3 ms·

I don't think I'm making any assumptions -- these outcomes have been seen, as I've said, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am not going to respond to your second

by shaddi 16y ago

I don't think I'm making any assumptions -- these outcomes have been seen, as I've said, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am not going to respond to your second point... I think that is a point of debate that you're making out to be far more black-and-white than it really is. There is further complexity than you are admitting in your last two examples. There is a broad-reaching social impact that schooling, or lack thereof, has. This is true locally as well as globally, as seen by what the Wahhabi schools produce. Would I oppose the Amish exemption? No, because the vast majority of students in this nation have access to basic education. Would I oppose a private school system that was teaching violent fundamentalism at the expense of basic education, if that system was the only option serving a large area of my country? You bet I would, and that goes for government or private systems. Again: this is a complicated issue -- and no one should pretend otherwise. It is a false dichotomy to declare that our options are "state sponsored indoctrination" and forcible assimilation, or a free-market utopia where parents pick what school works best for them. A non-trivial number of people would pick the degree mill school given the choice: I am trying to figure out how we disincentive that option in an areas that don't have the social infrastructure to stigmatize that decision.

barry-cotter 16y ago
You're working off of your terminal values, your moral judgement, that the outcomes in Afghanistan and Pakistan are bad. That's a value judgement, not a fact one. So you can't but assume your conclusion, you desire outcome x because you do. As to the state sponsored indoctrination bit, whether it's explicitly planned or comes about organically through political bargaining between those with the power and those with the strongly held opinions who are willing to fight for it, it happens anyway. You cannot avoid having a value system, and if you do not perpetuate it, it will be outcompeted by one that will. I'm not denying complexity, I'm providing extreme examples as aids to thought. Look at the two ends of the spectrum and ask "What does my previously implicit value system say in these extreme cases?" Would I oppose the Amish exemption? No, because the vast majority of students in this nation have access to basic education. But don't the Amish children deserve to have the option to partake in broader society? And won't they have more and better information upon which to condition that choice if they attend government run schools until the normal school leaving age? Aren't they being harmed by being denied that opportunity? teaching violent fundamentalism at the expense of basic education What's violent fundamentalism? What's basic education? If the violent fundamentalists are the only ones providing education of any sort, a minimum of literacy for example, isn't that better than nothing for the vast majority of those who receive it who never do crap with the violent bit of the fundamentalism but who can read and write and probably do arithmetic when their chances to do so otherwise would have been much less? On degree mills; what's wrong with a solely instructional institution that certifies competence in a given area? Most people don't give a damn about education as growth for the soul, why should they subsidise those who do, and help perpetuate a costly signalling mechanism that is socially wasteful if an alternative exists?
- shaddi 16y ago
  > You're working off of your terminal values, your moral judgement, that the outcomes in Afghanistan and Pakistan are bad. Yes, the particular systems I'm referring to are bad, in my opinion. My base principles for making that assumption is that educational systems should not deny education to women, promote violence, or provide educations based on faith and mythology. If that is a purely moral viewpoint, so be it: we do not live in an objective world, and you're free to disagree with me. But that is /not/ the point I'm trying to make here. Moreover, these are just an example of a potential failing of private schools. I could imagine several ways to defraud parents of the education they think they're paying for. My conclusion it's unclear what the incentive system for private schools to provide "quality" education (from the point of view of parents, students, and society as a whole) in an area where little or no educational institutions have existed before, and where institutions (public or private) do not exist to allow families to make informed decisions about the schools they're sending their kids to. It's a basic problem of incomplete information available to clients of these schools, that's all: can we (or someone else) come up with a way to allow families in these areas to make sure that the school they're paying is actually providing the education they're expecting to receive? > what's wrong with a solely instructional institution that certifies competence in a given area? I am referring to fraudulent organizations that award degrees based solely on payment, and provide no actual education, classes, instruction, etc. The system we have may be flawed but these do not do anything constructive to change it.
tokenadult 16y ago
The Netherlands is an example of a country with a vigorous system of publicly funded, privately operated schools of diverse backgrounds. http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/english http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/english

by shaddi 16y ago

barry-cotter 16y ago

You're working off of your terminal values, your moral judgement, that the outcomes in Afghanistan and Pakistan are bad. That's a value judgement, not a fact one. So you can't but assume your conclusion, you desire outcome x because you do. As to the state sponsored indoctrination bit, whether it's explicitly planned or comes about organically through political bargaining between those with the power and those with the strongly held opinions who are willing to fight for it, it happens anyway. You cannot avoid having a value system, and if you do not perpetuate it, it will be outcompeted by one that will. I'm not denying complexity, I'm providing extreme examples as aids to thought. Look at the two ends of the spectrum and ask "What does my previously implicit value system say in these extreme cases?" Would I oppose the Amish exemption? No, because the vast majority of students in this nation have access to basic education. But don't the Amish children deserve to have the option to partake in broader society? And won't they have more and better information upon which to condition that choice if they attend government run schools until the normal school leaving age? Aren't they being harmed by being denied that opportunity? teaching violent fundamentalism at the expense of basic education What's violent fundamentalism? What's basic education? If the violent fundamentalists are the only ones providing education of any sort, a minimum of literacy for example, isn't that better than nothing for the vast majority of those who receive it who never do crap with the violent bit of the fundamentalism but who can read and write and probably do arithmetic when their chances to do so otherwise would have been much less? On degree mills; what's wrong with a solely instructional institution that certifies competence in a given area? Most people don't give a damn about education as growth for the soul, why should they subsidise those who do, and help perpetuate a costly signalling mechanism that is socially wasteful if an alternative exists?

shaddi 16y ago
> You're working off of your terminal values, your moral judgement, that the outcomes in Afghanistan and Pakistan are bad. Yes, the particular systems I'm referring to are bad, in my opinion. My base principles for making that assumption is that educational systems should not deny education to women, promote violence, or provide educations based on faith and mythology. If that is a purely moral viewpoint, so be it: we do not live in an objective world, and you're free to disagree with me. But that is /not/ the point I'm trying to make here. Moreover, these are just an example of a potential failing of private schools. I could imagine several ways to defraud parents of the education they think they're paying for. My conclusion it's unclear what the incentive system for private schools to provide "quality" education (from the point of view of parents, students, and society as a whole) in an area where little or no educational institutions have existed before, and where institutions (public or private) do not exist to allow families to make informed decisions about the schools they're sending their kids to. It's a basic problem of incomplete information available to clients of these schools, that's all: can we (or someone else) come up with a way to allow families in these areas to make sure that the school they're paying is actually providing the education they're expecting to receive? > what's wrong with a solely instructional institution that certifies competence in a given area? I am referring to fraudulent organizations that award degrees based solely on payment, and provide no actual education, classes, instruction, etc. The system we have may be flawed but these do not do anything constructive to change it.

tokenadult 16y ago

The Netherlands is an example of a country with a vigorous system of publicly funded, privately operated schools of diverse backgrounds. http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/english http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/english