Against schools 8

Except for the convenience of parents who need or like to put their children in the responsible care of others while they work or just take a break from parenting, physical schools for children are no longer needed. It’s perfectly possible now for children to be educated without being assembled in classrooms. The internet is the ideal resource. A child needs a safe room,  a computer, and at least until mid-adolescence, adequate supervision. Given those, the chances are he’ll get a far better education than he’d get at school.

His “social needs”? No reason why his learning on the net should deprive him of companionship, debate, competition, and everything else that a group of  peers provides in the classroom and playground.

Not only are classrooms anachronistic and unnecessary, what is being taught in them is positively bad.

In general, what is being taught now in the schools of the English-speaking world are not the old subjects of Science, Math, English, History, Geography. The new subjects are Self-esteem, Exploring Sexuality, Multiculturalism, Anti-Racism, Climate Change, and Social Justice.

  • Self-Esteem:  lessons on “rights”. Your right to health care, to a really nice house, to certificates of qualification, to a really nice job with a really nice salary, and air time on TV.
  • Exploring Sexuality: lessons on what a body can do alone, with another, with many others, and how to avoid reproducing when you do some of it.
  • Multiculturalism: lessons on Islam, how to submit to it and even better how to become a Muslim.
  • Anti-Racism: lessons on how whites are racists.
  • Climate Change: lessons on the importance of recycling and keeping down emissions, with a regular showing of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”.
  • Social Justice:  lessons on wealth redistribution by government to ensure economic equality.

True, these subjects would probably be abandoned by the home-school parent and child, but – also true – it would be a good thing if they were.

Furthermore, the abolition of schools for children would save a lot of money. It would also break the power of the teachers’ unions.

There is no downside to the idea.

  • George

    I have seen a pro and con on both sides. I have seen public schools promoting pupils who are totally illiterate ( can’t read, can’t write, can’t count or do simple math , have NO significant knowledge of history, science, geography , etc. ) and yet they graduate and expect to be accepted in the workplace and society as qualified and educated beings. Then we have the private schools who indoctrinate from a biased perspective ( i.e.- religion based, politically based, etc. ). I will not care to debate which is more worse of a percentage than the other but there is indeed a bias and problem in both and a dysfunction in both. One of the biggest complaints that people have toward today’s public schools is that too many have lowered their standards and many of the teacher unions act like dictator empires. Parents need to take more responsibility of their children and get more involved in their children’s lives ( especially in the realm of discipline and manners ). Too many public school teachers have to deal with classroom thugs and disruptive pupils that hinder their ability to teach and many teachers themselves are threatened by the class bullies of today. Of course the Christian right will say that this is all because they can’t pray in their schools which is a bunch of BS. By the same token I have seen students taught in private schools who are mostly well disciplined but have problems socially ‘mixing” with the myriad of people who are different than themselves. This is not meant to stereotype and doesn’t hold true in ALL cases but often. A lot of these problems could be eleviated if people would maturely put their heads together and exchange ideas and solutions using rational dialogue instead of the vicious “finger pointing” and vilification.

  • Andrew M

    I disagree with you, Jillian.

    Private education is the way forward. A structured, for-profit elementary academic circuit would be the best way to promote ideas that make money move. We wouldn’t have to worry about quacky creationists sneaking their way into the curriculum because the accrediting departments of education corporations would show them all the door, unlike our heavily politicized PTA Bored meetings which promote croneyism, punishing students, and hoarding tax monies. There is nothing good about letting Ken Ham in the SCIENCE classroom, no matter if the government or my wallet supports it! Competition for legitimate institutions will keep it that way.

    Right now the Leftist agenda clogs the public education system and the Church the private education system. We owe it to our kids to bring them prosperity through the business of knowledge!

    • George

      I agree with everything you say Andrew M and I would like to see education move into the private sector. However we must also proceed with caution and not let various private “camps” engage in using the private sector to push THEIR own biased and dubious agenda. I have actually seen the problem on both sides . I was raised by school teacher parents who worked in the public schools. My mother in elementary school and my father in high school. I grew up with morals and strict discipline because I had responsible parents who were my mentors and taught me right from wrong. And yet my next door female neighbor and my female neighbor across the street from me who both went to private Catholic schools both got pregnant in their teens and both continued to live with their parents into adulthood and NEVER married. Yet the Religious Reich proclaimed that the religious private schools were the best all around. I worked off duty special details at Catholic high school ball games when I was a law enforcement officer ( now retired ) and I had to break up fights during the game , break up arguments, run disruptive Catholic students off and I found used condoms on the ground all around the school campus . This is why I have stated that from my personal experiences and observations I have seen good and bad in both “groups”. I do indeed agree that the private schools ( that teach a neutral secular basic education program ) are the best way to educate the children but sir we must also acknowledge that there are indeed private schools that are biased and promote thier own agenda. An UNBIASED private educational institution that IS NOT promoting any agenda or sectarian belief system but simply basic education IS indeed the way to go. Your last two sentences were definately right on the money.

  • McDoogle

    Wow, I thought conservative americans were uninformed, but this guy takes the whole biscuit.

    We are social beings. Our lessons in life and social etiquette begin at school. Teachers HAVE TO BY LAW Teach Math, English and all the main subjects. The other subjects you mention take up far less time than the others. Are you saying children should not be made aware of these issues? Keep them in the dark?

    Parents have to work especially in this recession, they cant afford to pay someone extra to look after their kids surfing at home while they work just to put food on the table and pay the rent. Would you leave a child alone in the house on the internet unsupervised? Of course not.

    Schools are a safe environment for learning. They also have access to teachers who do NOT get paid enough. They have to deal with a lot more than most of us do, and if you think they get lots of free time, then you are very uninformed, and need educating.

    • George

      You’re absolutely correct McDoogle. To think parents would leave their children alone on the internet to learn. Also, what if the father is an airline pilot and is usually away on long distant flights for long periods of time and mom is working long hours outside the home……………………….. Who teaches the kids ? Schools are indeed a safe environment for learning ( most schools that is , in spite of a certain few occurrences of highly publicized school shootings—-and yet shootings are almost a regular event in the ghettos of America ). The average inner-city slum ghetto is more dangerous than any public school. Two thumbs up !!!!!!

    • Tyler

      “safe environment for learning,” eh? Last time I checked, they have a significantly higher molestation rate than…oh,say….the Catholic church

  • George

    Actually there IS a downside. I was raised by school-teacher parents. My mother was my third grade school teacher and my father was a high school math teacher . Home schooling is great IF the parents at home who are teaching their child/children are qualified to teach. If the parents themselves are illiterate , ill informed , under-educated, or brainwashed by propaganda or teaching their children based solely on a theological doctrine, PC philosophy , or false information they got from the internet ( and there are tons of it out there ) , then this will indeed be a DOWNSIDE. Just like we have government (public) schools teaching a PC curriculum enshrouded in PC bullcrap and indoctrination we also have home-schooling parents who have NO idea what they are doing and are NOT qualified to be an educator or a basic curriculum instructor. I see public schools teaching children crap that should NOT be taught in a public school setting or even at all , and by the same token I have seen private schools ( such as Catholic schools ) who indoctrinate the students with a Catholic influence or theme and home schooling parents who are dumb as a rock trying to teach their own kids. The question remains——— Who sets the standards for home schooling ? What should the requirements be for qualifications to home school your children ? Parents have a right to teach their own children , but just because some ghetto garbage or trailer trash parents want to be official teachers dosen’t necessarily make them qualified to prepare their children for college or a rewarding career. I believe that government should stay out of our personal lives but giving any parent the “green light” to be considered qaulified teachers just because they are the biological parents doesn’t necessarily make them qualified to educate their offspring properly. Suppose the father is a drug dealer, the mother is a prostitute ? How then are they qualified ? Suppose the mother is a stay at home mom and dropped out of elementary school herself and is illiterate , has NO morals, no formal education , no thourough knowlwdge of science, math, geography, physics, history, etc. Why should they be given acceptable credentials to be considered as home teachers ? I know some home school kids who are smart as heck and some who are totally out of touch with the real world because they were “sheltered” and smothered and not allowed to interract with other kids ( of various backgrounds and ethnicities on a regular basis which a formal school atmosphere provides. There is a PRO and CON on this subject and these are facts.

    • George

      Once again –pardon my typos. I’m on the rush again traveling & didn’t take the time to proof-read.