Two words....Private schools.

 

Private schools aren't immune to issues or crazy policies.

I still don't agree. Private schools, at least those in the NKY area, will not turn people away if cost is the issue. They'll work with the family (and student) to make it possible. It may be hard, but if it's important it can be done.

 

I'm not arguing that may be the case at some schools, but if tuition is $13k, they're not letting you go if you can't make up the biggest portion of that, I don't care what school it is.

Not every county has a private school to send kids to.

I still don't agree. Private schools, at least those in the NKY area, will not turn people away if cost is the issue. They'll work with the family (and student) to make it possible. It may be hard, but if it's important it can be done.

 

Aren't most Private Schools religion driven? Could be wrong, but I was always under the impression that Private Schools usually had a religious participation requirement that needed to be met. If so, I see this preventing people from hopping on board with the idea that every school should be private.

 

Also, don't private schools typically set their our curriculum? If this is the case, and every school turned into a private school, then the federal government would essentially have no say in the curriculum. Is this a good idea?

 

Private schools do provide a lot of benefits, but I don't think those benefits would continue to be present if public schools ceased to exist. I didn't go to a private school, so I am not sure of the inner workings. But from the outside it seemed to me that private schools were religiously driven, and because of this, did not receive tax payer money and were not influenced by the federal government.

Aren't most Private Schools religion driven? Could be wrong, but I was always under the impression that Private Schools usually had a religious participation requirement that needed to be met. If so, I see this preventing people from hopping on board with the idea that every school should be private.

 

Also, don't private schools typically set their our curriculum? If this is the case, and every school turned into a private school, then the federal government would essentially have no say in the curriculum. Is this a good idea?

 

Private schools do provide a lot of benefits, but I don't think those benefits would continue to be present if public schools ceased to exist. I didn't go to a private school, so I am not sure of the inner workings. But from the outside it seemed to me that private schools were religiously driven, and because of this, did not receive tax payer money and were not influenced by the federal government.

 

A lot are religion-based, and you have to take a religion course each year, but not all.

 

And yes, they pretty much get to make their own choices with a lot of things.

 

I went to private school my whole life, and I loved it. Wouldn't dream of ever sending kids anywhere else but private. Having said that, I realize it's not for everyone and that's fine.

 

My whole point was at private schools you don't have to deal with stuff like this. Sure there's issues and things that aren't always sensible that pop up, but they seem to occur far less frequently than at their public counterparts. JMO.

A lot are religion-based, and you have to take a religion course each year, but not all.

 

And yes, they pretty much get to make their own choices with a lot of things.

 

I went to private school my whole life, and I loved it. Wouldn't dream of ever sending kids anywhere else but private. Having said that, I realize it's not for everyone and that's fine.

 

My whole point was at private schools you don't have to deal with stuff like this. Sure there's issues and things that aren't always sensible that pop up, but they seem to occur far less frequently than at their public counterparts. JMO.

 

 

I completely agree with you on this. However, I think if public schools were eliminated and everyone went to private schools, these issues would ultimately spill over to private schools. I don't mean this as a matter of fact, just an opinion.

Aren't most Private Schools religion driven? Could be wrong, but I was always under the impression that Private Schools usually had a religious participation requirement that needed to be met. If so, I see this preventing people from hopping on board with the idea that every school should be private.

 

Also, don't private schools typically set their our curriculum? If this is the case, and every school turned into a private school, then the federal government would essentially have no say in the curriculum. Is this a good idea?

 

Private schools do provide a lot of benefits, but I don't think those benefits would continue to be present if public schools ceased to exist. I didn't go to a private school, so I am not sure of the inner workings. But from the outside it seemed to me that private schools were religiously driven, and because of this, did not receive tax payer money and were not influenced by the federal government.

 

The federal government should not have any say on curriculum. They have no power to do so they just blackmail local governments with the tax dollars they took from their citizens.

The federal government should not have any say on curriculum. They have no power to do so they just blackmail local governments with the tax dollars they took from their citizens.

 

Then how do you suppose they provide financial aid? How would a college go about the acceptance procedure, if there it no baseline for what the students should know? Taking the federal government out of education is taking away a lot more than, in my opinion, what you are actually thinking about.

The federal government should not have any say on curriculum. They have no power to do so they just blackmail local governments with the tax dollars they took from their citizens.

 

And, can you explain your reasoning for this?

Then how do you suppose they provide financial aid? How would a college go about the acceptance procedure, if there it no baseline for what the students should know? Taking the federal government out of education is taking away a lot more than, in my opinion, what you are actually thinking about.

 

I think you are giving the federal government way to much credit. They do way more harm than in good in education. In any field or discipline when you take a one size fits all approach it is less efficient.

 

The federal government has no power in the constitution to have a say in local education. They created a back door by holding the tax payer hostage with their own money. It is easily the first department I want eliminated. I could go on for hours on this topic.

 

I also agree with UKM that if I ever had kids there is no way I would put my kid in a public school with the way things are going in this country and the no grey area approach a majority of our public schools are ran today.

And, can you explain your reasoning for this?

 

The federal government is only granted powers given to them in the constitution , no where does it call for the government to run education. It should be left to the states. This country has gone way to far from the system of individual states and the Federal government continues to take power it was not intended to have. So instead of taking the proper approach of amending the constitution the government blackmails local governments with tax dollars to do their bidding.

I think you are giving the federal government way to much credit. They do way more harm than in good in education. In any field or discipline when you take a one size fits all approach it is less efficient.

 

The federal government has no power in the constitution to have a say in local education. They created a back door by holding the tax payer hostage with their own money. It is easily the first department I want eliminated. I could go on for hours on this topic.

 

I also agree with UKM that if I ever had kids there is no way I would put my kid in a public school with the way things are going in this country and the no grey area approach a majority of our public schools are ran today.

 

OK, but say each state has its own curriculum. Lets say I go to high school in Kentucky, but want to apply for college in California, but California doesn't accept the Kentucky curriculum. Do you not see how having individual curriculum presents problems.

 

I agree, we shouldn't have an all encompassing "one size fits all" curriculum. But we do need a standard baseline for what needs to be taught.

OK, but say each state has its own curriculum. Lets say I go to high school in Kentucky, but want to apply for college in California, but California doesn't accept the Kentucky curriculum. Do you not see how having individual curriculum presents problems.

 

I agree, we shouldn't have an all encompassing "one size fits all" curriculum. But we do need a standard baseline for what needs to be taught.

 

No we don't . It's that simple. You are creating a problem that isn't there. The base of your argument is the Federal government knows what's best for me or my child and I will never subscribe to that theory.

 

It would be on states and their leadership to create curriculum to a level where you can have joint agreements with other states. It also can be up to an individual admission board and require those admission boards to look at cases on an individual basis. You know their actual job. We also would still have standardized tests such as the ACT and SAT, and courses such as Advanced Placement and other competing programs.

 

But we don't need is the federal government having more power than it should . The only answer I ever want to hear from a politician about the Department of Education is how they are cutting it's budget and sending the funds back to the states where they can do more good.

No we don't . It's that simple. You are creating a problem that isn't there. The base of your argument is the Federal government knows what's best for me or my child and I will never subscribe to that theory.

 

It would be on states and their leadership to create curriculum to a level where you can have joint agreements with other states. It also can be up to an individual admission board and require those admission boards to look at cases on an individual basis. You know their actual job. We also would still have standardized tests such as the ACT and SAT, and courses such as Advanced Placement and other competing programs.

 

But we don't need is the federal government having more power than it should . The only answer I ever want to hear from a politician about the Department of Education is how they are cutting it's budget and sending the funds back to the states where they can do more good.

 

No, the baseline of my argument is that we need a common educational standard between all states to ensure a kid isn't denied entry to a college because his high school curriculum is inadequate.

No we don't . It's that simple. You are creating a problem that isn't there. The base of your argument is the Federal government knows what's best for me or my child and I will never subscribe to that theory.

 

It would be on states and their leadership to create curriculum to a level where you can have joint agreements with other states. It also can be up to an individual admission board and require those admission boards to look at cases on an individual basis. You know their actual job. We also would still have standardized tests such as the ACT and SAT, and courses such as Advanced Placement and other competing programs.

 

But we don't need is the federal government having more power than it should . The only answer I ever want to hear from a politician about the Department of Education is how they are cutting it's budget and sending the funds back to the states where they can do more good.

 

I wonder why it doesn't exist yet? Maybe it doesn't exist because each state doesn't currently set their own individual curriculum.