Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Economist Kern Alexander Explains the Problem with School Choice

On 2/3/2013 7:53 PM, John Denker wrote:
On 02/03/2013 10:51 AM, Richard Tarara wrote:

An old refrain from me, but the goals and procedures of public
education need always be viewed through the lenses of the 'public
good'. This is why public education exists--to serve the
society...NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.

The belief that the primary responsibility of the individual is to serve the state is at the core of fascism. Replacing "state" by "society" makes no difference in this context.

That's a good point. I might have stated it slightly more mildly:

This is why public education exists -- primarily to serve the
society...NOT just THE INDIVIDUAL.

That is to say, the effect on the individual is non-negligible.
Call it a secondary effect if you want, but it should not be
completely neglected.

As much as I appreciate that the benefit to the individual "should not be completely neglected," it does not change the situation. A secondary value can serve as a nice palliative to one's conscience but it does not take away the fascist nature of the primary goal.

It is why we all PAY for this education.
Agreed. Not only do we pay for it, we make primary and secondary
education mostly /compulsory/.

=========

I agree with the notion of "public good" as used here.

By way of contrast:
Pettifogging the strict definition of "public good" is not helpful.
The canonical examples of "public good" -- such as fresh air -- do
not meet the strict definition. The Koch brothers want to annihilate
the EPA ... but they would probably feel differently if they lived
downwind of a pollution-spewing Georgia Pacific plant.

Public education is as much of a "public good" as fresh air.

Misusing a standard definition from one discipline in another in a confusing way can be caused by ignorance or pigheadedness. Consciously repeating the error after the misuse has been pointed out removes the possibility of ignorance.

I would suggest that much of we we see in the way of 'well educated'
versus 'poorly educated' children has a high degree of correlation to
the involvement of parent(s) with that education.
Indeed.

That leads to some possibly-constructive suggestions.

1) Teachers should explain to students, again and again, that there
is a public purpose to education. This should be a required part of
the curriculum in every grade from kindergarten on up. Students
should write essays on the subject.

As a good side-effect, with any luck, the parents will see some of
the essays and get the hint.....

Indeed. That is precisely what they preached in Gioventù Fascista, the Hitlerjugend, and the Soviet Pioneers. How unoriginal.

2) It might be a good use of school district money to put up some
billboards around town saying
READ to your KIDS
this message brought to you
by the Hometown School District

The idea here is twofold: For one thing, at the utterly literal
level, it would be a Good Thing if parents would read to their
young children. Secondly, at a slightly more subtle level, it
plants that the idea that the school district expects parents
to play an active role in educating the kids.

Ah, now we also have the seeds of the Red Guards. Wonderful!

Didn't I write it already somewhere that when physicists speak outside their discipline they tend to contribute no more added value than the next person? Turns out it can be worse.

Ze'ev