Replies

This proposal is based on flawed logic, and has several hidden motives, one of which is to hand over the control of homeschools, private schools, vouchers, charter schools and religious education in general, to the government.

The group is garnering support based on three unrealistic premises: 1) All teenagers can succeed academically; 2) A high school diploma is the only route to life success: And 3)the government should have sole control over the definition of "successful".

Fact that the government ignores number 1: Many teenagers do not have the interest in academics and/or are not academically inclined. All kids have an aptitude for something, but as long as a bunch of do-gooders believe that everyone should focus on academics, they are continuing to ignore both the individual and reality.

Fact that the government ignores number 2: Teenagers should be allowed to leave school at 14 so that they can begin apprenticeships. They should be pursuing careers that are consistent with their aptitudes. As long as these busy-bodies continue the rhetoric that implies that kids can only learn in government controlled institutions, many are doomed to failure.

Fact that the government ignores number 3: The argument for keeping kids in school (a real money-grab if there ever was one) that ranges from "even if they are a carpenter, they need to be able to add" to "death rates are higher for people without a diploma" does not give the government the right to define "achievement".

Arguments in favor of "lowering the drop-out rate" or "raising the standards" are bogus cover-ups for:
"We don't want unemployed kids on the streets during the day";
"We can't control what is happening inside a private enterprise";
"We can't cut the taxpayer allotment to public schools, because every kid needs to be at grade level";
"Somebody will make it seem like we are giving preferences to certain groups".

Meanwhile, the individual child and his aptitude is completely dismissed. Does this better explain the problem conservatives have with this kind of plan?

"Does this better explain the problem conservatives have with this kind of plan?"

Your points are excellent, IMO.

Not to even mention the fact that any standards the government comes up with are likely to be horrifying.

In fact the Clinton administration did move in this direction, with actual recommendations for national education standards. Some of the recommendations were as awful as you'd think, and included such things as de-emphasizing teaching about the founding fathers in favor of more politicaly correct persons.

It's hard to be a "conservative" and support central planning is kind of the bottom line here.

I agree with you about the weird standards - I don't think everybody has to want to be an accountant or an attorney, either, and I don't know why voc ed has been totally despised for the last 30 years.

Who has a better life - a well-employed plumber, or a stressed-out miserable lawyer who hates his job because he really wanted to be a plumber (I worked with one of these once, btw).

I don't think it's a matter of defining success. I think you need certain minimum skills to do anything, and the problem is that our public schools, for which your tax dollars and mine pay big bucks, are not teaching the minimum skills necessary to get across the street with the light.

I think parents should be teaching this, and I think all real learning begins at home.

But I think a lot of parents (regardless of income level - the soccer moms are no better than the crack mothers in this respect) don't want to believe or do this, so the task falls to the schools.

All I am saying is that if we are going to be paying out this money, at least we should have kids coming out of these places who can do basic math and reading.

When Florida put its standards system into place, I heard hours of teachers howling on call-in shows that there was no way the kids could do this, blah, blah, blah.

A couple of years later, most of the kids have learned to do it - or their principals and teachers have had to explain why not. (Believe me, they're not expecting a whole heck of a lot - I don't know how old you are, but I suspect that you and I would have done all of this stuff by 8th grade, max.)