It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Statist School Systems In A Nutshell

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I was schooled in NSW.
A majority of children that attend private schools do so for the following reasons;
Religious beliefs
Sexual/gender segregation
Elite family tradition

A majority of students attend public schools.
As much as Australians love to complain about our education system it stands up rather well when compared to international standards.

Many of our free public high schools are specialty high schools that cater specifically to nurture talents.Local residents may also attend the specialty school if they live within the surrounding region.Many students travel between 1/2 hour to 1.5 hours to attend school.

The schools specialize in a broad range of themes such as sports,music,art,performing arts,science,technology and academia.General curriculum was also an integral part of each school.But the overall theme of the school is designed to cater to the students strengths.

No reason USA could not implement similar schooling policy.

At 13 years old, our first year of high school in OZ my year was provided with penpals from the USA and England.
We were utterly shocked at the difference between our literacy skills and maturity levels.It was equivalent to communicating with a nine year old Australian child.The pen-pal relationships failed to flourish.Particularly when prose such as 'are you all lik werd nerds and stuf'.Was the quality of many return letters.

- Schooled in NSW, seems as though USA could learn a thing or two about how to IMPROVE, not abandon public education.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by mumma in pyjamas]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by mumma in pyjamas]




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


How can you accuse me of spreading propaganda by posting a post with the information that confirms the point I just made?

edit to add. Corporations are a result of Capitalist activity.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by woodwardjnr]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 





How can you accuse me of spreading propaganda by posting a post with the information that confirms the point I just made?


Are you so blind you couldn't tell that this is what is happening to public schools? I all ready bolded for you in the last post so that you would be clear that corporatism is taking over public schools not private schools. Wake up!



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No, you said violently looting. I am willfully, and WANTING, to pay tax. I am not being shaken down.


Americans suffer from a from of Stockholm syndrome.

You are being violently shaken down. You do not want to pay taxes.

This is how you cope.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
So my point was to "sell off the public schools to the Corps", your response was "they already have done, heres the evidence" . My response "oh right, they already have done". I dont understand where I was using propaganda.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


How would your and the OPs system remove violence from the system? I dont really understand either of your concepts, all I see is a very selfish survival of the fittest system. There seems to be no thought of community or society, is it every man for himself, leave people behind who cant keep up?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


There seems to be no thought of community or society, is it every man for himself, leave people behind who cant keep up?


Is that what you do? Leave the weak behind? And require laws to make you charitable?

Are you an athiest?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
So my point was to "sell off the public schools to the Corps", your response was "they already have done, heres the evidence" . My response "oh right, they already have done". I dont understand where I was using propaganda.


They are not "selling off" the public schools to corporations as tax dollars are still used to fund public schools, but they are also used to accommodate corporations, and while corporations may "donate" money to public schools, they do not own them. Further, it seemed clear that your point was to equate capitalism and privatization with corporatism, and that my friend is propaganda.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


There seems to be no thought of community or society, is it every man for himself, leave people behind who cant keep up?


Is that what you do? Leave the weak behind? And require laws to make you charitable?

Are you an athiest?


No I dont leave the weak behind I'm a socialist and believe in a safety net for society and yes I am an atheist, but I dont see how this has any relevance whatsoever. I can imagine a socialist atheist is comparable to the "boogey man" where you come from.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mumma in pyjamas
 


According to isca.edu.au:


In 2009, there were 1,022 independent schools in Australia which enrolled some 484,493 full-time equivalent (FTE) students. This represented 14 percent of all Australian school enrolments. More information is available in School Statistics.


Independent schools are defined by this site as non government schools. Since 1999 there has been an increase of 140,000 students enrolled in independent schools. Further, there is an increasing number of children being home schooled in Australia. hslda.org has this to say about education and home schooling in Australia:


The first formal education in Australia commenced in 1788 in three homes. Later, education became the domain of the Christian church, with the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches seeking to establish their denominational education systems. From 1872 to the 1880s, the governments of what are now the six Australian States established “compulsory, free and secular” Education Acts, and since then, governments and government schooling has grown to become the dominant factor in Australian education.


And continues with this:


With the rise of an aggressive atheism on the Australian educational landscape in the 1960s–1980s, home education has experienced a significant resurgence. Research (Harding, 1997) has demonstrated that parents have chosen to educate their children at home for the following reasons: (i) religious reasons; (ii) parenting reasons, in that parents wanted to create close bonds with their children; (iii) social reasons, as parents wanted to promote positive socialisation in their children’s lives; (iv) academic reasons, as parents sought to secure their children’s academic success; (v) practical reasons where private schooling was unattainable, or for travelling families and (vi) for the special educational or health needs of children, which would be best met by home education.


A Wikipedia Article on Homeschooling regarding Australia claims:


The Australian census does not track homeschooling families, but Philip Strange of Home Education Association, Inc. very roughly estimates 15,000.[87] In 1995, Roland Meighan of Nottingham School of Education estimated some 200,000 families homeschooling in Australia.


Which indicates a huge discrepancy of figures regarding statistical data on homeschooling in Australia, but that home schooling has its own legal defense fund in Australia indicates the figures are much larger than 15,000.

If the figure citing 200,000 is to be trusted, combined with the 14% (483,000) attending independent schools, this brings the percentage of students not attending public schools much higher than is being reported.

Of course, I am only offering statistical data based upon actual research and unlike you am not offering anecdotal evidence. While you may feel smugly superior in your anecdotes, there is much to be said for actual research and data to support that research. Of course, what do I know? I spent six years in public schools after my parents yanked me out of Catholic school because the Nuns wouldn't allow me to write with my left hand.

Even so, your anecdotal evidence only seems to indict what has all ready been soundly indicted by actual research data, and that is that The U.S. public schools are failing miserably. U.S. private schools, on the other hand, are not failing students in America, but you didn't have a pen pal writing you from a private school in the U.S. did you?

Consider this article about private schools:

Why Are Private Schools So Successful?


A U.S. Department of Education study shows that independent schools are on the right track by placing such a strong emphasis on small school and class size. The Condition of Education 2002 suggests that small and intermediate—sized schools and relatively small classes, like those commonly found in independent schools, have advantages, often leading to higher achievement for students.


Private schools generally produce better educated students than do public schools, particularly in The United States. Of course, most students in private schools actually want to be there, and actually want to learn. Compulsory education is a dead end street that forces most public school teachers to baby sit too many students who don't want to be there.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

No I dont leave the weak behind I'm a socialist and believe in a safety net for society and yes I am an atheist, but I dont see how this has any relevance whatsoever. I can imagine a socialist atheist is comparable to the "boogey man" where you come from.



Why are you pretending that you know my location?

It is one thing to not see the relevance of something , quite another to engage in that sort of behaviour.




I'm a socialist



Charity from the barrel of a gun.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I dont need to pretend to know your location it states it in your profile. I've never advocated violence. In America in the 1950's the top rate of tax was 90%, were the rich forced at the barrel of a gun to pay such a high percentage or was it seen as a necessary contribution to help improve the country after the war years?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


How would your and the OPs system remove violence from the system? I dont really understand either of your concepts, all I see is a very selfish survival of the fittest system. There seems to be no thought of community or society, is it every man for himself, leave people behind who cant keep up?


Are you asking about violence in the school system? There is certainly a problem of violence in the school system that is remarkably more prevalent in public schools than in private schools. Consider this data in a report titled: Indicators of School Crime and Safety put out by the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Victims of violence going to or from schools:

Public schools; 4.3% Private Schools 2.6%

Fear of being threatened going to or from school:

Public schools; 5.1% Private schools 0.9%

Fear of being attacked going to or from school:

Public schools; 6.4% Private schools; 3.8%

Fear of presence of gangs at/or going to or from school:

Public schools; 24.5% Private schools; 4.2%

Where is your bleeding heart for those public school students? It seems to me that your insistence that only government can and should teach kids is what has created so much of the fear and violence so prevalent in public schools. You do not seem to care one iota for this, and only care for your socialist propaganda, and all the while blaming capitalism and declaring yourself the caring one.

Further, while home schooling in The United States has been legal in all 50 States, California, the most socialist state in the union, has made a push towards the criminalization of home schooling. Consider this article by Time Magazine


On Feb. 28, Judge H. Walter Croskey of the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles ruled that children ages six to 18 may be taught only by credentialed teachers in public or private schools — or at home by Mom and Dad, but only if they have a teaching degree. Read more: www.time.com...


Can't have mom and dad protecting their children from the gangs in and around public schools can we? Yeah, your a real saint with your attacks on anyone who doesn't want any part of government enforced indoctrination. Who cares if the kids you would demand attend public schools are terrified to go to school, right? All that matters to you is that education remain a state monopoly and not be private.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Anyway at the moment, I'm actually interested in the ideology that you and the others have. What do you call it? can you give me some links so i can find out a little more about what I'm arguing against.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So you dont believe corporations are a direct result of capitalist action?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Try reading articles from the site lewrockwell.com

The articles there should give you a good idea of the mindset that a large (larger than ever) number of people have begun to adopt in the USA.

You know Judge Napolitano and Ron Paul? Those two are good examples of the mindset you are dealing with.

One of the more entertaining libertarians is Tom Woods.

His lectures and talks are as entertaining as they are informative and with the large number of youtube vids available, he is a good start for anyone looking for an introduction to the school of tho0ught. . Just search 'Thomas E Woods' in youtube.

Edit: Also check out material by Murray Rothbard and Walter Block.

Block has many videos on youtube and he too is an entertaining teacher - definitely a good place to start.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


If I may interject, here:




So you dont believe corporations are a direct result of capitalist action?


No, and corporations are not the problem. Monopolies are, regardless of whether this power lies in the hands of the government or the corporations. Either way, monopolies such as that which are the subject here are the direct result of government intervention into free market capitalism coupled, one could argue, with a monetary system that is intrinsically based upon a system of credit; i.e. debt.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Anyway at the moment, I'm actually interested in the ideology that you and the others have. What do you call it? can you give me some links so i can find out a little more about what I'm arguing against.


(Sigh)

I have all ready in another thread provided you with plenty of links showing you how corporations and corporatism existed long before capitalism did. You ignored them then, and I have no doubt you will ignore the multitudes of links I provide you now. Even so, here are some links:

Difference Between Capitalism and Corporatism


Capitalism is a social and economic system which recognizes individual rights, including the right to own properties and the possession of goods for the individual’s personal consumption. Corporatism, on the other hand, is a form of economy that was created as an option to socialism and intends to achieve social justice and equality without the need to take away private property from individual members of society. Read more: Difference Between Capitalism and Corporatism | Difference Between www.differencebetween.net...


Corporatims Vs. Capitalism


A concept that I thought would be interesting to explore in forum conversation are the specific ways in which corporatism differs from free market capitalism and why it is that so many socialists, communists, left wing liberals and so forth fail to see the difference between the two and wrongly label capitalism as the problem when in reality the current American system hardly resembles anything close to free market capitalism.


I all ready posted a link that featured an article written by Micheal Labeit, and clearly you did not bother to read that article, (while your too busy claiming you are really interested in understanding our ideology), perhaps you will take the time to read it posted in a different link:

Explaining the Difference Between Capitalism and Corporatism to Micheal Moore

That article offers a remarkably similar definition of capitalism that the first link I provided in this post does, which is:


Defining our terms is the first step we must take in order to prove capitalism/corporatism unionists wrong. Capitalism is a social system based upon the recognition of individual rights, including private property rights where all goods, both intermediate goods and final goods, are owned privately. The “rights” referred to above are ethical-legal principles that identify and sanction man's freedom of action strictly within a social context.


And here, in part, is a definition of corporatism by Labeit:


Corporatism shares no such description. It is a social system where the government intervenes aggressively into the economy, typically with political instruments that benefit large corporations and enterprises to the detriment of smaller businesses and private citizens. Such instruments include subsidies, tariffs, import quotas, exclusive production privileges such as licenses, anti-trust laws, and compulsory cartelization designs.


Why Rush Limbaugh is Wrong: Corporatism vs Capitalism:


The problem with this concept is that the existence of corporations springs from the government. Corporations are 'artificial persons' chartered by the states and regulated by the states and the Federal government. They are vehicles for serving the people.



By definition corporations are creations of the law. As such, corporations are neither good nor evil. They are just vehicles by which citizens may create value in the economy for themselves and others that ultimately serves the public good.


Corporatists v. Capitalists:


When I heard the word “corporatist” a couple of years ago, I laughed. I thought what a funny, made up, liberal word. I fancy myself a die-hard capitalist, so it seemed vaguely anti-business, so I was put off by it.



Well, as it turns out, it’s a great word. It perfectly describes a great majority of our politicians and the infrastructure set up to support the current corporations in the country. It is not just inaccurate to call these people and these corporations capitalists; it is in fact the exact opposite of what they are.



Capitalists believe in choice, free markets and competition. Corporatists believe in the opposite. They don’t want any competition at all. They want to eliminate the competition using their power, their entrenched position and usually the politicians they’ve purchased. They want to capture the system and use it only for their benefit.


There are five different links that provide you with plenty of reading to discern why it is the O.P., Exhuberant, and I, insist that capitalism is not corporatism.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 


Monopolies are certainly the result of capitalist action. Thats what happens when capitalists buy more and more business's. Corporatism is when those capitalists use their money to buy off publicly elected representatives and in turn influence government policy.

I understand capitalism in its ideal form is meant to be about healthy competition, but like all competitions the aim is to win. If that means buying up more business's to create a monopoly then so be it, you will make more capital. There are no rules, so whats to stop the creation of a monopoly, whats to stop buying the media outlets and persuading the masses your way is best?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So you dont believe corporations are a direct result of capitalist action?


No, do you not remember in the thread: Capitalism: A Love Story where I took great pains to show historical research that corporations predate capitalism by several hundred years?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join