GameBanshee Forums

I think that parental responsibility boils down to wanting to ensure that your children do as well as (if not better) in life than you did. To me that means taking an interest in academic progress, socialisation and offering as many options in extra-curricular activities as are feasible.

I come from a family where each of my parents has three college degrees (I currently have two), so education was something that is expected. As I have said before, my parents went to all of the open houses, attended each parent-teacher conference and were reasonably active in PTA activities. I am a classic underachiever, not because my parents didn't care about my education, but because school bored me. However, my parents instilled in me a love of learning and made sure that I was fairly active in extra-curricular activites and sports. When possible they gave me the opportunity to do "extra" things like going to soccer camp, elective summer school, academic trips, taekwondo tournaments, etc.

They also made sure that I would be provided a college education if that was the path I chose after high school (it was). To me, that is how parental responsibility should be. They gave me the opportunity and put the onus on me to take advantage of the things they could offer me. Still, I was the one who had to do the work, takes the tests and get the grades.

Parental responsibility and accountability is something that parents must take upon themselves, it's not something that can be legislated or enforced. Parental responsibility is also something that people need to assume because they want to, not because they are ordered to by a court or guilted into it by society. That's part of the problem of being a parent: everybody can do it, but not everyone should.

I see modern black culture in America suffering the most due to a lack of parental responsibility. There is a trend among black men (and boys) to father large numbers of children with multiple partners and not take responsibility for any of them. There is no marraige, not even common-law partnerships, and as a result, many black (and mixed-race) children are growing up without fathers and being raised either by single mothers or extended family.

In my opinion, this is one of the most disturbing trends in the United States: Children growing up without parental involvement. It happens in other segments of society, but it is most prevalent in the children of single black fathers.

Originally posted by Dottie
Good education of all people is a requirement for any kind of real democracy, If I dont know what the is consequences of a choice, it does not matter if i have a choice or not.

btw, I would rather pay for someone else kids education then my own kids BMW.

And, C Elegens tacked on to this:

Originally posted by Dottie
I certainly agree with you here, Dot. The meaning, relevance and consequences of education are to very at another level of necessity for an individual than a BMW

I think my post has been a bit mistaken. My point in bringing up the subject of a BMW was this: whether you are taxing me for something which many people think is worthwhile (i.e. education), or whether you are taxing me for something that is a luxury (i.e. a BMW), the end result is the same: I am paying for something which I do not necessarily wish to pay for, and over which I have little or no control. EDIT: One must understand that once you have said: people have a RIGHT to an education, you have said: people have a RIGHT to other people's money. The end-use of the money that is thus expropiated is of no importance - it may be for something entirely worthwhile (like education or defense), or it may be for something entirely extravagant (like a BMW).

Dottie bringing up the issue of choice is actually quite ironic here: it is his belief that education makes informed choices possible in a democracy (correct me if I have misunderstood), but the entire system of taxation is all about limiting choice - that is, limiting your ability to choose HOW to spend YOUR money. EDIT: This gets back to a comment that fable made about the Soviet Union: maybe they did have an educational system of some merit (though I retain some doubts about that), but the fact was that the nation was a brutal dictatorship, where no one had a right to their own property. I, for one, cannot admire a state for it's high literacy rate, which comes at the expense of human life.

Also, Dottie's comment that he would rather give up (tax) money for education than for BMWs raises the issue: then why not start a scholarhsip? If everybody agrees that education is worth some voluntary contribution, then why waste money by running it through the beaurocracy (sp?) of a national government? Why not simply (as a free and voluntary individual) give money to the educational system of your choice? As I say: if everybody agrees that this is desireable, then the educational system should have no difficulty acquiring funds, and they may feel more accountable to their benefactors - which can only improve their performance.

Lastly, though I know this is getting a but off-topic, I would like to agree with HighLordDave's general opinion of parental responsibility. This is something that is grossly under-estimated in today's culture, and I fear that the long-term effects will be most damaging.

It would seem logical that it is in the state's best interest to have an educated population. It is also in the best interest of the community to be filled with educated people. It is in the best interest of parents to have educated children.

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Fable: Home schooling is an idea and a system I'm personally very unfamiliar with. My first thought is: wouldn't the pupil miss discussion with peers and isn't there a risk of being too much influenced from a single person or mentor rather than having many different teachers?

That would depend greatly upon the strength of character that person has. Whether anyone is aware i had barely any high school teaching whatsoever, i had nearly a year of in school learning.

This was precipitated by other factors but the long and short of it is that i had a education department supplied home tutuor for 2 weeks and other than that i relied upon my parents funding for a few months of tutoring with teachers out of class.

I know i am not exactly Fable, but i feel i know enough to get by I had to basically teach myself most of what i know, thanks to the support of my parents and one English teacher i am where i am today. If i was at the Oscars i would have about 5 others to thank but they are unconnected....i am rambling excuse me

Back to the subject, i think it is entirely reasnoable for a person to have home tutoring, it can help gifted students because they are not bogged down to the level at which the teacher teaches. They are allowed to control their own educational destinies and if that student is gifted it is a good thing

I say free education - as in taxes pay for it.
Education is a fundemental right of every child.
If they can't pay for it, the govt should.

I think there are many good reasons for home schooling, but it is not for everyone, parent and child. It represents the ultimate in parental involvement and requires a tremendous amount of discipline especially the parents who often don't have any experience as educators.

In my opinion, the biggest disadvantage to home schooling is the lack of socialisation and the scheduling adjustments kids have to make when they attend a mainstream school or college.

Where I grew up, there was a kid up the street who was home schooled from the time he moved into the neighbourhood (about seventh grade) through graduation. His parents did it for two reasons: his father had a low opinion of public schools (in general; the schools we were zoned for were actually pretty good) and the kid was smarter than most of the teachers. Scott made up for the missed socialisation by being active in his church youth group and playing lots of sports.

For him, the customised curriculum and self-paced teaching was an advantage. However, when he got to college, he initially struggled and he didn't do well on standardised tests because he wasn't used to doing school work under the gun. His parents/tutors never tested him much (in the sense that tests are given in public schools; he wrote alot and very well, though), nor did they set strict time limits and stuck to them. As a result, he often took much longer than other students to work problems and usually didn't finish tests in the allotted time. Being a bright kid, he adapted pretty quickly and the last time I talked to him (several years ago) was well on his way to graduation.

Scott represents everything that is right about home schooling. Up the street from where I live is a family that home schools. They are (in my opinion) whacko and represent everything that is wrong about home schooling.

Nobody can adequately explain why the parents didn't put the kids (there are four of them, all between the ages of 4-9) in school. Near as anyone can tell, the children cannot communicate effectively, even the older ones do not know simple math or reading, yet they seem to pass the muster of the local board of education. As far as I know, these children are not involved in activities with other children; they don't even play spotlight or basketball with the other kids in the neighbourhood. The parents are reclusive (my wife swears the mother is schizophrenic or at least manic-depressive) and even well-intentioned inquiries are rebuffed with a "That ain't nunya damn bizness." These people should not be spawning, much less teaching their kids at home.

I attended public school for 13 years and do not feel that I was in any way cheated in my education, nor that the "system" let me down. In fact, I think that I got more than my parents' tax dollars worth. It is my opinion that for most children in most circumstances, public schools are pretty good at preparing kids for the world. However, a lot still depends on the parent holding up their end of the deal and making kids do homework, forcing them to work for themselves, and backing the teachers so that the educational opportunities which are offered can be taken advantage of to their fullest.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Scott represents everything that is right about home schooling. Up the street from where I live is a family that home schools. They are (in my opinion) whacko and represent everything that is wrong about home schooling.

Nobody can adequately explain why the parents didn't put the kids (there are four of them, all between the ages of 4-9) in school. Near as anyone can tell, the children cannot communicate effectively, even the older ones do not know simple math or reading, yet they seem to pass the muster of the local board of education. As far as I know, these children are not involved in activities with other children; they don't even play spotlight or basketball with the other kids in the neighbourhood. The parents are reclusive (my wife swears the mother is schizophrenic or at least manic-depressive) and even well-intentioned inquiries are rebuffed with a "That ain't nunya damn bizness." These people should not be spawning, much less teaching their kids at home.

But is this truly home schooling? Have you talked to the parents to see if that was their intent? Or are we looking at a case of backwoods types who think public schooling itself is simply "creeping socialism?"

@Fable: I agree with what you said about how specific's of education cannot be taught in the real world, but in most cases, the type of education needed is the real world. By becoming aware of the way the world works, and learning the inner workings of politics, and economics, they become better prepared. these are often something that is taught in school, but never understood until the person actualy has to deal with the specifics.

Originally posted by Aegis
@Fable: I agree with what you said about how specific's of education cannot be taught in the real world, but in most cases, the type of education needed is the real world. By becoming aware of the way the world works, and learning the inner workings of politics, and economics, they become better prepared. these are often something that is taught in school, but never understood until the person actualy has to deal with the specifics.

Absolutely, @Aegis. I would only suggest that a good home schooling might provide a more insightful comprehension of economics, politics, etc, then a public school system, which (by default) simply embracing the prevalent patriotic line in all its one-dimensionality. But I wouldn't begin to suggest that either form of schooling (or private schooling, for that matter) is an end in and of itself. It is only the beginning; but the skills it teaches--or hobbles--will form the basics by which people subsequently live their post-school years.

Originally posted by fable


Absolutely, @Aegis. I would only suggest that a good home schooling might provide a more insightful comprehension of economics, politics, etc, then a public school system, which (by default) simply embracing the prevalent patriotic line in all its one-dimensionality. But I wouldn't begin to suggest that either form of schooling (or private schooling, for that matter) is an end in and of itself. It is only the beginning; but the skills it teaches--or hobbles--will form the basics by which people subsequently live their post-school years.

Of course. School systems are limited by sets of ules, regulations, limitations (both economical and and labour) and freedoms. Homeschool, there are more oppertunities to learn about the real world, as well as about the basics of education.

Originally posted by Aegis
Of course. School systems are limited by sets of ules, regulations, limitations (both economical and and labour) and freedoms. Homeschool, there are more oppertunities to learn about the real world, as well as about the basics of education.

I still remember the ferret-like face of my ancient history teacher in high school, who dutifully and dully taught The Patriotic Line, including all the lies about why we were in Vietnam. When I pointed out that Ho had in fact approached us for support first (we turned him down; he then went to Moscow) in the 1940s after the French had left, and a few other things, he chuckled dryly and told the class, "He obviously has problems understanding American history."

Originally posted by fable


I still remember the ferret-like face of my ancient history teacher in high school, who dutifully and dully taught The Patriotic Line, including all the lies about why we were in Vietnam. When I pointed out that Ho had in fact approached us for support first (we turned him down; he then went to Moscow) in the 1940s after the French had left, and a few other things, he chuckled dryly and told the class, "He obviously has problems understanding American history."

It's funny. when "Patriots" teach a class, they are blind to the whole truth. It takes someone who is not a follwer, but none the less patriotic, to find the faults in man.

Equality
I think both Gandalfgal and HLD make two interesting observations about why one would oppose equality. The zero-sum concept I think is easy to recognise in some people's thinking of "fairness" in life in general. The idea mentioned by GG, that equality dimishes feeling of personal greatness, I also recognise, although I think that it's a misconception to view equality as a conformity that decreases individuality. Given equal opportunities, we would still excel in different areas and make different choices.

Parental responsibilities
I can only agree with HLD and Lazarus about the importance of this, it seems to be a common problem in modern Western society in general, not only the US. I think many parents expect that school should provide anything from a meaning to life to algebra teaching. So, I think this issue also partly taps the question what kind of knowledge should the school provide and not?

Home schooling
Home schooling sounds like a good alternative in certain cases, as is well shown here by Sleep, Fable and HLD. I could think of many other situations where home schooling would be good, but as HLD examplifies, there would also be many situations where home schooling would be very unsuitable. (Many teachers and schools are of course unsuitable too, and the indoctrination part of all school system shouldn't be neglected) It sounds like home schooling puts a lot of responsibilities on the parents, and unfortunately many parents would not be able to face those. Psychiatric illness, membership in destructive cults, abuse or drug abuse are some factors that would obviously make home schooling by the parents highly unsuitable and even with teachers from outside, I think a kid with such a difficult family situation would benefit more from getting away from home and not risking to become isolated by maladaptive parents.

@Lazarus:
Sorry if I have misunderstood you. I'm not sure if I understand you correctly know, but I think that it boils down to you and I having fundamentally different views of taxes.

posted by Lazarus
One must understand that once you have said: people have a RIGHT to an education, you have said: people have a RIGHT to other people's money.

Yes, in one way that is what I am saying. I don't view taxes as my money that the goverment/someone else steals from me, I view tax as the part of my "virtual" (ie before tax) salary that my employer pays to the goverment, just like the social security fee or other govermental fees the employer pays. Now, I don't have a business of my own but my husband has. The money people pay to hire his services, is not equal to his salary. From this money, he, like any employer, pays a zillion different fees including tax. So, as with myself, I view the taxes he pays as part of the other fees. I'm not very good at explaining this, but do you get an idea about what I mean, that I view tax as a fee you pay for social services like infrastructure, health care, education, child care, elderly care, what have you. Then, of course I'm not happy with they way the Swedish goverment chooses to spend all the tax money, like most people I have many opinions of how it should be changed, like more money to schools and less money to politicans salaries for instance, but that's another story, in principle, I think education and many other things that I believe are parts of giving equal opportunites to people as well as supporting people who can't support themselves (like ill or challenged people) should be tax funded.

the entire system of taxation is all about limiting choice - that is, limiting your ability to choose HOW to spend YOUR money.

It can also be viewed from a different perspective, that it's limiting to people's ability not be able to choose an education because your parents don't have any money. To me, the consequeces of not affording an education are much more serious than the consequence of being able to spend only part of your salary how you wish.

This gets back to a comment that fable made about the Soviet Union: maybe they did have an educational system of some merit (though I retain some doubts about that), but the fact was that the nation was a brutal dictatorship, where no one had a right to their own property. I, for one, cannot admire a state for it's high literacy rate, which comes at the expense of human life.

A bit off topic, but I have visited both the former Soviet Union and modern Russia several times (I even used to have Russian boyfriend) and I still have several Russian friends. I also think I have a reasonable historical knowledge about Soviet Union system. Whereas the political system - IMO a terror dicatatorship with no respect for human life, environment, etc - was an abhorration, there were parts of the educational system that I still think were very, very good. Of course the school system was an indoctrination and brainwashing institution to a much higher extent that is the case in the US or Europe, but IMO it held some good points, such as the actual skill and knowledge about specific topics that was taught. Let's take maths as an example - after the fall of the Soviet Union, US and European physicists were very happy to be able to visit Russia and get advice and help from Russian mathematicians. I know a guy who is a PhD in maths from Moscow University, another who is a PhD in physics from St Petersburgs university. The math guy fled the Soviet Union in 1988, and he immediately got a top job at MIT. The physics guy, his prof and supervisor got the Nobel prize in 2000. With these examples, I just wish to illustrate that althought the goals with their educational system was inhuman, there are still things to be learned from studying the good aspects of it - what can be achieved by acknowledging the value of an "knowledge-capital".

If everybody agrees that education is worth some voluntary contribution, then why waste money by running it through the beaurocracy (sp?) of a national government? Why not simply (as a free and voluntary individual) give money to the educational system of your choice? As I say: if everybody agrees that this is desireable, then the educational system should have no difficulty acquiring funds, and they may feel more accountable to their benefactors - which can only improve their performance.

A wonderful idea. Do you think it would work out, ie do you think the cost of general education would be covered this way? I doubt, partly because the lack of parental responsibility we were discussion. Too many people just don't care enough about their children's or any children's education, I think

Going back to the home schooling thing. One of the major problems this method of teaching has is a lack of social interaaction. The majoirty of interaction the pupil has is with current friends, and family. they don't have to deal wth regular problems that they would have to at school. Thus, they lose a bit of their ability to solcialize and interact with humans, thus will have a lsightly harder time in the work place when it comes to working in groups with other people.

Originally posted by Lazarus
This gets back to a comment that fable made about the Soviet Union: maybe they did have an educational system of some merit (though I retain some doubts about that), but the fact was that the nation was a brutal dictatorship, where no one had a right to their own property. I, for one, cannot admire a state for it's high literacy rate, which comes at the expense of human life.

I'm sorry I missed your post, @Lazarus; I certainly didn't mean to ignore you. I think your point is valid, but you're missing the context of my praise. To repeat my initial remarks:

For all the claims of horror at socialized schooling, the greatest experiment in this--the Soviet model--succeeded brilliantly. It catapulted a 19th century nation of medieval peasants, merchants and slaves (let's give 'em their right name) into a country whose intellectual achievements were the equal of anywhere else, in Europe, Asia or the US. It was a rigorous system that provided good wages to instructors, and emphasized the value of both common skills and the cultural arts an important achievement.

The issue of indoctrination was not the point, since as much can be said of many public school systems, which to a greater or lesser extent attempt to turn out perfect little citizens who tow the Official Historical line on every point: and the Soviet system was similar in this particular respect to the Japanese public school system, whose history books won't mention the horrors inflicted by the occupying Japanese troops on the Koreans, Chinese, etc, during WWII--and which even reference additional texts that *praise* the troops for their "zeal."

In any case, let's leave the issue of Communism out of this, since it functions as static to the point I'm trying to make. That point was simply this: that an extremely backward nation (which 19th century Russia certainly was, next to Western Europe, Canada and the US) could become a repository of scientific, mathematical and cultural achievement within less than half a century, thanks to making adequate public schooling a governmental priority.

That's not to say any European nation, or the US, couldn't do this as well. They could. But it would require politicians who didn't mind sacrificing their own political careers in the name of a future good; or at the very least, an entire party that was willing to lay a lot of money on the line to convince the public that was in its own interests. As there are too many other issues which are "sexier" (meaning, they make better sound bites and command public attention easier), the likelihood of another nation attempting what the Soviets did, with similar results, are not great. But the possibility continues to exist for a strong, vibrant public school system that turns out highly literate graduates.

Originally posted by fable


I still remember the ferret-like face of my ancient history teacher in high school, who dutifully and dully taught The Patriotic Line, including all the lies about why we were in Vietnam. When I pointed out that Ho had in fact approached us for support first (we turned him down; he then went to Moscow) in the 1940s after the French had left, and a few other things, he chuckled dryly and told the class, "He obviously has problems understanding American history."

I do not know the circumstances of this teacher you had, but we had several at the high school I attended. It's not that the teachers themselves were necessarily stupid or towing the party line, but because their first name was "Coach".

Back in the early 80s, when Department of Education budgets began getting slashed for other programs, the number of teachers per school was cut. Our school system had a number of people (mostly men) who were hired exclusively to be sports coaches, especially football, baseball and basketball. When the budget cuts came down of the top, some teachers were let go and the coaches were told they had to teach something in order to keep their jobs. Usually, they ended up teaching world history, American history or pre-algebra.

Some of the coaches turned out to be fabulous teachers, but in most cases they didn't know the defensive line from the Maginot Line. As a result, they taught whatever the book told them to teach (even if it was wrong). I know a lot of people who absolutely detest history and when I ask them if their high school history teacher's first name was "Coach", they usually say yes.

I think that in the United States, we don't have the commitment to education that we should. In Florida, especially the southern counties where there are large populations of retirees, tax increases and bonds for education almost never pass because the general attitude among the powerful senior citizens vote is one of "I've already paid for my kids schooling; why should I pay for someone else's?" So we pay our teachers next to nothing, burden them with tasks parents should have, and stick them in aging facilities, then we sue them when they discipline our kids for getting in trouble and blame them when our kids fail at life.

Originally posted by fable
I still remember the ferret-like face of my ancient history teacher in high school, who dutifully and dully taught The Patriotic Line, including all the lies about why we were in Vietnam.

By the time I was in high school, the teacher was a withered hippie straggler who would push his semi-long, thinning hair out of his eyes and tell us the liberal line on Vietnam. Then by the time I got to University all the professor would have to do is SAY the word 'Vietnam', or 'Nixon', or 'Reagan', and the whole class would start muttering and angrily shaking their heads.

Forgive my ridiculously long post...

@ C Elegens: Thank you for your lengthy response. I would first state directly: yes, we do indeed have fundamentally different views of taxes. But I think you and I have discussed enough in the past to know that already. I will only take this opportunity (since we may be getting away from the thread topic here) to clarify one or two items.

It is my firm belief that we must work towards the day when governments do not – as a matter of course – take from our hands 30, 40, or 50% of what we have rightfully earned. I look at this as really a crime: that I should spend 40% of my time at work not working for myself so that I may make money for my use, but that I should be putting all that time and effort so that the government may dispose of that time and money as they see fit.

This brings me to my other subject, which deals with the following quote from you:

Originally posted by C Elegans
…A wonderful idea. Do you think it would work out, ie do you think the cost of general education would be covered this way? I doubt, partly because the lack of parental responsibility we were discussion. Too many people just don't care enough about their children's or any children's education, I think

This is an amazingly interesting – and important – point. To answer honestly and at the outset: No, at this point in the philosophical development of the world, I do not believe that my idea would work. However that does not mean that I do not believe that this is in fact the proper method of funding education. Knowing my view of taxes (as you now do), I would like to connect that with my view of people: people have the ability to think. That’s it. And, just as you sat there, and thought: “A wonderful idea,” so, too, could each individual come to the conclusion that education is indeed an important building block of society, and that they should voluntarily contribute some money to an educational facility.

The choice is simply this: on the one hand leaving people free to choose what they believe to be important, and spending accordingly; on the other hand, the government expropriating money and disposing of it in any way that they see fit. Call me a “utopian” if you must, but I really hope that some day our governments realize that they are not as important as they believe themselves, and shrink back to a size more consistent with their intended functions.

I’d like to jump from that right into fable’s ideas, because I believe them to be linked.

@fable: first, no apology necessary for missing my post to you – I sorta buried it in another post. So, this excerpt seems to form the basis of your argument (correct me if I am wrong about this):

Originally posted by fable
In any case, let's leave the issue of Communism out of this, since it functions as static to the point I'm trying to make. That point was simply this: that an extremely backward nation (which 19th century Russia certainly was, next to Western Europe, Canada and the US) could become a repository of scientific, mathematical and cultural achievement within less than half a century, thanks to making adequate public schooling a governmental priority.

Two points: first, a great deal of the scientific and mathematical achievements of the Soviet Union may be traced back to US or German knowledge. Before and during WWII, the US poured vast resources and expertise into the Soviet Union – we even went so far as to build them their first hydro-electric dam. After WWII, the Soviets made use (just as the US did) of German scientists. I do not think you can underestimate the importance that these two factors had on the overall development of the Soviet knowledge base. Your use of the term “cultural achievement” in this context is baffling. I do not know that any real cultural achievements came out of the Soviet Union - ? I am open to enlightenment on that one, though.

Second: I agree that the Soviets “made education a priority,” and I agree that educating that vast number of peasants was an achievement. But saying that we can “leave the issue of Communism out of this, since it functions as static to the point [you're] trying to make,” is (IMO) a mistake. You have been concerned (in other posts and this one) about the patriotic line that is generally spread in education, but don’t you see that the government financing education is exactly the problem? This also gets back to my discussion with C Elegans and the continuum between freedom and statism. The more a government involves itself in things, the more it reduces freedom. Again, I may not dispute the end result of Soviet education, but I cannot divorce it from all other issues.

I would question also your assertion that US politicians do not want to touch the subject of education, and would rather concern themselves with ”sexier” topics. On the contrary, education is all we ever hear about any more, and it seems one of the only issues the Democrats and Republicans agree on: “education = good.” The problem gets down to the idea of HOW to improve that education. That is where the differences lie. Personally, I think both sides of the aisle are way off base with their ideas – nothing new there – but they all got their “plans."

Ridiculously long? Then mine must be the joke of the century!

Originally posted by Lazarus
And, just as you sat there, and thought: ?A wonderful idea,? so, too, could each individual come to the conclusion that education is indeed an important building block of society, and that they should voluntarily contribute some money to an educational facility.

The choice is simply this: on the one hand leaving people free to choose what they believe to be important, and spending accordingly; on the other hand, the government expropriating money and disposing of it in any way that they see fit. Call me a ?utopian? if you must, but I really hope that some day our governments realize that they are not as important as they believe themselves, and shrink back to a size more consistent with their intended functions.

I do think it's a wonderful idea, and although "utopian" is too strong, I think I'm much more cynic (or less idealistic) than you in this case. I really don't think it would work, mostly because of human greed, egoism and difficulties with long-term thinking. It's not that I think people can't think - it's that I believe the human nature contains greed and egoism that could interfere seriously with the realisation that a good education system is valuable for everybody. One problem is the dimishing of personal responsibility in large groups - a deeply investigated factor in social psychology, and a factor that sometimes has horrible results like the famous Kitty Genovese case. (She was murdered with over 40 knife cuts in her flat. The cutting was going on for a long time, and she repeatedly screamed for help through her open windows, but none of the witnesses in the house across the street called the police, since everybody thought someone else must have called the police) So, I think many people would just think "I don't need to pay for education facilities since there are so many others who pay and what difference does it make if I pay a buck or not?"
Then there is of course the problem with greed, and I think greed is difficult for man to get rid of unless we are very, very satisfied with our situation. And for some people, greed is limitless, it doesn't matter how they get, they still want more.

But suppose it would work out, enough money would be raised through funding. Then I imagine some other problems:

We all know that in most of the world, a small group of people control and own a very large part of the capital, and earn very much more money than others. Let's say that the ratio is that 1 ppm of the population earns as much as as the other 999 ppm. This means that a few people would have the possibility to greatly influence the educational system, whereas the average person, the majority, will have very little possibility to influence what should be taught and how. The danger with this as I see it, is perpetuation of the values and interests of a very small group. So the children of the majority would only be able to get education as decided by the small group with a lot of money to give to education.

Regarding cultural achievements in the former Soviet union: I know this was to Fable and he can of course speak for himself and much better than I do, but I just have to add that a some of the 20th centuries most outstanding art was produced in the Soviet Union, both as a part of the ideology and part of the resistance against the regime. The Russian futurism, which was different from the Italian one, affected art throughout Europe. The composers - like Shostakovitch, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Schnittke - are generally regarded as the most influencial in contemporary classical music. The symphony orchestras were the best in the world. The old USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony orchestra, the Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra, the conductors - like Rostyestvensky, Svetlanov...outstanding.
The classical ballet developed at the Bolshoi and the Marinsky theatre had a tremendous impact on the dance world, and the dancers educated there were at a different level. Before the fall, we mostly saw the one's who fled to west like Nurejev, Makarova or Baryshnikov, and believe me, there weren't even the best in Soviet.
The writers, several Nobel prize winners in literature like Pasternak, Solchenisyn, Solochov, genre-setting works like the Master and Marguarite.
The film art: Eisenstein, Tarkovsky, world famous and highly influencial film-makers.
Just to mention some cultural achivements. Please forgive my spelling, English transciptions of Russian letters differs a lot from Swedish transcription and it's even more confusion added since I know some Russian too.

Free to a certain extent

I would like to think that "free education" is good when you are talking about primary and secondary levels. But tertiary education is a different thing altogether.

I'm sorry but my opinion on this and succeeding ones is based on what I have noticed in my own country.

Everyone must have access to basic education since we must have at least some certain degree of level of competence in order to be productive citizens of our country.

I have my misgivings on free education though it may not seem to be a very "strong" point. Not trying to blow my own trumpet here but you see, I came from (and I would like to think it is) the best school in my country --- University of the Philippines in Diliman. I studied there from nursery till college and there are certain things that I noticed.

Being a big university, there are a number of my schoolmates from Grade 1 to 10 who are children of employees of the school. These families need not pay tuition fees. [color=dark red]Problem is, a lot of these kids take their free education for granted. A lot of students and parents would like to study in my school but the slots are limited and 50% at least is already taken by these privileged kids whose parents work for the university.

It has been noted that a lot of the students who are really doing well and are serious about studying are those who pay for their education. A good deal of a number of those who are exempted from paying usually are those who goof off and are not too serious about studying.

We ended up with a lot of lousy students simply because they are too lazy or they don't give much a hoot about doing well in school. [color=dark red] In effect, the quality of education is sometimes questioned because of the quality of students who graduate after highschool.[/color] I think that it is unfair and I hated my schoolmates for causing this perception. I wished that they would just give their slots to children who really appreciate the kind of education offerred to them without having to spend a lot.

[color=dark red]As a teacher I realized that I can only do so much. Even if you have the best and well abled teacher, the rest lies on the student himself how motivated and willing he is to do well in school and make the most of what education can offer him.[/color] Probably, it takes a good deal of help and guidance from the parents too.

Anyway, in college we have this socialized tuition fee scheme, wherein students pay according to their family annual income. There are other minor things considered too but it's unimportant for me to mention them.

Level 1 of STFAP means that the student gets free education plus a stipend of a certain amount of cash as allowance. Level 5 would mean discounted tuition but without the stipend. Level 9 means the student pays full tuition. For those who enjoy the privileges of level 1 to 8 must meet a certain minimum grade and units passed per semester otherwise their scholarship will be taken away from them next term.

In order to be accepted in my university you have to have a very high mark relatively against the batch of students who you take the entrance exam with. There is no passing mark, rather, your scores must make it to the quota of the number of students the university can accommodate.



[/color]