Trump’s Anti-Science Campaign

[Ackbach]

The principle of subsidiarity ought to encourage people to handle education within the family or small community (extended family or village). But the way nations and cities and so forth are structured tends to make families unable to educate their own children to the standards expected in society thus towns, cities, states, nations run schools and fund them by taxation.

In the U.S., the government schools are utterly unable to provide a truly great education, mostly because of lack of competition (the taxes that go toward schools must be payed by everyone, not just the people that send their kids there). A very large number of homeschoolers can blow the government schools out of the water in academic rigor. I would agree with you that the parents have the responsibility to educate their children. I like homeschooling, but I think there's a place for non-government schools as well. In fact, I think there's a place for government schools - just not a monopoly version of the government schools. And it has to be tax breaks, not vouchers. Any money that goes to private schools needs to not have come through any government hands, or else the government will muscle in on that school and dictate to them how high their drinking fountains have to be (as well as other minor things like... curriculum).

Having taught in classical Christian schools for 3.5 years, I am firmly convinced that this is where the action is. A Christ-centered classical education is the best there is. It produces humans, not machines. It produces thinkers and communicators who can actually form complete sentences, who can analyze an argument for validity and soundness, define their terms, and speak winsomely and persuasively. I will freely admit that the math and science side of classical Christian education needs work; but I'm convinced that it is the right framework for math and science, and once those two are integrated into the rest of the already-integrated system, the result will astound people.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the U.S., the government schools are utterly unable to provide a truly great education, mostly because of lack of competition (the taxes that go toward schools must be payed by everyone, not just the people that send their kids there). A very large number of homeschoolers can blow the government schools out of the water in academic rigor. I would agree with you that the parents have the responsibility to educate their children. I like homeschooling, but I think there's a place for non-government schools as well. In fact, I think there's a place for government schools - just not a monopoly version of the government schools. And it has to be tax breaks, not vouchers. Any money that goes to private schools needs to not have come through any government hands, or else the government will muscle in on that school and dictate to them how high their drinking fountains have to be (as well as other minor things like... curriculum).

Having taught in classical Christian schools for 3.5 years, I am firmly convinced that this is where the action is. A Christ-centered classical education is the best there is. It produces humans, not machines. It produces thinkers and communicators who can actually form complete sentences, who can analyze an argument for validity and soundness, define their terms, and speak winsomely and persuasively. I will freely admit that the math and science side of classical Christian education needs work; but I'm convinced that it is the right framework for math and science, and once those two are integrated into the rest of the already-integrated system, the result will astound people.

What you've written may be true but the idea of user-pays education would very likely increase the cost for those people who have children while reducing it for those who do not. The net result in the USA - a nation where contraception is rampant and sex-for-pleasure-and-bonding-but-not-for-procreation-except-if-we-want-a-child is too - would likely be an even faster decline in birth rates within marriage.

 

[Ackbach]

What you've written may be true but the idea of user-pays education would very likely increase the cost for those people who have children while reducing it for those who do not. The net result in the USA - a nation where contraception is rampant and sex-for-pleasure-and-bonding-but-not-for-procreation-except-if-we-want-a-child is too - would likely be an even faster decline in birth rates within marriage.

It would decrease the cost overall, because this plan would introduce competition into the educational arena. Right now, the government schools get x amount of money from everyone, regardless of whether those people are making use of the schools or not (and, I might add, whether those people agree with what the government schools are doing or not). Under a user-pay system, the public schools would have to compete for money, which would drive costs down and quality up, like healthy, fair competition always does.

As for increasing the costs for those who have children while reducing it for those who do not, that is exactly right. That is what would happen somewhat (modified by the above discussion on competition), and that would be a good thing. I do not regard education as a right, but a privilege, and it should be paid for, like medical costs. No one has a right to "free" education, any more than they have a right to good health or "free" health care. The terms "free education" and "free health care" are completely vacuous, by the way. Nothing is ever free. The horrible Canadian health care system, e.g., is most definitely NOT free. The taxpayers pay taxes to get that system. It's just an incredibly inefficient system, because the government has to take out a huge chunk of overhead money before that money ever gets to a doctor or nurse. But I digress.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It would decrease the cost overall, because this plan would introduce competition into the educational arena. Right now, the government schools get x amount of money from everyone, regardless of whether those people are making use of the schools or not (and, I might add, whether those people agree with what the government schools are doing or not). Under a user-pay system, the public schools would have to compete for money, which would drive costs down and quality up, like healthy, fair competition always does.

As for increasing the costs for those who have children while reducing it for those who do not, that is exactly right. That is what would happen somewhat (modified by the above discussion on competition), and that would be a good thing. I do not regard education as a right, but a privilege, and it should be paid for, like medical costs. No one has a right to "free" education, any more than they have a right to good health or "free" health care. The terms "free education" and "free health care" are completely vacuous, by the way. Nothing is ever free. The horrible Canadian health care system, e.g., is most definitely NOT free. The taxpayers pay taxes to get that system. It's just an incredibly inefficient system, because the government has to take out a huge chunk of overhead money before that money ever gets to a doctor or nurse. But I digress.

In lands where Government taxes do not pay for schooling the cost of schooling is to high for many parents to pay as a result their children go without formal education in the schools and since many parents are also not well educated themselves they are in turn unable to educate their children adequately. In the USA before schooling was funded by taxation it was paid for by parents and many could not afford to pay so their children went without education just as happens today in nations where no tax funded education exists.

 

[Ackbach]

In lands where Government taxes do not pay for schooling the cost of schooling is to high for many parents to pay as a result their children go without formal education in the schools and since many parents are also not well educated themselves they are in turn unable to educate their children adequately. In the USA before schooling was funded by taxation it was paid for by parents and many could not afford to pay so their children went without education just as happens today in nations where no tax funded education exists.

I'm not so sure of that. In 1765, well before the existence of government schools, John Adams wrote, a "... native of America, especially of New England, who cannot read and write is as rare a Phenomenon as a Comet." Indeed, if you look at the literacy rate (admittedly only one measure of education, but surely relevant) in New England about that time, it's over 90%, and in some cities like Boston, came close to 100%. Surely not everyone was rich back then, anymore than everyone is rich now. All the schools were private, none government funded, as far as I know. The solution to parents not able to afford it is church-funded charity, not the government.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not so sure of that. In 1765, well before the existence of government schools, John Adams wrote, a "... native of America, especially of New England, who cannot read and write is as rare a Phenomenon as a Comet."

I think he was wrong because black people living in the USA were almost uniformly illiterate as were Native Americans (Amerindians) and at the time that he was writing those groups would have constituted a significant proportion of the population. Comets (seen from Earth) are very rare indeed but an illiterate black slave would have been a daily or hourly sight in John Adam's day.

Indeed, if you look at the literacy rate (admittedly only one measure of education, but surely relevant) in New England about that time, it's over 90%, and in some cities like Boston, came close to 100%. Surely not everyone was rich back then, anymore than everyone is rich now. All the schools were private, none government funded, as far as I know. The solution to parents not able to afford it is church-funded charity, not the government.

No doubt the literacy rate estimate of 90% is for people of European descent only and probably of English descent only.

 

[Ackbach]

I think he was wrong because black people living in the USA were almost uniformly illiterate as were Native Americans (Amerindians) and at the time that he was writing those groups would have constituted a significant proportion of the population. Comets (seen from Earth) are very rare indeed but an illiterate black slave would have been a daily or hourly sight in John Adam's day.

Fortunately, we have a 1765 census of Boston, at least, right here. The blog author takes the data from J. H. Benton, Jr., Early Census Making in Massachusetts, 1643-1765, published in 1905. As you can see, the total negro population of Boston was 811, which constitutes 5.23% of the total population of 15,520 people. The total white population was 14672. So, let us say the literacy rate was 90% just for the white population. That would mean 13,204 whites were literate, which is still 85% of the total population. So the numbers might go down a little even if we accept the assumption that the negroes were illiterate along with all the other non-white people groups in Boston at the time. It is not a safe assumption to say that the negroes in Boston at this time were slaves, because slave-holding was predominantly a Southern phenomenon. The North, before the Emancipation Proclamation, had contributed to the slave trade, no doubt, and were thus just as culpable as the South. So I would deny the claim that "illiterate black slaves would have been a daily or hourly sight in John Adams' day" - at least in Boston in 1765. The numbers do not support that claim. In the South, sure. You had a 40% black population in many places in the South, and they were mostly illiterate.

In any case, the claim still holds: literacy rates were extremely high in New England before the government schools existed. Therefore, government schools are not required to achieve literacy.

I would make an additional claim: this literacy was not merely that people could read and write, but that they actually did read and write. This is what we call functional literacy, which is quite different from being able merely to read and write.

As an example of this, consider the Lincoln-Douglass debates from August to October of 1858. Granted, the US public school system had begun, led by that amazing obliterator of education, Horace Mann. However, it was only by the end of the 1800's that public schools outnumbered private ones. Hence, we can safely say that at the time of the Lincoln-Douglass debates, a considerable majority of the audience for the debates had not been educated in public schools, since they had only been in existence for maybe 30 years.

The Lincoln-Douglass debates, as Neil Postman remarks in Amusing Ourselves to Death, are pure print. They required the listener to follow complex chains of reasoning that would completely stump the vast majority of people today. This was par for the course at that time, however, and the only way that could have come about is if people actually read. A lot. But we have transitioned from being primarily a print culture to being primarily an image culture - not a transition I applaud. People say a picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe in some situations. There are words, however, that are not picturable. The US public schools have not maintained any sort of course here to keep people reading books, and I would claim that functional literacy in the US is abysmal.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Donald Trump's policy is to enrich himself.

 

[psalms 91]

Donald Trump's policy is to enrich himself.

Truth

 

[Highlander]

Donald Trump's policy is to enrich himself.

I do believe he accomplished that many, many years ago. However, we can certainly say that Hillary Clinton's policy is to enrich HERself. :;;D:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Donald Trump's working plan: Avarice is the motive acquisition the act and self enrichment the policy.

 

[Highlander]

Donald Trump's working plan: Avarice is the motive acquisition the act and self enrichment the policy.

If you consult with Daniel Webster, you will see Hillary's face next to the term, "avarice."

It is always instructive when liberals accuse conservatives of something that is actually being done by the liberals, themselves.