From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.education,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: High costs of  education
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:00:26 GMT
 <1992Oct12.013154.19893@yang.earlham.edu> <Bw0K9z.G6K@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <Bw0K9z.G6K@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.013154.19893@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>	My problem with funding anything farther than K-12 is that one can 
>>get along perfectly well, including locating further education, with just 
>>stuff packable into K-12. I tend to include in that: 1. basic literacy; 2. 
>>basic history; 3. basic civics/political science; 4. basic science 
>>(primarily the scientific method); 5. basic computer usage; 6. basic 
>>library and other research usage; 7. basic mathematics. Beyond that, it's 
>>frills that no-one should be forced (i.e., taxed) to pay for.
> 
> This might be the case if what you have stated was taught in K-12.  Basic
> mathematics is not taught at all to most of the children, and in many places
> is not even available to the best students.  Basic mathematics does not
> consist of learning how to manipulate, and at this time, most high school
> mathematics teachers do not understand basics.
> 
> Also, the other subjects you have mentioned are hard to get in the schools.
> Few ever learn any world history, and even American history is badly done.
> Civics is likely to be the Demopublican line, and political science is 
> usually garbage.  Basic science is not taught, but a few trivia and some
> manipulation and facts.  
> 
> Now the basic material can, and should, be taught earlier.  I maintain that
> anyone capable of getting an honest bachelor's degree in a science should
> receive all the basic material taught in all of the sciences at an under-
> graduate level now BEFORE the present age of graduating high school.  But
> this is not going to be done in the near future.

	That's one reason I'm in favor of a voucher-type system for 
education. But the vouchers should only be given to those who can't fund 
their children's education otherwise (if in the grey area, have a sliding 
scale; that will also cure the problem of "earn more money, make less 
money" otherwise encountered with straight cutoffs). Too little money for 
education? Just spend the public sector money on those who won't get 
educated otherwise.
	There is admittedly the problem that another poster mentioned that 
different people are going to determine "frills" different ways. That is, 
however, an admitted problem with all government. An anarchist, for 
instance, would say that nothing is worth taxing for. I am more moderate 
and admit that there are things that need to be done (protection of 
individual liberties) for which a government supported by taxation is 
neccessary.
	Determine what is generally agreed to be an absolute minimum, 
although almost everyone would probably have some area that they want more 
in. Require parents to give their children that amount of education before 
they are allowed to graduate (unless they turn 21 first or have some other 
problem such as mental retardation).
	The vouchers can be used for whatever form of education the 
parents wish to give their children, although provably erroneous 
(creationist, for instance) belief-teachings should not be fundable 
through the vouchers. That's what the churches, etc., are for.
	-Allen