Subject:
|
Re: Socialised Medicine and Socialised Education
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 May 2002 17:39:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
811 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > > > Privatizing everything leads to the 'money talks, everything else walks'
> > > > dichotomy. Those who have the cash are healthy, those that don't have the
> > > > cash are unhealthy. Why would I be considered above my fellow person
> > > > because I have more cash than they do?
> >
> > OK. Can anyone who thinks a public health care system is a bad idea please
> > explain why that argument does not hold for a public education system. To
> > me, and I would guess to most who support these two things, they are both
> > about ensuring equality of opportunity to a nation's citizens. After having
> > done this could they please go out and campaign vociferously to dismantle
> > the US public education system and replace it with a much more efficient
> > private one.
>
> I should begin by pointing out that you snipped the text in a way that makes
> it look like David K's comments came from me, but I don't think it was
> intentional.
Indeed. My apologies.
>
> To answer your question, many who favor privatized health care also favor
> a privatized school system. They identify such shortcomings of US public
> schooling as unacceptable reading skill, awful math and science education,
> and generally poor performance in most areas that can be rated. Many, most,
> or all of these shortcomings, they feel, would be overcome with the advent
> of privately funded schools, and they point out that a great many members of
> the US Congress send their kids to private schools, which are presumably
> better than neighboring public schools.
Oh they probably are, but they cost more, and it is divisive in terms of
'equality of opportunity' to have them.
This is also interesting. What do you think is the benchmark they are using
for unacceptability? Is it really the private schools, which it must be
accepted are not on a level playing field as they will only get students
from well-off families who are more likely to give their children the
support that is necessary to get the best from education, or is it the
public school system of Japan or the public school system of Germany (or
even, and I have heard it done, but only above my own peals of laughter, the
school system of Great Britain)?
> But as a counter example, it is almost 100% certain that
> industry-sponsored schools would become indoctrination centers for
> "educating" children in the merits of whatever goods the school's sponsor
> produces. I'll need to find the cite, but I've read of a school that
> accepts funding from a certain candy manufacturer and therefore teaches
> basic arithmetic using Tootsie Rolls as examples, no doubt along the lines
> of "one delicious tootsie roll plus two delicious tootsie rolls equals three
> delicious tootsie rolls." That's a caricature, to be sure, but I've never
> read or seen or heard anything to convince me that such a corporate breeding
> ground would not ensue.
>
> Dave!
Well it wouldn't if there was competition and the consumers (which is
actually the parents as they pay and they choose the supplier) knew what was
happening. The non-advertising schools would just cost more.
Psi
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
