School Choice and the Public's Interest
Recent trends toward privatizing schools and relieving them of state requirements wrongly imply that schools should mirror the desires of parents and ignore the public's interest in having citizens educated for democracy.
Rob Reich, who recently earned his doctorate in philosophy of education at Stanford, is writing a book on school vouchers, charter schools and home schooling. Reich stated his view that the nation is slipping too far into deregulated schooling. "The guiding idea behind privatization, whether it is vouchers, charter schools or home schooling, is that parents should be the sole decision-making agents about the kind of education their children receive. But this eviscerates the public or civic purposes of schooling."
Public schooling itself is not the goal, he said, and public schools don't necessarily do better than private schools in educating children to meet the state's interests, which he defined as preparing children for both workforce and democratic participation. Those who joined in the discussion pushed Reich to specify the content of an education for democratic participation. "Some would say reading and writing is enough," he responded. "Personally, I would go a few steps further to say that students should learn to come into dialogue with others on a public stage." Voluntary national standards for civic education suggest "a combination of making sure students know the history and shape of the structure of government, and how to influence public deliberation and policy," he said. Others suggest experience-oriented programs, often called service learning. "My model has been the Socratic dialogue, where the teacher is a leader and p...
... middle of paper ...
...ploded among white, middle-class, religious families who want more control over the values their children are exposed to or who fear for their children's safety, Reich said. "I'm convinced that further privatization is inevitable," he added. Supporters have framed the argument for it as "a civil rights issue or a matter of social justice." he said. "People say President Clinton sent his daughter to private school. If we are serious about social justice, we should give all parents the same choice that wealthy parents have."
How would he change the situation? Reich was asked. "I can imagine a variety of institutional arrangements but where private schools are still subject to state oversight," he said. "Perhaps public dollars could flow to them if the curriculum met the state's interests. A democracy has needs, but that doesn't mean public schools have to meet them."
Use of School Vouchers There has been a lot of debate recently over the use of school vouchers. Voucher programs offer students attending both public and private schools tuition vouchers. It gives taxpayers the freedom to pick where their tax dollars go. In theory, good schools will thrive with money and bad schools will lose students and close its doors. Most people feel that taking taxpayer money from public schools and using this money as vouchers for private schools is a violation of the constitution.
In Eric Foner’s book, The Story of American Freedom, he writes a historical monograph about how liberty came to be. In the book, his argument does not focus on one fixed definition of freedom like others are tempted to do. Unlike others, Foner describes liberty as an ever changing entity; its definition is fluid and does not change in a linear progress. While others portray liberty as a pre-determined concept and gradually getting better, Foner argues the very history of liberty is constantly reshaping the definition of liberty, itself. Essentially, the multiple and conflicting views on liberty has always been a “terrain of conflict” and has changed in time (Foner xv).
She realized that choice and accountability were not the answer, but that curriculum and instruction were more viable solutions to America’s educational dilemma. Ravitch suggests that to abandon public schools is to abandon the institution that supports our concepts of democracy and citizenship and to the promise of American life (Ravitch, 2011, p. 12-14). The idea of school choice is rooted in Milton Friedman’s essay concerning the government’s role in education. Friedman asserted that society should support and contribute to the maximum freedom of the individual or the family. He maintained that the government should provide vouchers to help support parents financially on their children’s education, which parents could use at the school of their choosing; so long as the school met set standards. Therefore, this creation of choice would stimulate competition, which Friedman believed would increase the development and improvement of nonpublic schools, as well as, create a variety of school options (Ravitch, 2011, p. 115). As a result of the choice movement, the public received three versions of school choice: voucher schools, private schools, and charter schools. Each of these schools receives public funding, but do not operate as traditional public schools, and are not managed by a government agency (Ravitch, 2011, p. 121). Charter schools became the most popular choice of this new
School Choice: Followed the ruling on compulsory education. Parents have a right to choose whether their children go to a private, parochial or public school, or they may choose to home-school. Parents must accept any responsibility for their choice.
While this act made legislative changes that increased surveillance and the investigative powers of law enforcement agencies to protect America from further terrorist acts, the passing of the USA Patriot Act has reduced the privacy rights of Americans and also does not provide for a system of checks and balances that safeguard civil liberties. Terrorism is a serious matter that should not be handled lightly, but the act has gone over the top in trying to stop terrorism. The USA Patriot Act, enacted for protecting America from further attacks, not only does little if anything to protect Americans, but rather undermines their civil rights. The Patriot Act targets not only terrorists, but also the American people which it intended to protect.
America was built so that people could have the freedoms that they needed and that they did not have to be scrutinized by the government as stated by our late president Abraham Lincoln, "...Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." If our presidents in the past have fought for these rights why should one act take away all that they have fought for? The Patriot Act should be dismantled due to the fact that the rights of the people are being violated.
... punish those responsible for the attacks and to protect against any similar attacks” (Doyle, The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis, page 2). Sense the new laws were out into effect, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding it. Several questions have been posed as to whether or not the Act was giving too much power to government law enforcement. With the law now leaving room for open investigations, spying, and even wiretapping, people are wondering if things have been taken too far. Interest groups fighting to protect our civil liberties are arguing that we have passed the point of keeping our country safe from outside terrorism, but are now compromising our basic civil rights as Americans, and as humans for that matter. Although many revisions have been proposed, the USA Patriot Act still stands, and continues to raise question to the governments authority.
Wright, John Samuel Fletcher. Liberty in Key Works of John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Thesis Deakin University, 1995.
Civil liberties have been affected immensely by the Patriot Act. A brief definition of the Patriot Act is; uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism. The Patriot Act modifies the rules on searches. It allows third party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue and mosque records. These records can be searched without your knowledge or consent provided the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism. The FBI only needs to say the search will protect against terrorism and they don't need probable cause or evidence. A judge has no authority to reject this application. The person doesn't have to be a terror suspect themselves as long as the government's purpose is an authorized investigation to protect against internal terrorism. The Patriot Act also violates everyone's constitutional right to privacy. The ACLU shows a funny but scary illustration of what the government can do with the information they obtain by violating the right to privacy. Basically, the Patriot Act allows the government to monitor anyone and everyone's life whenever they choose. While some say the Patriot Act violates civil liberties, it was designed to support the effort against terrorism. The Patriot Act also created a counter-terrorism fund and increased funding for...
September 11th 2001 was not only the day when the delicate facade of American security was shattered, but it was also the events of this day that led to the violation of the rights of millions of American citizens. After relentless reprehension by the American masses on the approach that was taken after the 9/11 attacks ,the Bush administration enacted the Patriot Act on October 26th, 2001, a mere 56 days after this tragic event.The Patriot Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies so that they could hopefully avert future terrorist attacks. Under the Patriot Act The NSA (National Security Agency) could entrench upon the privacy of the citizens of the U.S. without public knowledge, consent or, probable cause. The particular incident which had the general public up at arms was when the NSA illicit surveillance came to public knowledge.
After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress, President George Bush stated, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorist” (Stern, 2004, p. 1114). Congress knew by signing the bill, they were expecting each American to give up a part of his or her guaranteed rights. Rights such as the right to privacy, free speech and the right to know when a citizen is being investigated by the government were just among a few. The act has been described as a “law enforcement wish list” (Stravelli, 2003, p. 1). The wish list allows law enforcement to “obtain people’s personal information and conduct surveillance, and in some cases impose secrecy on their law enforcement activities” (Update: USA Patriot Act, 2007, p. 1).
One cause of both Revolutions was that people from all social classes were discontented. Each social class in France had its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes…had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13) Many believed that a more just system was long overdue in France.
Is Canada worth living? What things are there that makes people to emigrate from their home country to Canada to spend their next years of life? Canada is a relatively young country by world standards and has successfully developed and remained as an example of relatively peaceful and prosperous multicultural society. Although there is no doubt that are still crimes happening in Canada, unlike the American, the Canadian society proved that it is possible for different peoples, races, and ethnicities to not only live safely together, but to thrive together. This is a good proof to describe how Canadians feel free and proud in their homeland.
The Public Choice For some parents, deciding on a school for their children can be a difficult decision. Many parents do not spend much time thinking about it; they place their children into the local school designated by where they live. Others attended a private school themselves and found that it was a beneficial experience and therefore want the same for their kids. But which is better: private schools or public schools? While there are many advantages and disadvantages to each (nothing is going to be absolutely perfect), we are going to focus on the benefits of an education in the public school system, or in other words, schools funded by the government that are for anyone to attend.
Many people in today’s society believe it’s wise to send their children to private schools. In making the decision on whether to put children in public or private schools, they look to four main factors: curriculum, class size, the graduation rate, and cost. When people have to pay for something, their first thought is, “Will I be getting what I’m paying for?” With a private school education, the amount you have to pay is usually well worth it. Public schools offer diversity. Here students can find people who are just like them and can associate better. Wherever you live, you have to send your child to the closest school. There’s no choice on what public school you can send your child to, whereas for private schools you can pick to send your child there. It’s not an easy choice for parents to decide, but many factors point toward a guarantee that a good education would be achieved, which is most important.