what's the purpose of public education?

I've asked this before, but I'm interested to see if the answers have changed. At what goal do we aim when we require children to attend school?

:evilgrin:

on edit - changing smilie frm smilie to devilish smilie

;-)

And to prepare them for college.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Should they?

But that should be the goal anyway.

Now, it is to create a working widgett.

What's the point?

Her new job is to analyze school programs (municipal level)to see if programs (Head Start, etc.) are cost effective. The dollars vs. improved grades.

We actually got in an argument because when I asked her what the mission of public education is she said it was to produce workers for the economy. I asked her how programs in music and art fit into that mission statement she said they are not necessary.

When I asked her why our founders embraced public education she indicated she thought it was to create workers. The frightening thing is she has a newly minted degree from the University of North Carolina - this country's first public institution of higher learning.

I also asked her if the purpose for offering public education was to provide equal access for all citizens or to produce equal results across the city/county/state. She could not even understand the question. No wonder teachers are burned out - they don't even seem to know what their job is.

those art people and music people don't ever generate a lot of money in the economy.

We would like to believe that the original purpose of public schooling in America was to promote equality and enlightment and to give everyone (rich and poor alike) the tools to succeed. IMHO, that is a noble and worthy purpose which could be realized with the right resources and commitment from all of society, rather than a handful of dedicated educators.

However, there is evidence that the true reason was to produce workers in the levels required for the industrial economy.

Not all truths are pretty.

to moving beyond it and building something more noble, and that works.

Let's speak clearly here.

and as I recall there was no concept of "public" education until around the early middle of the 1800s. The founders of the country really didn't get involved with the question. Also, I don't remember hearing anything about the worker concept until this moment as I am reading your post. Her responses are indeed frightening and it proves one of the points I always make on these boards, that is, people are getting degrees, diplomas and honor roll status and they don't know s--t.

To be quite honest about it the very first schools set up in this country were to teach reading sufficient to read the Bible.

What's the point now?

a. produce an electorate sophisticated enough to choose capable representatives

b. enrich student's lives by exposing them to different ideas and works of art, and encouraging them to develop their own talents

c. preparing them for the workforce

d. as a corollary to c, providing economic opportunity by giving students from low-income households the ability to acquire skills that can get them into a good college or a good job or both

e. hone critical thinking skills (because society run badly when people act like boneheads)

and there are probably more.

While c is an important purpose of education, it's not the only one. Anyone who thinks it is has no business working in an education system even if they have a PhD.

Because for the first ~1800 years of Christianity, the authorities didn't want the public reading the Bible.

The northeastern schools were an outgrowth of the Puritan requirement for faith in the word, not the icon. It was as important to the early Puritan settelers of colonys that they have the good book as it is for some to bow to Mecca several times a day.

I'm teaching my daughters the importance of education, but I often wonder why. Many of the most learned people I know are unable to find fulfilling work, which would make their lives better, while many of the highest level managers are almost functionally illiterate.

The purpose of public education is job training. Nevermind turning out well-rounded, thinking citizens. We need students who can do their jobs. We prefer that they ask as few questions as possible. This helps corporations and their bottom line. This is good for the US.

An investment in educating the public is motivated by a need to compete with the populations of other nations.

Studies have directly linked education with gross domestic product and worker productivity. Uneducated workers and managers make more mistakes or otherwise waste a nation's resources and time more so than educated ones.

The gains in productivity from education directly bear on a nation's ability to finance public works, participate in international trade, and either pay its debts or lend money.

Therefore, it is economically in a nation's best interest to educate it's population as much as possible.

:)

The U.S. has the humanitarian obligation to provide its citizens with a free education. The question is why. In our gut we know that education is good, but these days when intellectuals are being marginalized it's not obvious why we want education.

Lets just all go lynch gays!!!!! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

God damn pinkers....Err anyway....Education needs reform. I liked Voinovich's original plan and the guy never followed through.

But on deeper reflection, a strictly conservative economic view wouldn't be that much different.


A conservative intellectual (e.g. non-freeper) might advocate as follows:

Market forces would dictate what level of education is the most profitable. Individuals would seek education to increase their income. Schools would set prices according to supply and demand. Businesses would set wages according to supply and demand.

And everything would reach equilibrium at a point where increased education would be more expensive than increase in wages.






Sounds ok in principle, but where it (and many conservative theories) fail is in accounting for the complexities in real life.

For example, if industry experiences a rapid change (such as a new technology), market forces can change far faster than a human being can change his/her education level or even his/her vocational training.

I've been openly liberal on these boards for nearly four years. If that's a surprise to you, that's your problem.

Market forces would dictate what level of education is the most profitable.

Effective education doesn't follow the market.

And yes, I would also criticize the conservative economic position similarly to the way you did.

Peak oil.
Offshoring.

There is no point.

Corporations no longer make us compete against each other for slim dollars to "live" on, but they are now discarding us left, right, and center.

"Final Exit" - I recommend it for reading as a means of preparation for when the time comes.

Does the pope shit in the woods?

DUers regularly have different ideas about the institution.

And you're sure they're not just trolls?

survive, based on what they've learned, in the real world.

As parents, we want our children to grown and learn as much as possible. Our goals are usually to teach our children how to think, not what to think.

Societies' goal is to create a factory worker who differs only slightly from a cow.

No. I think you know who "we" represents.

As my post made clear, there are "we" as in DUers as individuals, and the greater society. Both are correct. But if being petty suits you, that's fine.

Call it "petty" it is suits you to do so.

Thank you. Sorry if my post was confusing for you. Perhaps public education failed, though we might disagree on who it failed.

Pleasure trying to have a conversation with you.

didn't make that clear at all." Gosh -- and I thought that was you writing that. Always a pleasure.

Which is pretty much all that happens on threads like this.

It amuses me that my posts in the lounge are dismissed as unworthy of DU, yet my GD posts are dismissed for the same reasons.

citizens learned how to govern themselves - no more monarch to tell them what to do. Thus we had to have education available to every citizen - everyone had to understand the process.

It worked for awhile but the majority of citizens now see the government as something they have no role in creating or controlling and they don't feel responsible for choices made by our government. Note the number of citizens who don't vote - why bother "It ain't about us".

The rightwing destruction of public education (and the election process) was for exactly the purpose of making citizens feel no connection to their government.

I just thought of THE answer.

This is it. No question about it:

The purpose of education to enable low paid workers do all the thinking for their uneducated but connected and high paid employers.

:thumbsup:

and to promote 'the Greater Good' according to the Constitution. The more education people have, the more logical reasoning skills they obtain so they supposedly can participate in the democratic process. Also, the more scientists and engineers a country has, the more new inventions that will help more people. It's pretty basic.

Maybe?

Redstone

to learn how to answer the 'why' we all have about so many things for ourselves.

At the very least, the next generation of consumer sheeple must be literate enough to read the large print in advertisements and the slogan backdrops used by republican officials.

halfway civilized society. It doesn't always work that way, but that's what it should do.

That is, of course, why certain factions who are currently running our government oppose public education; they are fundamentally anti-democratic.

like how to spell, "p-o-s-s-u-m"

:D

:D

easy as p-i-e :)

isn't nearly as easy to spell.

like not finding a job, finding an unfulfilling job, finding a great job with shitty pay, finding a shitty job with great pay--when all this fails, at least when one is educated, one can read and appreciate Dostoevsky, Chaucer, Camus; one can name the basic functions of the human body; can ask basic questions of the cosmos; ask basic questions about the self, about being. The modern university (and by extension public elementary and secondary ed.) has gotten away from its roots in the liberal arts. I don't mean to imply that the modern university needs to be a liberal arts institution; they should, however, get back to the basics, the foundations of human existence--literature, languages, sciences, and history.

I'd rather be a ditch digger who could read Ovid in Latin than a CEO who would ask, "Who's Ovid?"

I don't mean the preceding to be an either/or, false dilemma. I realize there are many places in between--AND these places in between should be the BASIC goal of education.

America's noble experiment -- universal education for all citizens -- is a cornerstone of our democracy. "School: The Story of American Public Education"

The first public school in America was established by Puritan settlers in 1635 in the home of Schoolmaster Philemon Pormont and was later moved to School Street. City of Boston website

We see that it was during this period (1642 - 1647) in the history of the United States that the pursuit of religious freedom gave birth to modern education. Although it was a response to an ecclesiastical quest in the new world, it was adequately catalyzed and necessity eventually turned itself into education being conceptually pursued in and of itself in America. The United States was paving the way toward a better educational system, one brick at a time. Massachetts Education Laws of 1642 and 1647

See generally History of American Education Web Project

He's got a lot of things to say about it. :)

with the evil ideas of evolution and homosexuality?

that's exactly why I homeschool my kids...

Read Friedman's article today on Ireland. It's one of the main reasons for their recent successes.