41 votes

Do We Even Need Public Schools Anymore?

Public schools are obviously failing at educating our children,are become a breeding ground for violence and they cost tax payers more and more every year.With the exception of trade schools,where you actually are taught to do something and a few college degrees,can anyone tell me why there is a need for public schools at all? Everything that is taught in public school can be learned online and then some.Here are just a few examples.





And there are hundreds if not thousands more.
DP What are your thoughts?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I dont think the teachers

I dont think the teachers really have a say in a lot of their teachings. Public schools are a bureaucracy. No child left behind is one example of what they reluctantly have to deal with.

i just read John Taylor

i just read John Taylor Gatto's Dumbing Us Down, and Weapons of Mass Instruction.

Public schools were MEANT to dumb down the children. Gatto references at least 5 books where the globalist/educators admit themselves it is not their intention for children to think rationally and independently.

Horace Mann "Seventh Annual Report" to Massachusetts Board of Education in 1843

James Bryant Conant - 1959 - The Child, the Parent, and the State

Alexander Inglis - 1918 - Principles of Secondary Education

Cubberley - 1934 - Public Education in the United States

Cubberley - 1922 - Public School Administration

there is some other damning evidence, but the thing is (i assume,) that you have to look hard for it, or you will miss it in some of these texts. Gatto was able to bring up William James and how he talked about "habit" instead of reason, as the main motivator for the way he wanted to condition a child. I completely missed that, when i read William James, but now it makes sense.

He has a good way of looking at things. Children are not taught in dialectics these days. At one point as well, children were surrounded by older children, so they could learn that way, that was Horace Mann's system, but they abandoned that, and sectioned children off even more.

The State wanted to kill the individual. i was always flabbergasted when i was in school, because i was adamantly opposed to public schools and wanted to convince other students that they were evil. but without dialectics, i guess, it was a lost cause.

Even now, when i seldom bring it up, there are still some people that think knowledge and learning would die if public schools were ended.
And OMG, what would happen to the poor? who would build the roads? and so forth....


As a public school teacher...

As a teacher in the public school, I would say that the emphasis on technology will someday perhaps get rid of the need for the localized public school. The only problem is that then there will truly be one message without any questioning of that message, short of involved parents.

As I teach, I try to make the subject matter as interesting as possible...and I love teaching Social Studies, asking the children how many slave Lincoln actually did free (zero), what were the British coming for (confiscation of weapons and capture of persons of interest), why we have checks and balances (like why one branch is (supposed) to declare war while another simply executes it.

did you read John Taylor

did you read John Taylor Gatto?? No offense, but you probably are NOT doing enough damage to the system. Children learn best when they teach themselves, so they have to be out in the real world, apprenticing for people. Children learn best, the stuff that they want to learn. if you can foster a love for reading instead of burdening them with homework and rote memorization, if they can find stuff they are interested in, and then go apprenctice for adults and get out in the real world, then there isn't much that one can do to break the vicious cylce of State-Slave-Monopoly

If you mention the involvement of the Russians in the Civil War, how their fleets were stationed off the atlantic and pacific, then you are venturing into subversive territory.

teach from Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley and i don't think they will be able to put the genie back in that bottle, especially when you give them The Law by Bastiat and Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland or A Libertarian Primer by David Boaz

Or the Case Against Fluoride by Dr. Paul Connet et al.

And don't swallow that b.s. that children only have a reading level of so much, that it's way over the head for them.

It's been accepted that it only takes a child 100 hours of self-studying to learn how to read, write, and do arithmetic.

the rest of the time, the government is teaching them to be wards of the state.

You need to up the subversion. what you said is not subversive enough. we are counter-revolutionaries. you've proven nothing to me.

sorry, i'm feeling cheeky.

And c'mon, Lincoln didn't free the slaves? why can't you just have said he freed the slaves out of raison d'etat, or realpolitik, now you're just making it worse, because you're saying no slaves were freed by lincoln. You can use that letter he wrote to that guy in charge of that paper. was it horace greely of the chicago tribune? i don't remember.

Well, sorry about some of this, but i was promised a teaching position, and then got stabbed in the back after i got my piece of paper (with a low g.p.a. from having learned languages outside of class) and had no career because of it. She didn't trust me to teach children. you damn right i was going to be subversive. teach them to think for themselves.

children want to be adults. period.


i downvoted myself too, let's

i downvoted myself too, let's see if we can get a sympathy response on my behalf. :-)


haha who downvoted me?

haha who downvoted me? sheep. i taught myself chinese mandarin. too bad you can not teach the kids chinese. oh, look at the public school teacher. hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha


i can't believe i wandered

i can't believe i wandered homeless beause you people were more qualified than me. hahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahah


I was just giving examples.

Day in, day out, they hear, "Question, question, question."

can they read The Law ?? by

can they read The Law ?? by Bastiat. They should be reading what the kids in college are not reading.

Not just The Law. maybe a few books of the law, a few books of something else, some 17th century literature... get a smorgasbord of books and throw them on the table.... you don't have to be the main top-down planner... can you get them interested in reading for the sole pleasure of it?

because how many hours are you allotted each class? if they can read for 3 hours undisturbed, if you have that time-section of class, then they should be reading some heavy stuff.

tell them about the calculus derivatives. show them how easy some are, when you subtract the exponents. they need a confusing medley of stuff right now, and not everything is going to pique everyone's interest at the same time.

that is why you need a lot of books, different books. but you can start on 10 people, at least, with The Law by Basitat.


if they have parents that are

if they have parents that are willing to keep a secret, do what Gatto did, send the kids out on adventures where they intern for auto mechanics, or build ships.


The very fact it's "public education" it's socialistic

by design. Add in the fact they are unionized government employees and you have a sure to fail set up. At least now more people are recognizing that there is a problem. The solutions are simple, but the resistance to any change from the establishment is intense, so the only way to correct the schools is to have competing schools and allow parents a choice.

Public schools are a huge jobs program

They serve as a pressure valve for employement and have for decades. First, as a way of getting women out of the house and into the workforce, and then as a massive beuracracy.

Yes, kids can finish the curriculum earlier than they are currently allowed, but that's not the point of the school at all. Read Underground History to find the point.

John Taylor Gatto ??

John Taylor Gatto ??


I think the main

I think the main justification for public schools is for children from low-income / underprivlidged households whos parents are not capable of teaching or providing for their childrens education.

Ultimately the system does not serve even these people very well. I do believe even these people would be better off without public schools. Not in the short term though. It would take time for voluntary systems to develop to fill this need and the chaos that people would raise in the interim would be so intense I cannot imagine it would happen before total collapse.

one could just suggest that

one could just suggest that all poor kids go to monsanto factories and salvage the place for scrap metal. they could be employed and they could teach themselves how to take a G.M.O. factory apart.


now you're thinking. i don't

now you're thinking. i don't suppose one could tell them the crack dealers are probably more qualified to teach those kids. at least they have a good business model.


poor children were taught in

poor children were taught in the catholic charities in the past, but i don't know what's better, government pedophile or catholic pedophile?


public schools have become

public schools have become nothing but a babysitting service.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

That's pretty much the only

That's pretty much the only reason I can think of why we do need them.lol

No, we don't...

...and we never did.