Re: The value of shopping local

I wouldn't live in a country without a publicly funded educational system. That was the point. However, I do feel sorry for you that you can't look to other places for ideas.

Other people's children sure are, Don, especially when they begin to torture and rape.

If recalled, you just moved from a place that had an apparent murder nearby, or at least dubious activity that you seemed 'curious' about.

Well, last night, I attended a kind of dinner-seminar-discussion with Matt Hern... Does that count? ;)

"...Other critical pedagogues more famous for their anti-schooling, unschooling, or deschooling perspectives include Ivan Illich, John Holt, Ira Shor, John Taylor Gatto, and Matt Hern..."

At the end of it, some of us split into groups and I mentioned in passing, my 'Inversity' idea to one group, and where they might be able to find a little about it-- namely at alt.architecture, of all places. :D

...I think it should be mandatory that the government pay each family with a child or more, enough money to buy a sailboat and sail around the world for a full year. ;)

(Although I'm still half-serious:

It is my contention that students need to be brought out into _the open_, from beyond the four walls of academia and into the real world of air, land and sea... and yes, maybe also markets and governments, etc..

Field-trips to museums are not the real world. A museum is yet another depository or institution.

Cripes.

It could have been about you, about your murder. Then whose business is it? Certainly not yours, since, if you were dead, your business would be to lie very still. In another context, if I truly was a worm, it would then be my business to slide right on in and help decompose you.

A line drawn in the sand is composed of a billion grains.

...Like how little Johnny next door likes to treat little Missy (and her kitten) when her parents aren't watching? (flip the sex of the characters if it makes you feel any better)

...Not that it's any of _your_ business... or that you don't get your ass arrested for pretending not to notice it.

No, her children are in a no-win situation. I cannot legally do anything for her children. Giving her more money doesn't directly benefit the children--she gets food stamps, and other assistance, that covers food related issues. I can't force her to spend her money wisely, for her kids. They're just plain stuck...and I feel the worst for them. They really would be better off with "real" parents, but again, I can't do anything (unless I can get solid evidence of some sort of abuse).

They are unless I live in a fortress and never leave it.

You know, if I was six years old and my mother was a drug addict and so I never had nutritious meals or support to get a good education, I suspect I'd be very grateful if a responsible adult intervened.

However, this whole conversation started with a discussion of education. If her children have no access to education (which is the practical effect of the policies it seems you advocate) they have less ability to extricate themselves from their bad situation as adults. I do recognize that the odds are against them, but removing the chance at even an adequate education is not going to help them. Remember, the education goes directly to children, people who haven't made many decisions in their lives, good or bad. Removing education from those children punishes them, not parents.

Then why do you belittle solutions from other countries (or simply looking at other countries that don't implement sensible solutions as examples of what failures we'd be if we didn't do that either)?

If I had kids, I would home school them. But I don't get all that concerned about the educational system as a whole, because I think it is pretty much what the people who do have children want. Like you said about quality food, if people have no experience of anything else and don't have a demand there for anything else, why change it? Plus, I suspect it is a bit dangerous for parents who haven't learned to think critically to be responsible for children who have.

-Amy

They're already punished because of the parents. The ratio is 95:5 of those who get out without the parents fully being invested in their education. Most parents aren't, and that's true across income levels.

The other problem is that we keep pouring money into public education, yet things are getting worse. It's not a function of money. It's a function of living in a society that really doesn't pay attention to the needs of children...on a parental level. Sure, the kids are scheduled to death with various activities. They're provided for (the most part) with whatever the creature comforts of life might be. But they're not taken care of.

It seems, as a society, we have moved towards the idea that the school is responsible for our children's learning, and the state is responsible for funding this learning. We have abdicated our responsibilities as parents. We have also let the very false idea that money=education permeate our society. History is filled with examples of people who came from nowhere, educated by those with little to no means.

We will never always have parents who care. And we need to stop thinking that if we collectively pick up the slack, we'll solve the problem. We can only solve the problem individually--you and me, individually, without requirement or prompting from the government, finding someone who needs the help and giving it to them. The government will never fix this problem.

So punish them worse by denying them _any_ opportunity?

So you think kids who aren't offered an education will do better?

And eliminating public education will make people more responsible parents how...?

We can keep it from becoming worse.

I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what we would have if we had NO public education system. Again I say look to countries that do not offer public education and ask if that is what we want for this country.

Why do you insist on missing the point? I've not said to get rid of it. I've simply said that public education is not the solution to the problem. The problem isn't "education". It's that we're actually not "educating" in the public schools to a degree that makes any difference. It's not for lack of teachers or money or anything like that. The problem is that parents do not know what is being taught, nor do they really care.

Parents, by and large, claim to have their children's best interest at heart, but rather than back up a teacher who disciplines a child, they sue the school. Rather than expect their kid to read--and read stuff worth reading, they're happy to have their kids be able to pass some stupid standardized test. Rather than let kids be kids--have some ability to get outside and run around, or have chores, they fill their homes and cars with videos and video games. They feed their kids preprepared junk and wonder why they're fat, lazy and mentally unstable. I know these parents. They're the majority. They're their kids worst enemy and they don't know it.

These aren't problems solved by the government (it'll try and destroy our liberty in doing so). They are solved by individuals making good choices. The current educational system is not helping. Couple that with the abysmally poor examples provided by their parents and other "adults" and things, for the most part, don't look good.

I'm also now saying that if we're hoping for it to be the answer for

I don't belittle solutions in other countries. But their systems aren't based on the same stupidity ours is. They don't assume that more money=better education. Here's a model I'd like to see followed:

That has seemed to be your suggestion throughout the thread. If that was not your intention, then I guess we're at cross purposes ;-).

I disagree there. At least the majority of people who go through school can read, write, and do basic math. Additionally, they have at least a hazy idea of history and geography.

So we have exactly the system the vast majority of people want.

But they were raised that way themselves, and they're managing to get along in life, often quite well (well, obviously, otherwise they'd _need_ their kids to do chores and couldn't afford the games and players).

So what is your solution to try and change adults into decent role models? I think the schools can only do what they can do, which is to lay the standard fare in front of the children and hope it takes.

The vast majority of people who go through the public school system come out of it employable. That is what public schools are designed to do. As you so rightly say, the minority that excel and the minority who fail are most often influenced by excellent or terrible parenting.

While they're being warehoused, they learn to read, to do math, and often computer skills. And if all the parents had to do all of it themselves, there would be no work force to speak of.

-Amy

I wasn't speaking to you, but to the person who posted that.

You know, I find the most interesting thing in that article the fact that so many Finns want to be teachers. I had a several day long conversation with a colleague last week over something similar. He said that it is best to learn something from a course, because you don't know what you need to know until you take the course. I said it is best to learn on your own, because if someone is teaching a technical subject, it is pretty much a given that they don't know enough about it to be useful, since the experts are out there doing it. If you're lucky the experts will blog about it, but they are not sitting down and making up courses and they are _certainly_ not taking time out to teach.

Then I suppose we need to _qualify_ what we mean by minding one's own business. Here's mine: If I catch someone bopping their kids *while minding my own business*, then I'll step in. I call that minding my own business in the protection of others.

Rest assured that, at the same time, I'm also against people sticking their shnozes in others' businesses where I feel they shouldn't, but various abuses, when "accidentally discovered", are exceptions.

Another exception would be turning a blind eye and/or failing to act on somethings like the above, such as in the name of 'minding one's own business', or of 'just following orders':

Paul, I thought you were doing architecture or architectural development or something like that... What are you doing in social work?

I'm an architect with "full time" ecclesiastical responsibilities. They include counseling, financial assistance, etc.

Architect by day, super hero (hah!) by night... that sort of thing...

"Michael Bulatovich" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news2.newsguy.com:

THe argument is probably something like, "Poor people need food, transportation, soap, and clothing as well as do rich people".

What always gets swept aside is the fact taht in all of those areas, once can choose whether to be frugal, average, or extravagent in their spending. I recall a news story a year or two ago, where we were all supposed to feel sorry for some doood who was "struggling" to pay to put ever-more-expensive gasoline into his $750/month-payment 9MPG mega-truck

- the fool was unemployed and living with Mommy and Daddy. No pity from me (driver of old 29MPG - yes, I check it periodically - basic Saturn).

Price is sometimes, but not always, an indicator of quality or origin. THose expensive "designer" duds are typically made in the same third- world sweatshop as the cheaper jecns, it's just that they have someone's name plastered across the ass. Everyone has a choice re: what they want to pay for.

"Choice" meats have less fat (ergo are healthier) than are Grade A to AAA meats - choice. You can pay for nutrition, or fat - choice. Same with "fast food" - pay for convenience, or pay for quality/nutrition - choice. Toll roads that are decently maintained (here, called the "Lexus Lanes" by various nitwits) versus slower roads paid for by "the gov.t" (i.e. taxes, i.e., you and me) - choice.

We all have freedom to choose how we'll use our income. People with lower income have mroe restricted choices, but for most, there nevertheless *are* choices.

What pisses me off is being robbed to support other people's stupid choices and general ineptitude...tho' it also pisses me off when chouice is destroyed by a few f*****es who are basically just running their companies, and possibly the eeconomy, into the ground out of psychotic levels of greed that exceed a healthy desire to make a profit.