5 ms·

You're missing the point. The purpose of public school is to provide a basic education. If you want to do more work, or your parents want you to study more, y

You're missing the point. The purpose of public school is to provide a basic education. If you want to do more work, or your parents want you to study more, you're free to do so. In your very own example, you went to a private school and did well. That's great, that's what's supposed to happen. What's currently happening in public schools is that too many resources are being allocated to the over achievers and not enough to the under achievers. There's not enough money to fund all programs, so you have to ensure you fund the most needy first.

batter 5y ago
Except one thing - even if you're in private school you have to pay for both. For public via taxes and private from your own pocket. It sound more like double tax for smart kids - knowledge for rich only. And just to remind that school price can be on par with University.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  I don't think that's particularly fair. We all pay into the basic social programs. I don't have children but I'm still paying into the public system and I don't believe I'm being unfairly taxed. To be able to afford to pay into the private school is a luxury.
  - batter 5y ago
    So if you have smart kid but don't have money you won't be able to help him. Poor will be always poor :(
    - Retric 5y ago
      Plenty of help to send poor kids to collage, masters, and then PHD. It’s just spending public money early on that’s at issue.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      That is always the struggle, isn't it? You're granted a certain level of education/health care/security/fire services/road maintenance via taxes, but in order to get services in addition to that you need to spend your own money.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  The problem here is economic disparity. If people can't afford to send their children to the school of their choosing, then it's a signal wages are too low. This also applies to public schools, you can be the smartest kid in certain inner cities, and you're unlikely to do well compared to an average kid in a higher income area. But even if we have unlimited funding for lower education, what's the purpose? The vast majority of society isn't fit for a traditional university education. And even if they are, the vast majority of university students go on to achieve what, exactly? Sure, some kids might not be able to achieve their dreams, welcome to the club. Is the dream of a life being a scientist or some such any better than the dream of being a professional skier or race car driver? We're not robots, we're people. The obsession with academic excellence has to end.
  - pclmulqdq 5y ago
    Arguably the point of public school was to develop all bright kids, not just the rich ones. Providing everyone a basic level of education is a very different goal, and I question whether a college-oriented curriculum is good for educating the masses. The fact that my parents had to pay for both the public school and some tuition for private school (I had financial aid) left a really bad taste in my mouth. On top of that, full tuition at the private school was less than the per-student cost of public school! To me, that is ridiculous.
godelski 5y ago
The point of public school is to educate the society. I still get a return on my investment (taxes) when some kid invents the new Google. I also do if that kid just works at McDonald's. The problem is treating everyone like they are the same and not as individuals. Let's also mention that education is one of the best ways to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Advanced and higher education shouldn't only be available to those that are wealthy and/or have time to send their kids to extra schooling. Ensuring a high quality education in disenfranchised neighborhoods is one of the best tools we have for helping those people. No matter how you frame it, I want children getting the best education that they can get. So if they're ready to achieve more, give it to them. We all, as a society, benefit.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  > I want children getting the best education that they can get. Again, the funding is not unlimited. We're sacrificing some less than average students' learning for the sake of the small minority of above average students. > Let's also mention that education is one of the best ways to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Currently, that is true. But, does it have to be true? Should the only way to leave poverty be an above average education? There used to be plenty of blue collar jobs that paid a comfortable middle class wage, now there's not. You know the guy that started KFC? Did he go to college? No, he dropped out in the 7th grade. You used to be able to work hard and be successful. > No matter how you frame it, I want children getting the best education that they can get. So if they're ready to achieve more, give it to them. We all, as a society, benefit. Not every kid wants or needs more education.

batter 5y ago

Except one thing - even if you're in private school you have to pay for both. For public via taxes and private from your own pocket. It sound more like double tax for smart kids - knowledge for rich only. And just to remind that school price can be on par with University.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
I don't think that's particularly fair. We all pay into the basic social programs. I don't have children but I'm still paying into the public system and I don't believe I'm being unfairly taxed. To be able to afford to pay into the private school is a luxury.
- batter 5y ago
  So if you have smart kid but don't have money you won't be able to help him. Poor will be always poor :(
  - Retric 5y ago
    Plenty of help to send poor kids to collage, masters, and then PHD. It’s just spending public money early on that’s at issue.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    That is always the struggle, isn't it? You're granted a certain level of education/health care/security/fire services/road maintenance via taxes, but in order to get services in addition to that you need to spend your own money.
linuxftw 5y ago
The problem here is economic disparity. If people can't afford to send their children to the school of their choosing, then it's a signal wages are too low. This also applies to public schools, you can be the smartest kid in certain inner cities, and you're unlikely to do well compared to an average kid in a higher income area. But even if we have unlimited funding for lower education, what's the purpose? The vast majority of society isn't fit for a traditional university education. And even if they are, the vast majority of university students go on to achieve what, exactly? Sure, some kids might not be able to achieve their dreams, welcome to the club. Is the dream of a life being a scientist or some such any better than the dream of being a professional skier or race car driver? We're not robots, we're people. The obsession with academic excellence has to end.
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  Arguably the point of public school was to develop all bright kids, not just the rich ones. Providing everyone a basic level of education is a very different goal, and I question whether a college-oriented curriculum is good for educating the masses. The fact that my parents had to pay for both the public school and some tuition for private school (I had financial aid) left a really bad taste in my mouth. On top of that, full tuition at the private school was less than the per-student cost of public school! To me, that is ridiculous.

godelski 5y ago

The point of public school is to educate the society. I still get a return on my investment (taxes) when some kid invents the new Google. I also do if that kid just works at McDonald's. The problem is treating everyone like they are the same and not as individuals. Let's also mention that education is one of the best ways to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Advanced and higher education shouldn't only be available to those that are wealthy and/or have time to send their kids to extra schooling. Ensuring a high quality education in disenfranchised neighborhoods is one of the best tools we have for helping those people. No matter how you frame it, I want children getting the best education that they can get. So if they're ready to achieve more, give it to them. We all, as a society, benefit.

linuxftw 5y ago
> I want children getting the best education that they can get. Again, the funding is not unlimited. We're sacrificing some less than average students' learning for the sake of the small minority of above average students. > Let's also mention that education is one of the best ways to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Currently, that is true. But, does it have to be true? Should the only way to leave poverty be an above average education? There used to be plenty of blue collar jobs that paid a comfortable middle class wage, now there's not. You know the guy that started KFC? Did he go to college? No, he dropped out in the 7th grade. You used to be able to work hard and be successful. > No matter how you frame it, I want children getting the best education that they can get. So if they're ready to achieve more, give it to them. We all, as a society, benefit. Not every kid wants or needs more education.