Do socialist programs like public schooling teach entitlement?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I think that if you want to have a meaningful discussion about education, you should re-start the thread with the word "socialist" omitted. It is just a distraction from the real subject. Some people seem to think that any government program is "socialist", but that's not a definition that would be accepted by most scholars, and more importantly, it's not the way the word is understood by most people. I (and I think most people) view socialism, capitalism etc. as a description of an entire governmental system, not one program here or one private industry there. Public education is a government program, as is road repair, police, the military, etc. In this country these government programs exist in the context of a mostly free-market system, so we call our system a free-market or capitalist system. In that setting, government programs do not become "socialist programs".

 

And if you want to get into theory here, government control of everything is not necessarily socialism, or even communism, it's totalitarianism. Socialism can, in theory, exist with a very minimal government or perhaps even no government at all. Socialism would not necessarily be a bad system to live under, if it were operated by perfect beings and not us pesky humans. Unfortunately, "socialist" has become one of those epithets that is thrown around as a means of character assassination. I sometimes listen to certain radio shows where President Obama is called a "socialist" and a "Marxist" and I just have to laugh at the absurdity of it all. These people have no clue what they're talking about, and sadly enough, some past posts in this forum suggest that some people here agree with this nonsense.

 

So far I like (and agree with) Lisabob's post the most, and notice it talks about the subject of education without even mentioning "socialism." I think that's the way to go, if you really want a discussion of public education. And on that subject, I will wait before posting anything, if ever. As I have said in the past, I am a former member of my local school board, so I do have a few thoughts on the subject of public education, including the good, the bad and the ugly.

[packsaddle 753]

...and I'm rooting for you to be 'The Good'.

Moreover, I'm good with dispensing with the 'hot button' words as well. So I'll say 'it' one last time by noting that socialism seems to work really well for some insects. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Eagle92 110]

Pack,

In all seriousness I am glad public schools are doign well somewhere. Unfortunately that is not the case where I am at now, nor where I grew up. Public Schools were so bad, that nearly half the student population is in a private/parochial school. I know folks who worked for the public school system in various roles, i.e. custodians, food services, teachers, and even two principles, who sent their kids to private schools. My mom was one of those.

 

One intersting thing about Louisiana, under LA law, every student is entitled to access educational resources: buses, books, etc. So in elementary school, irregardless of if they went to public or private school. We started after the public schools, so the busses could do 2 routes. In HS those who lived in the parish (county) it was located in were leigible for free student bus passes on the RTA. Also all books were provided by the state, except for those religious curriculum books, and those the schools decied to use instead. Then it came outof our pocket.

[Beavah 205]

Did those lowly privates split their infinitives?

 

Yah, I reckon so, eh? Especially during the War to End Deviant Southern Human Rights Abuses. At least callin' it da Civil War is, well, civil.

 

NJ, my title was designed in part as a tease, eh? A play on all the "socialist" word-slinging goin' on. So often folks who use that word to describe da health care legislation and bailouts are supporters of the programs that give them entitlements and that are truly closer to communist/socialist programs. Parents in da former Soviet Union had more options and choice for education than parents in the U.S. do. We pretty much model our K-12 education system on the way they ran da Soviet auto industry.

 

Call it what yeh will, though, da question is whether free government-run schooling teaches kids and their parents an "entitlement" mentality? Love to hear your thoughts as a community representative to da government schools.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutfish 16]

I guess it comes down to this:

 

Pay for some schooling in the hopes that those who are schooled will be educated enough to get jobs instead of collecting welfare because they do not have half the intellgence a dead cow!

[Kudu 186]

Beavah writes:

 

my title was designed in part as a tease, eh?

 

Welcome to the dark side, Beavah

 

Keep in mind that by current usage of the term, the BSA is socialized Scouting: Congress picks one winning corporation and then prohibits American citizens from competing with this government-sanctioned monopoly in a free marketplace.

 

In return for this lucrative entitlement, the BSA is required to provide the BSA's Scoutcraft program as it existed on June 15, 1916.

 

But of course once the socialists get into power, they break their promises and ignore the law because Trustworthy and Obedient are old-fashioned!

 

Sec. 30902. Purposes: The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

[but] camping is not necessarily a big thing with them, as a matter of fact in some cases it is not big at all. So we need to kind of think about, is it more important that we reach that child with the kind of things we have for children and we have for families in character development and leadership skill growth and all of those things? Or is it more important that we get them in a tent next week? And so I think the answer to that is fairly obvious to us.

 

http://www.inquiry.net/leadership/sitting_side_by_side_with_adults.htm

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

NJ, my title was designed in part as a tease, eh?

 

Which part? Eh?

 

And just remember, on the Internet, nobody can see the look on your face as you type. I have taken to writing things like "The following post is a joke" when I don't want people to misunderstand attempts at humor as statements of real fact or opinion.

 

So often folks who use that word to describe da health care legislation and bailouts are supporters of the programs that give them entitlements and that are truly closer to communist/socialist programs.

 

If you mean that hypocrisy is rampant, I'd have to agree.

 

Parents in da former Soviet Union had more options and choice for education than parents in the U.S. do.

 

Do you have any cites for that statement? I really know nothing about the Soviet educational system so I have know way of knowing whether it is true or not. It isn't consistent with what I have "always known" about the Soviet Union, but what I have "always known" was not really based on personal study.

 

Call it what yeh will, though, da question is whether free government-run schooling teaches kids and their parents an "entitlement" mentality? Love to hear your thoughts as a community representative to da government schools.

 

I find that most people who call public schools "government schools" have some sort of irrational dislike for public education or government in general. I think it's irrational, anyway. In real-life conversations, I don't think I have ever heard anyone use the phrase -- in fact, the majority of the times I have ever read it is probably in this forum, though I once participated in a forum that was mostly about libertarianism (pro and con) so I saw it there too.

 

As for your actual question... well before I get to that, I think your question is partly (which part?) based on a false premise, and that is that the public schools are actually "free". The community pays for them, through taxes. Of course, you pay whether you have children in the public schools or not. (I recently graduated to "not". I suppose I should change my user name one of these days, as I have not been a ''Cub'' Scouter for a long time.) Virtually all parents are taxpayers (renters pay taxes indirectly, so I count them as well.) So, it's not really "free". We as a community pay for it. Some of us become actively involved to try to make sure the kids get a good education and make sure the parents and taxpayers get their money's worth -- and since school board members in NJ do not get paid, you might say I was paying twice, and still do, since I have remained active since leaving the board. Also relevant to "free" is the endless fundraising that parents find themselves roped into, both in spending time and in buying various things we don't really need. You can say no, of course, but the social pressure imposed by PTO-types is a tough thing to resist. (That was sort of a joke: I've been known to recruit other people into some fund-raising myself, and not just in Scouts.)

 

As for the kids, I don't think it matters to them whether its "free." I know of many children who are in private schools (and we have some very good ones in NJ) and I do not know a single one who pays their own tuition. (I am talking through 12th grade now, not college.) Nor do I know of any students who help in any significant way with their parents' property taxes. So for the students, it's pretty much "free" whether it's private or public, so that's really a non-issue. As for public schools, some students (and parents) take it seriously and some don't. It's like many other things, what you put into it determines what you get out of it. Some public school students (and their parents) put in a lot of effort, have some idea what they want to do with their lives, and obtain results accordingly. Of course, some have different abilities, but I have seen students with diagnosed learning disabilities become A students and go on to good colleges, all through hard work. And yes, in the ''public'' schools. The community I live in takes education seriously. I can't really speak for other places.

 

So, is there anything left of your basic question that I haven't answered? Does public schooling teach parents (I already dealt with students) an entitlement mentality? Compared with private schools? Maybe some. Not for most, I don't think.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Behind every entitled child is an entitled parent. Behind every entitled parent is an entitled grandparent. People don't come out of school with a sense of entitlement (except perhaps medical, law and business school). Entitlement is modeled for children by their family and the TV.

 

Most kids I know who were on the free lunch program were mortified that they were on the free lunch program - it meant their family was poor, and now everyone knew they were different - and no kid likes being different. Then again, if I were somewhere else, perhaps a rural Appalachian school where most people were on the free lunch program, maybe I would be seeing a different story unfold.

 

But what I see as instilling a sense of entitlement is Uncle Leroy saying you're entitled to that job whether you deserve it or not, or Aunt Betty saying you're entitled to that free lunch whether you qualify or not, or Mommy cutting in front of everyone in line at the post office because she's entitled, or Daddy driving aggressively to get in front of everyone at the next light because he's entitled. That's where children get their sense of entitlement - not some social program that they don't understand beyond "I have to go to school and my family can't afford to provide me lunch so the school does it for me".

 

"And like all socialist programs, da quality is mediocre and da product is a one-size-fits-all thing." You know, maybe this is true of small island nations, or monolithic countries, but it's certainly not true in the US. The only "one size fits all" social programs we have in the US are Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants and Veteran's Administration Hospitals and no one using those services complain that they are mediocre. The people who claim they are mediocre are people who aren't utilizing the services yet.

 

Federal programs such as Food Stamps and Medicaid are funded by the US but are run by the States, according to State rules (provided they meet Federal minimums). It's one size fits all within the State, but certainly not at the federal level - and there are some State programs that are very well run, and some that are mediocre. Schooling is done at the local level - some school districts are outstanding, some a mediocre, some are outright poor - but it's not one size fits all. TO make a blanket statement that the quality of all socialist programs is mediocre is just not supported by the real world.

 

The Scandinavian countries have some of the most socialist governments on the planet - can you really say their social programs are mediocre?

[Mr. Boyce 13]

. . . I wonder about socialist programs like TIF districts, tax incentives, government buyouts, loan supports and subsidies, etc.

 

It sure makes corporate managers feel Big Daddy will pick them up and set them sweetly back on their feet should they fail.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I guess the answer to my implied question, "Can't we stop with the 'socialist' accusations" is "No, we can't."

 

I found an interesting article which deals partly with the use of that word in current American politics. For politics fans, it's an interesting article in general: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/bob-inglis-tea-party-casualty . (And yes, I am aware that Mother Jones magazine is a leftish publication, but the article seems pretty solid, it is based mainly on an interview with a conservative Republican Congressman who lost his primary to a tea-partier.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Would this topic be related to people feeling entitled to having their own public school charter a BSA unit?

[sheldonsmom 10]

No, Merlyn, it wouldn't.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Coulda fooled me. Lots of people (Beavah, for example) made arguments that made it sound like they were entitled to having their public schools sponsor their private clubs, and that refusing to do so somehow violated their rights. Must be all that creeping socialism.

[Beavah 205]

But what I see as instilling a sense of entitlement is Uncle Leroy saying you're entitled to that job...

 

Or Uncle Calico saying you're entitled to that Merit Badge. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

I agree with your post, eh? I think da primary teachers of children are always parents and relatives. But then, I think that schools and activities like Scouting are also effective teachers, eh? And just like parents, they can teach lessons of entitlement.

 

More to da point, schools and government programs can teach parents lessons of entitlement, which can then be passed on to kids.

 

I look at my generation, eh? We feel as a group that we are entitled to take money from the young folks to continue to support Social Security and Medicare at a level which vastly exceeds any contribution we made to the programs. And then we're entitled to waive teabags around and gripe about da government trying to insure working folks and children with da same type of Ponzi scheme program we're benefiting from.

 

All while claiming to be anti-entitlement. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. We feel Social Security is our property, when in fact it is charity bestowed on us by da young. That's not a notion we started with. That's a notion that da program, and our reliance on it, taught us. So I think programs can develop dependencies and teach entitlement to young and old.

 

Like NJ says, nothing is ever free, eh? We're always takin' it from someone else. Do we feel entitled to that, or grateful to them?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[scoutingagain 20]

Seems like most folks regard entitlements are something someone else gets. If it's a government program they take advantage of it's a needed service or tax incentive. The middle class see TARP, and corporate bailouts as socialist entitlements. The young see Social Security and Medicare that way. Since most people take advantage of public education or thier facilities at some point, most don't seen that as an entitlement.

 

If one really examined government socialist like programs one would really need to include:

 

Social Security

Medicare

Mortgage interest deductions

Uninsured medical care

Government scholarships to colleges and universities

In-state tuition to public colleges and universities

Government pensions

Make work earmark projects

Defense expenditures on programs not really needed for national defense

and on and on.

 

Other than pure libertarians, I hardly hear even the more vocal conservatives complain about most of the above programs.

 

We have become a society hooked on government entitlements and havn't faced the reality that we aren't willing to pay our fair share of taxes to maintain them. This hasn't happened in 18 months. It's been going on for the last 40 years or more under both parties.

 

SA