Education/ Race-Based School Busing

[waterdrinker]

Should there be compulsory education? If so, what should be required? Is there one thing that all people should be required to study?

Two Issues:
(1) Young people are easily pushed around, so there is a potential for the content of compulsory education to be biased or simply useless. If people of all ages are required to periodically re-satisfy the requirements of compulsory education, then biased and useless things will tend to be removed from the curriculum because politicians who don't remove them will be voted out of power.

(2) People forget what they have studied. If the purpose of compulsory education is to ensure that people have some specified knowledge and skills, then that purpose fails to be served unless there is a standing order for people to maintain knowledge of what is included in the compulsory curriculum.

[Ederico]

The Education System should be State-Controlled and the State should offer the possibility to gain an Education to any individual who satisfies the requirements to become a Citizen.

The primary purpose of the Education System should be to create Individuals who are well aware of their Nation's and Race's Culture and History and Identity, and to create Nationalistic Citizens in order to create a strong and united National Community. The Education System should be the primary force in creating Ideal Nationalistic Citizens. In order to do so History, Culture, and Statal Organisation and Functioning should be compulsory subjects till around the age of 16. Students must be introduced to these subjects year by year, going more in detail each year. The school week should include a whole day dedicated solely to Physical Education, to create Citizens healthy in body and not only in mind.

After Compulsory education each Student must be allowed to pursue further education in appropriate schools at the expense of the State. These Institutions should train the Students to pursue their profession in life and to become the Elite of the Nation in their respective professions.

[waterdrinker]

Originally posted by Nazzjonalista
[...]History, Culture, and Statal Organisation and Functioning should be compulsory subjects till around the age of 16.

Why should a subject be compulsory up to a certain age? I would think that there is some specified knowledge that you want people to acquire. No? What if a fourteen-year-old has already acquired that knowledge?

What if someone manages to evade the requirement to take compulsory education? Suppose the police or truant officers don't catch the person until he or she is 17 years old. Would the government then say, "As a reward for successfully evading our laws, you now do not have to satisfy any compulsory education requirements"?

How should history be studied? Suppose an event occurred in December 1840 and the student mistakenly writes down 1841. Should the student get zero marks for that answer?

Why should culture be a compulsory subject in school? Can a true, living culture be something that is passed on as part of a formal, compulsory system? Isn't living culture something that people absorb in a natural way?

[shambler]

Should there be compulsory education? If so, what should be required? Is there one thing that all people should be required to study?

Two Issues:
(1) Young people are easily pushed around, so there is a potential for the content of compulsory education to be biased or simply useless. If people of all ages are required to periodically re-satisfy the requirements of compulsory education, then biased and useless things will tend to be removed from the curriculum because politicians who don't remove them will be voted out of power.

Or, really, really hard stuff? This damn politician wants me to know Multi-Variable Calculus and Ancient Greek! While this other Politician wants me to quote Lesbian Love Poetry and Ebonics in Everyday Life.

Wha fo ah need 2 no Calculus foah? Wha fo? Yo, yo, ah gohna vote foah mah homey and grab me a 40. That whut I do! Eff Ancient Greek, 2. Dude at the pizza parlor don't even speak it, he say he Greek.

(2) People forget what they have studied. If the purpose of compulsory education is to ensure that people have some specified knowledge and skills, then that purpose fails to be served unless there is a standing order for people to maintain knowledge of what is included in the compulsory curriculum.

Nonsense. I took three years of Spanish in high school, and don't remember a syllable, save for some swear words I picked up fighting Puerto Ricans in the parking lot. My time spent attempting to learn the language is useless but, otherwise how would I have known whether or not I had any facility or interest for it? I chose not to pursue it further, but can I really claim it was useless? Personally, I don't think so.

Also, I remember arriving bright-eyed on campus in the Fall of 1983, at the start of college. One of the first courses I took, was programming in BASIC on a Apple II+. Yep, re-certifying in THAT would do me some good. REM something, right?

[waterdrinker]

Originally posted by shambler

If people of all ages are required to periodically re-satisfy the requirements of compulsory education, then biased and useless things will tend to be removed from the curriculum because politicians who don't remove them will be voted out of power.

Or, really, really hard stuff? This damn politician wants me to know Multi-Variable Calculus and Ancient Greek!
[/B]

I didn't say that the voting age should be lowered, so what is the point of your question?

Are you suggesting that forty-year-olds who don't know Multi-Variable Calculus and Ancient Greek and who consider those subjects to be too difficult are voting in such a way as to ensure that fifteen-year-olds are currently learning Multi-Variable Calculus and Ancient Greek?

What happens to people between the ages of fifteen and forty? Do they say, "That stuff was too difficult for me to learn, but young people nowadays are smarter so they can learn it"? Do they say, "I hated that stuff and had to suffer through it so I want young people to suffer too"?

Originally posted by shambler
(2) People forget what they have studied. If the purpose of compulsory education is to ensure that people have some specified knowledge and skills, then that purpose fails to be served unless there is a standing order for people to maintain knowledge of what is included in the compulsory curriculum.

One of the first courses I took, was programming in BASIC on a Apple II+. Yep, re-certifying in THAT would do me some good. REM something, right?

How do you come to the conclusion that I am suggesting people should be required to re-certify in subjects that are no longer taught? Your example provides an additional reason that re-certification is necessary. Not only do people forget things, but the state of the art changes.

[waterdrinker]

I am picking up on something that was only hinted at. Here is the concept:

There are people out there who are ignorant and lazy. These people have what it takes to make wise decisions. They will guide the way for others and decide what others should be required to learn.

However, they themselves have no need for such knowledge.
In fact, it would be wrong to expect them to follow the rules that they wish to impose on others.

Because they are ignorant and lazy, they would water down the expectations if they themselves were required to follow the rules that they wish to impose on others.

[shambler]

Originally posted by waterdrinker

I didn't say that the voting age should be lowered, so what is the point of your question?

Are you suggesting that forty-year-olds who don't know Multi-Variable Calculus and Ancient Greek and who consider those subjects to be too difficult are voting in such a way as to ensure that fifteen-year-olds are currently learning Multi-Variable Calculus and Ancient Greek?

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your thoughts. I guess I placed too much emphasis on this section:

If people of all ages are required to periodically re-satisfy the requirements of compulsory education, then biased and useless things will tend to be removed from the curriculum because politicians who don't remove them will be voted out of power.

To help me understand, can you give me an example of "biased" and "useless"? I guess someone could say the fact the George Washington was the first president of the USA is a "useless" fact, even to an American citizen, since it does not help advance their career, save for retirement or pay off debt. Yet, I think it is something all Americans SHOULD know.

I'm also not sure how a politician, or most people voting for a politician, could figure out what is useful and useless to, say, a surgeon doing open heart surgery or a civil engineer designing suspension bridges. I'd be pretty reluctant to be operated on by such a surgeon, or travel across a bridge designed by such an engineer! Even if I voted for them. So, I'm guessing implicit in your thoughts is the idea that specialized knowledge would be excluded from your thesis?

Where I'm scratching my head, candidly, is trying to figure out what sort of knowledge it is you're talking about, even if it does NOT include specialized knowledge, as I discussed above. Perhaps the failing is on my part, but I'm just not getting it. Is it something like simple, basic literacy in the country's primary language? Elementary arithmatic? Basic knowledge of your country's history? Give me some details, and I think on it.

Also, this probably wouldn't be the case in most European countries, but there are some very wide divergences of opinion in the USA on the most basic facts American history. In the textbooks I learned from, the war of 1861-65 is referred to as the "US Civil War." Travel south and this same war might be referred to as either the "War Between the States," or the "War of Northern Agression." I'm not sure you could come to a consensus of opinion on something like this at the national level of the USA, but have it decided at the state level, and you'd have 50 different tests, decided by 50 different sets of politicians. Someone who might pass in New York may not pass in South Carolina, and vice versa. Another problem I see.

Thanks,

shambler

(PS: I apologize for the tone of my earlier post on this thread. I usually try not to be sarcastic, especially where I'm a bit confused. Sorry about that, and I'll do my best to keep it from happening again.)

[Ederico]

Originally posted by waterdrinker

Why should a subject be compulsory up to a certain age? I would think that there is some specified knowledge that you want people to acquire. No? What if a fourteen-year-old has already acquired that knowledge?

The Education which is compulsory is essential to create Good Citizens, I believe that only individuals who satisfy the requirements of Compulsory Education should be granted Citizenship. Compulsory subjects should include those subjects which educate the student about his Nationality and Race, and those subjects which give the student of compulsory education a general knowledge from which the student can select his specialisation when selecting further education.

What if someone manages to evade the requirement to take compulsory education? Suppose the police or truant officers don't catch the person until he or she is 17 years old. Would the government then say, "As a reward for successfully evading our laws, you now do not have to satisfy any compulsory education requirements"?

Those who do not satisfy the requirement to compulsory education should not be granted the right to Citizenship.

How should history be studied? Suppose an event occurred in December 1840 and the student mistakenly writes down 1841. Should the student get zero marks for that answer?

History should be studied in such away that the student reaches an understanding of the causes and repurcussions of historical events and their importance to the Nation and Race. That is the essence of history, dates are important but not essential.

Why should culture be a compulsory subject in school? Can a true, living culture be something that is passed on as part of a formal, compulsory system? Isn't living culture something that people absorb in a natural way?

I believe Education should introduce Culture to the prospective Citizen and instate in him/her an attraction to Culture. I agree that Culture is learned through experience in life.

[waterdrinker]

If people of all ages are required to periodically re-satisfy the requirements of compulsory education, then biased and useless things will tend to be removed from the curriculum because politicians who don't remove them will be voted out of power.

Originally posted by shambler
To help me understand, can you give me an example of "biased" and "useless"? I guess someone could say the fact the George Washington was the first president of the USA is a "useless" fact, even to an American citizen, since it does not help advance their career, save for retirement or pay off debt. Yet, I think it is something all Americans SHOULD know.

You've raised a lot of issues here. My first question is: why can't one refer to "the first president of the United States"? Don't reference books include lists of the names of the Presidents in order, starting from the first? If one is going to look for information about the first president (and how else would one make use of the name "George Washington"?), then why can't one begin by finding out the name of the first president?

You are probably right in saying that the fact (GW was the 1st Pres.) is useless, but I have to wonder about your criteria. You say it is useless "since it does not help advance their career, save for retirement or pay off debt." Are you really saying that, unless something does at least one of these three things then it is useless?

Finally, if there are enough voters like you, then useless facts will be taught even if the other reform proposals are implemented. My question for you is then: on what basis should it be decided what will be taught? For example, do you think that the compulsory education curriculum should include celebrity trivia? If not, why not?

Originally posted by shambler
I'm also not sure how a politician, or most people voting for a politician, could figure out what is useful and useless to, say, a surgeon doing open heart surgery or a civil engineer designing suspension bridges. I'd be pretty reluctant to be operated on by such a surgeon, or travel across a bridge designed by such an engineer! Even if I voted for them. So, I'm guessing implicit in your thoughts is the idea that specialized knowledge would be excluded from your thesis?

You need to re-read the first three sentences in my original posting: "Should there be compulsory education? If so, what should be required? Is there one thing that all people should be required to study?"

When I speak of "compulsory education", I am referring to the existing practice of requiring people to attend classes until they reach some specified age or grade level. Attendance is compulsory in the sense that people do not voluntarily attend as a means to achieve their goals in medicine, engineering, or any other discipline. They are simply required to attend.

Originally posted by shambler
I'm not sure you could come to a consensus of opinion on something like this at the national level of the USA, but have it decided at the state level, and you'd have 50 different tests, decided by 50 different sets of politicians. Someone who might pass in New York may not pass in South Carolina, and vice versa. Another problem I see.

Why is that a problem? Are you suggesting that people should be able to move to any state without having any responsibility to learn what, in that state, is considered essential? Should parents who move from New York to South Carolina have the right to tell the principal of a South Carolina public school that their children are to be taught and tested using the New York curriculum?

[waterdrinker]

Somebody asked the following:

(1) Question in the title:

Is Race-Based School Busing Discriminatory Against White Students?

(2) Question in the body of the article:

Is it fair to bus minority students to schools around the city, but not offer the option to White students?

Notice that the questions are different.

The first question seems to be whether or not racial discrimination is racial discrimination.

The second question asks whether or not it is fair to discriminate against whites. Notice that the second question actually consists of two parts:
(1) Is it fair to bus minority students to schools around the city?
(2) Is it fair to not offer the option of busing to white students?

The term "minority" seems to be used as a code word. Isn't it possible that, in some cities, the majority of students are not white?

To read more (including comments from readers), follow this link:

BET