Should America stop funding public education and rely on parents to homeschool

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chi Guy
  • Start date Start date
C

Chi Guy

Guest
their children? I ask because people on the ultra extreme right seem to have a disdain for teachers and public education.
 
I believe we should stop funding public schools in Chicago. I've read posts from people from Chicago who represent the fruits of the public education system ... and let me assure you ... we are failing America in Chicago.
 
While I am not a member of the ultra-right, I would classify myself as a moderate conservative, and I do not necessarily agree with the premise of your statement.

In my opinion, conservatives do not generally have a problem with public education. They (and myself can be included in this) have a problem with the bureaucracy and unnecessary waste that goes along with public education.

Again, in my opinion, if it isn't a teacher, principal, or superintendant (or someone else who could be directly involved with the education of the student), why are we paying for it?
 
We need to have public education for those whose parents have to work, and can not give proper time to educate their children.

It is hard for a parent to stay at home these days. It is what my husband and I are working towards, me staying at home with the kids and using some form of homeschooling/unschooling.

We will probably have to have a simple life, but I think that sort of life is best for us anyway. I don't need a new fancy car, I don't need to spend thousands on vacations, I don't need a million shoes. I want to have a good relationship with my children, I don't want my children to fall through the cracks of public education.
 
lol, home schooled kids are usually smarter or further along the curriculum than public educated ones.

Most likely because parents who take on such roles are competent teachers.

And the kids at privates schools are generally more motivated than the ones at public schools or the parents are usually more involved in their child's education.
 
Most of the middle class would have no education for their children because they have to work 60 hour work weeks just to stay alive (thank you Bush)
 
No.

It is true that home schooled children are generally further along in the curriculum than public school students, but that is due to the fact that the parents who choose that route are themselves competent teachers with the time and income level necessary to facilitate home schooling as an option.

Many people do not have that option. They have to work for a barely livable wage in order to keep their child fed and warm, and do not have the time to home school or the means to afford a private school. And that is the point of public schools, to prevent education from becoming a tool of the wealthy. If the wealthy can afford to educate their children and the poor cannot, the wealthy have a clear shot at oppressing and enslaving the poor and uneducated.
 
No. For one thing, not all parents can homeschool their kids. They could be too busy with work to teach them. But I think that only the parents of kids that go to that school should have to pay. Why should someone without kids pay to fund public education? Or why should parents pay to fund a school that their kids don't even go to?
 
problem came in 30 years ago with the liberal..."it takes a village to raise a child" bull crap....now parents want society to raise them.....parents need to be part of that village.....it was left out of the mentality,..and taken wrong.....
 
Possibly. Public education seems to be an area liberals have chosen to control. It is becoming more of a liberal indoctrination than an unbiased education.

For instance, "An Inconvenient Truth" was shown over and over. A friend's son was telling me he saw it 8-10 times.
 
First, you seem to forget that private schools always seem to do better then public ones.

Second, its not that we are against public education, but we feel it is broken, like healthcare is.
 
Back
Top