds whatever get committed from government sources at any level - city, state or federal - toward the education of any children at all.(been answered, go back and read my posts)

Or: Why did the legislators not reduce public expenditure by abolishing those laws and removing the financial subsidies per student which are (from Chonsi's references) of the order of $11000 per year per student. Who is supposed to benefit from this enforced education? The child? The nation? Is the provision altruistic or is it a measure of self-interest on the part of society as a whole? (philosophical-label it as such as a tangential issue)

Or: If all school funding were withdrawn and taxes correspondingly lowered, would society suffer? If it wouldn't, what legitimacy is there in the current public funding? (this is philosophical, if it is agreed among the posters then this tangent can be taken)

Or: Why is it true that "If school funding were lowered, society would suffer"? It's not self-evidently true at all. It's true that, compared to now, fewer children from a poor background would reach middle-income jobs, I think, and that fewer children from middle-income families would end up being poor themselves. How do those facts imply that society would suffer? Or are there other reasons I've not thought of? (philosophical/societal-another tangent from the original posts-if the other posters agree to digress, it is a viable discussion)

Personal comment: Spot, you asked for a discussion, and digressed from it. Not a little, but a lot. If you want viable and an informative discussion, you need to give and take. You were not giving, you were steering away from the original subject matter and not addressing responses. This is the point when posters like me do not like to respond, because what is the use? You chose not to respond back, but continued on your own agenda. To put this topic in a discussion forum means just that, as you pointed out yesterday in another thread.

I thought I was contributing to a discussion, but was not replied to in a proper manner. Tangential issues need to be labeled as such, not as the main subject of discourse. And some of the replies I received back where a little close to walking the line of initiating volatile remarks back. Because they were written in that manner, not for thoughtful reply, but to be antagonistic. If the topic returns to something that can be constructive, I will participate. Otherwise, as I have done before when threads are set out for the sport of emotional responses and not well thought out replies, I will go post on more peaceful threads.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:30 am

Your definitions are your own, and I have only provided conjecture so far, not opinion.

A society can "function" without education, I suppose, just like a person can survive without employment or permanent shelter.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:40 am

chonsigirl wrote: I thought I was contributing to a discussion, but was not replied to in a proper manner. Tangential issues need to be labeled as such, not as the main subject of discourse. And some of the replies I received back where a little close to walking the line of initiating volatile remarks back. Because they were written in that manner, not for thoughtful reply, but to be antagonistic. If the topic returns to something that can be constructive, I will participate. Otherwise, as I have done before when threads are set out for the sport of emotional responses and not well thought out replies, I will go post on more peaceful threads.Between us we've got into decidedly separate camps, I can quite see that. It's really unfortunate since you're far and away the best person to inform the discussion.

What you want to talk about is obviously interesting, and we'll do that. What I was trying to do, very explicitly from post#1, was to lay a foundation on the single issue of whether public funding of schools is necessary in today's society, and if so between what ages. You can see that I've tried hard to work toward that point, reiterating it five times, and it's been somewhat uphill. That post#1 did include "I'd be interested in that detail too, but predominantly I'm chasing the question as raised" simply because I know how hard it is to keep a topic potentially this broad within bounds. The topic as raised was "I understand that provision of places at these schools is paid for from taxation. Why is this?" and the reason we're pulling in different directions is that I failed to narrow the focus as tightly as I should in that sentence.

Let's discuss the history of public funding and the current extent of public funding first, since those are the areas you've quite reasonably brought in. I can defer trying to talk the thread into a consensus on the reason we do it at all until we've understood why we went where we did in the past.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:44 am

Accountable wrote: A society can "function" without education, I suppose, just like a person can survive without employment or permanent shelter.Stop being so extreme! I wouldn't dream of suggesting that society can function without education, and I haven't. I've said it can function with the least able 20% of academically gifted children not being schooled, and the next able 20% of academically gifted children being schooled only until an age like 11 or 12, and that's doubtless contentious, but I have already put in the thread that I'd foresee the remaining 60% of children being educated until 18 and them nearly all going into college or university. No society can function without education, that's a given.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:54 am

spot wrote: Stop being so extreme! I wouldn't dream of suggesting that society can function without education, and I haven't. I've said it can function with the least able 20% of academically gifted children not being schooled, and the next able 20% of academically gifted children being schooled only until an age like 11 or 12, and that's doubtless contentious, but I have already put in the thread that I'd foresee the remaining 60% of children being educated until 18 and them nearly all going into college or university. No society can function without education, that's a given.I think you're reading in emotion that I didn't mean to input.

*sitting back with notebook in hand, waiting eagerly for professor Chonsi*

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:55 am

Diuretic wrote: Simple societies can function perfectly well without a formal education system - complex industrialised societies can't - and before you leap on me spot I know you made that point so put yer gun back in the holster pardner

So is education a right, a privilege, a prize? Should it be doled out on the basis on inherited wealth? Should it be to preserve or change society? Should it be to develop the citizen or the worker?The simple answer would be to call it a right and have done with it. I'd rather, if possible, follow the consequence of not assuming it to be a right, see where that leads us, see if we have an overall agreement at the end whether it is beneficial to society as a whole that it should or should not be a right, and then perhaps consider the implications of it being a right by choice and not by dictat. I don't see how you can just easily label it as an unargued right without expressing a preset political choice from the outset.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:28 am

spot wrote:

Let's discuss the history of public funding and the current extent of public funding first, since those are the areas you've quite reasonably brought in. I can defer trying to talk the thread into a consensus on the reason we do it at all until we've understood why we went where we did in the past.

History of American public education:

1. 1635-first free public school opens in Virginia

2. 1636-Harvard College established, first institution of higher learning in the colonies

3. 1642 Massachusetts Bay Law: requiring children know the laws of the colony and learn about religion http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysourc ... w1642.html

4. 1647 Massachusetts Law requires every town with 50 or more families to provide a schoolteacher to instruct in basic reading and writing, towns with more then 100 should have an additional Latin master to prepare them for Harvard

5. 1690: New England Primer, first official textbook

6. 1783: Noah Webster write 3 books in reading, writing and grammar, that become standard textbooks for half a century or longer

7. 1787 Northwest Ordinance: provides that a specific area for each new settlement be designated for a school and itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s support

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyameric ... index.html

to be continued after some chores-

(off topic) Discussion on a future thread on the Northwest Ordinance alone would provide many interesting tangents. It is the lynch pin of many current federal policies today, and Supreme Court rulings many times begin with this.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:02 am

spot wrote:

Bear in mind that I've provided private scholarships for the academic top 10% of children from indigent households.

Because you've provided no mechanism to gather in those 10%.

As I see it, state funded schooling is there to provide the widest possible net to capture the brightest members of the population and to take as much of the population as far up the ladder as they can go.

This is purely for the benefit of the state - the better educated the population the more efficiently the state can perform.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:07 am

Diuretic wrote: Just on that particular point I think the upper age limit for compulsory schooling is closely connected with the economy. Okay I can feel a burst of cynicism coming on but I'm going to indulge myself.

Where I am the upper age limit just got raised by a year. We have a fairly high youth unemployment rate and it doesn't look like being lowered any time soon. The state has just decreed that the age limit will go up, that means that there will be less young people looking for non-existent jobs at least for a while. Now, as I said, this my cynicism rearing its terribly ugly head but I would really feel exonerated if the state lowered the upper age limit when the economy was booming and jobs were plentiful.

Which is to say that the state isn't really interested in educating the person so much as simply preparing young people for industry.

Or in our case, getting them off the dole count because they were getting it in the ear about rising unemployment.

Deep_Respect · Post by **Deep_Respect** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:28 pm

Educated children hopefully grow up to be productive members of society. Unfortunately not everyone can afford to send their children to school so public education is necessary. Besides would you want to live in a society where a significant portion of the population is uneducated? Think of the consequences.

spot wrote: So there is a liberal tradition of legislating for compulsory schooling, and it's been in place for around a hundred years, and the core compulsory ages have expanded from 7-12 to what it is now (presumably 6-16). There's no constitutional issue that I can see which demands that education should be universal or compulsory, just that provision should be equally available regardless of (especially) race.

So tell me why that liberal tradition continued from last year to this. Why did the legislators not reduce public expenditure by abolishing those laws and removing the financial subsidies per student which are (from Chonsi's references) of the order of $11000 per year per student. Who is supposed to benefit from this enforced education? The child? The nation? Is the provision altruistic or is it a measure of self-interest on the part of society as a whole?