Public education is a socialist monopoly

[untermensche]

One has to understand the capitalist mentality.

Anything that levels the playing field is a "socialist plot" and must be destroyed.

It is essential that many get a substandard education or even no education at all, which is fine, many are expendable under modern capitalism.

There are competing forces in the US. Those working to improve the educational system, and those trying to destroy the public educational system because it is an evil socialist plan. A plan devised by that known socialist and slave owner Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Starman]

I think someone needs to go back to school to learn was (sic) "inversely proportional" means.

Also, what is the graph plotting regarding science/math results?

Did YOU ever misspeak, *Jimmy*?
Did you return to school after misspeaking, *Jimmy*?

Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner, *Jimmy*?

I meant to say "inversely correlated" but my typing got ahead of my thinking and instead
wrote a related word.

I think *Jimmy* needs to go back to school and learn the difference between "was" (sic) and "what."

How's that for Karma, *Jimmy*?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think someone needs to go back to school to learn was (sic) "inversely proportional" means.

Also, what is the graph plotting regarding science/math results?

Did YOU ever misspeak, *Jimmy*?
Did you return to school after misspeaking, *Jimmy*?

Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner, *Jimmy*?

I meant to say "inversely correlated" but my typing got ahead of my thinking and instead
wrote a related word.

You may need to go back to school to learn what inversely correlated means as well, as both terms are about the same. We know your claim can't be true because it implies that reducing funding would result in higher scores, with the best results at zero funding.

The chart implies that there is no correlation between spending and testing results. Of course, we don't know what the results are actually plotting, so the chart is hardly definitive. But taking the chart at your face value, there is no correlation between spending and education results.

I think *Jimmy* needs to go back to school and learn the difference between "was" (sic) and "what."

How's that for Karma, *Jimmy*?

You never answered the question as to what was being charted for the math/science results.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Did YOU ever misspeak, *Jimmy*?
Did you return to school after misspeaking, *Jimmy*?

Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner, *Jimmy*?

I meant to say "inversely correlated" but my typing got ahead of my thinking and instead
wrote a related word.

You may need to go back to school to learn what inversely correlated means as well, as both terms are about the same. We know your claim can't be true because it implies that reducing funding would result in higher scores, with the best results at zero funding.

The chart implies that there is no correlation between spending and testing results. Of course, we don't know what the results are actually plotting, so the chart is hardly definitive. But taking the chart at your face value, there is no correlation between spending and education results.

I think *Jimmy* needs to go back to school and learn the difference between "was" (sic) and "what."

How's that for Karma, *Jimmy*?

You never answered the question as to what was being charted for the math/science results.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Quaint.

Did YOU ever misspeak, *Jimmy*?
Did you return to school after misspeaking, *Jimmy*?

Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner, *Jimmy*?

I meant to say "inversely correlated" but my typing got ahead of my thinking and instead
wrote a related word.

I think *Jimmy* needs to go back to school and learn the difference between "was" (sic) and "what."

How's that for Karma, *Jimmy*?

Ah the *intellectualism* of atheists who cannot write simple English, substituting "inequity"
for iniquity. Almost as amusing as Isaac Asimov becoming an atheist because his prayer
to pass a science test was not "answered." Asimov also refused to fly in commercial aircraft,
another mark of his (wink, nudge) *rationality.*

heh heh heh

I am not laughing with atheists. I am laughing AT them.

 

[Starman]

Quaint.

Yes krypto, but I am "stupid" according to you and all your *rational* pals.
YOU, in contrast, are profoundly rational and intelligent. Thus there is absolutely
no excuse for you benighted folks to make any error whatsoever, ever.
You're like Obama that way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No thanks to Starman, I dug up what he presented without actually sourcing it. The reading/math/science scores are from SAT testing (science?) and have been "adjusted" in order "to compensate for varying participation rates and student demographics". The numbers are adjusted based on another paper he has.

Regardless, the chart is using a single metric to base a very complicated conclusion on.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Yes krypto, but I am "stupid" according to you and all your *rational* pals.

More importantly, you carry a heavy bias and a bad attitude. A person makes a mistake, and you reply by disparaging them, throwing in an non-sequitur about Asimov, and laughing AT [sic] atheists. You make a mistake and suddenly it's just part of the human condition. When I post the two very different reactions from you side by side, you reply with some bizarre insult against yourself as if I have ever said such a thing. Show me. Show me where I said any of that. You cannot, because it's a nonsensical evasion further reinforcing your bias through self-persecution. While I am rather tall, I am neither giant nor windmill.

I know people here are amused by you, yet I cannot help but wonder if you are faking your replies as a joke, or if you really are incapable of seeing your own posts for their vapidity, hypocrisy, and contemptuous tone.

 

[Ford]

I think someone needs to go back to school to learn was "inversely proportional" means.

And learn what "socialism" means, too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think someone needs to go back to school to learn was "inversely proportional" means.

And learn what "socialism" means, too.

Public education was adopted in Massachusetts a century or two before Karl Marx was born. Calling it socialism is about as wise as the person telling me one day of the story of Buddha asking Jesus for forgiveness on his death bed (despite being born centuries before him). They didn't seem pleased when told about the contradiction.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Your own statement show that is technically incorrect. In order for public education to be socialist, all of the schools would have to be publicly owned. Nor is it technically a monopoly, since there are other sellers in the market for education, including charter schools.

Of course. You are so much wiser than Professor Milton Friedman was.

From 1934:

Recommendations of the American Historical Association
/

/
/

My response:

Would it not be best for you to get out of the fogs of your previous education under teachers themselves befogged? This education has not been true and unmingled with error. If I write for the Educator, as I have been and am now doing, my articles would be directly opposed to your human philosophy. Shall there be a yea and nay go forth in the Educator? Or shall I be obliged to issue a paper on true education that will not have in it one thread that will dishonor our heavenly Father?

1896

 

[Underseer]

No problem.

Just establish a new aristocracy to rule over us, and pretty soon very few people will receive education of any kind because peasants don't need education. Peasants with educations get ideas, and that's bad for the aristocracy.

 

[bilby]

I think someone needs to go back to school to learn was "inversely proportional" means.

And learn what "socialism" means, too.

And 'monopoly'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And learn what "socialism" means, too.

And 'monopoly'.

Must have went to public school. I hear they aren't so good, despite how much money is spent on them.

 

[Starman]

"In 1950, we spent (in 1989 dollars) $1,333 per student. In 1989 we spent $4931. As John Silber, the President of Boston University, has written, 'It is troubling that this nearly fourfold increase in real spending has brought no improvement. It is scandalous that it has not prevented substantial decline.' " -
William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education, in The De-Valuing of America

Embracing a socialist-globalist worldview that opposes free enterprise and representative government, the new, outcome-based national curriculum is precisely what the Father of Progressive Education foresaw. In 1928, Professor John Dewey of the Teachers’ College at Columbia University identified public education’s political function—that being “to construct communist society.” The next year Dewey added, “We are in for some kind of socialism, call it by whatever name we please.” - John Dewey, a Fabian Socialist, introduced a new pedagogy – “progressive education,” with us today.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"In 1950, we spent (in 1989 dollars) $1,333 per student. In 1989 we spent $4931. As John Silber, the President of Boston University, has written, 'It is troubling that this nearly fourfold increase in real spending has brought no improvement. It is scandalous that it has not prevented substantial decline.' " -
William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education, in The De-Valuing of America

Embracing a socialist-globalist worldview that opposes free enterprise and representative government, the new, outcome-based national curriculum is precisely what the Father of Progressive Education foresaw. In 1928, Professor John Dewey of the Teachers’ College at Columbia University identified public education’s political function—that being “to construct communist society.” The next year Dewey added, “We are in for some kind of socialism, call it by whatever name we please.” - John Dewey, a Fabian Socialist, introduced a new pedagogy – “progressive education,” with us today.

And how much of this difference is due to special education? Actually trying to educate the disabled rather than simply throwing them away like we generally used to.

 

[KeepTalking]

Embracing a socialist-globalist worldview that opposes free enterprise and representative government, the new, outcome-based national curriculum is precisely what the Father of Progressive Education foresaw. In 1928, Professor John Dewey of the Teachers’ College at Columbia University identified public education’s political function—that being “to construct communist society.” The next year Dewey added, “We are in for some kind of socialism, call it by whatever name we please.” - John Dewey, a Fabian Socialist, introduced a new pedagogy – “progressive education,” with us today.

Oh, well, that explains how the USA is such a Marxist paradise today.

 

[Ford]

Embracing a socialist-globalist worldview that opposes free enterprise and representative government, the new, outcome-based national curriculum is precisely what the Father of Progressive Education foresaw. In 1928, Professor John Dewey of the Teachers’ College at Columbia University identified public education’s political function—that being “to construct communist society.” The next year Dewey added, “We are in for some kind of socialism, call it by whatever name we please.” - John Dewey, a Fabian Socialist, introduced a new pedagogy – “progressive education,” with us today.

Oh, well, that explains how the USA is such a Marxist paradise today.

I believe Karl Marx said it best:

"Mark my words...a full generation will pass after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which will not exist until at least a generation after I'm dead. The children who grew up in that generation - having been indoctrinated in public schools (which I'm totally going to turn into a monopoly by going back in time and instituting them in America) - will be drawn to my teachings by their teachers and by the allure of a black US President who will have a Muslim-sounding name. Crazy, I know, because as I write this the American Civil War is happening and most of those blacks are slaves, but I know what I'm talking about, goddammit! Anyway...what was I saying? Oh yeah. Those kids will grow up indoctrinated into a socialist-globalist world view, which sounds so awesome I wish I'd thought of it first! Too bad the idea was stolen from me in 1928 by some academic. How the hell did he do that? I mean, I've got a fucking time machine! Well as the kids say, SMH. When they read this "Das Kapital" book I'm working on, their young minds will be, like, totally blown. It will be so cool!"

 

[bilby]

Oh, well, that explains how the USA is such a Marxist paradise today.

I believe Karl Marx said it best:

"Mark my words...a full generation will pass after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which will not exist until at least a generation after I'm dead. The children who grew up in that generation - having been indoctrinated in public schools (which I'm totally going to turn into a monopoly by going back in time and instituting them in America) - will be drawn to my teachings by their teachers and by the allure of a black US President who will have a Muslim-sounding name. Crazy, I know, because as I write this the American Civil War is happening and most of those blacks are slaves, but I know what I'm talking about, goddammit! Anyway...what was I saying? Oh yeah. Those kids will grow up indoctrinated into a socialist-globalist world view, which sounds so awesome I wish I'd thought of it first! Too bad the idea was stolen from me in 1928 by some academic. How the hell did he do that? I mean, I've got a fucking time machine! Well as the kids say, SMH. When they read this "Das Kapital" book I'm working on, their young minds will be, like, totally blown. It will be so cool!"

Nice paraphrase!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

One has to understand the capitalist mentality.

Anything that levels the playing field is a "socialist plot" and must be destroyed.

It is essential that many get a substandard education or even no education at all, which is fine, many are expendable under modern capitalism.

There are competing forces in the US. Those working to improve the educational system, and those trying to destroy the public educational system because it is an evil socialist plan. A plan devised by that known socialist and slave owner Thomas Jefferson.

As I pointed out (and you overlooked) sometimes people misuse the term to describe something they consider good as well.

There are lots of progressives gushing admiration over the social safety net of Scandinavia, calling it "socialism" when, in fact, socialism is supposed to only refer to collective (read: government) ownership of the means of production.

If those who like Socialism can't (or won't) keep it straight, can you really blame those who don't like socialism for making the exact same mistake?