Lost Localhost


Today I saw a link on G+ (holy crap, other people use that?!) about Oklahoma Rep Mike Reynolds saying: "It is not our job to see that anyone gets an education. It is not the responsibility of me, you, or any constituent in my district to pay for his or any other persons [sic] education. Their GPA, ACT, AS[V]AB, determination have nothing to do with who is responsible. Their potential to benefit society is irrelevant."

This led to a couple short back and forth's with the person who shared this until he asked "Are you a certain that you would prefer a totally privatized educational system? Because not so long ago, we actually had a very good public education system. Yes, it has fallen into decline. But I don't think that this is something that can be pinned on any one entity."

Then my short "yes" turned into a paragraph. Then Three. Then I said awww screw it: BLOG POST ANSWER!

So this is based solely on the message I feel this rep was conveying in that quote. I know nothing about this rep otherwise, or Oklahoma law... So if you get halfway in and think "that's not applicable!" then move along. :)

First of all, you'll have to separate k-12 vs. college education. He was only speaking about higher education college.
To answer your question in the context of this article, yes. I am in favor of a privatized educational system - solely. Government sponsored/controlled [insert any industry government has run] has never been nearly as successful, stable, or beneficial as it's private counterpart. Education is no exception.

To add on to what [GA] alluded to...
'Education level' is dependent on the teachers, the curriculum, and most importantly the parents/family. When you have an entity that pays for your education, there is a responsibility tied to that, and there are influences on the teachers and curriculum.

I have a hard time trying to justify why you should have to pay a dime for my son to go to college. If you believe that, can't you just write him a check? College is a specialty learning opportunity that people choose. If you are paying some for him to go, you do have a right to care. In typical loan/grant situations that "care" is demonstrated by a promise to repay in a certain time with a certain interest, or perhaps it's a guarantee of sport performance etc... If you write the check, what's the deal?

My solution: Leave college education to family, and private entities. When I say family and I are responsible for his education, I mean it in the same way we're responsible for feeding him. i.e.: I didn't pick the apple, but I found a way to get it to his mouth. I didn't kill the cow, but when his teeth come in, he'll enjoy a damn good burger because I found where to get one and paid for it myself. Same thing: If I (family) can not educate him enough to be happy, self sufficient, take care of his family, and be a moral human, then I will find and work with the resources to meet our expectations and pay for them ourselves if that's what's needed: without asking you for anything. By doing that, I don't have to answer to any other tax payer - and no tax payer has to worry about what he decides to do with his life. By 'private entities' you have to realize there are a ton of available grants and loans available without having to go the public route.

What will it do to the teachers when money always comes and a paycheck is guaranteed because government money flow never stops? (especially here in IL) What incentive is there to be innovative? If someone is paying you for a goal, and you don't meet it, you stop getting paid. That's incentive. What happens to the students when they don't learn to work for what they get - especially young people. The best things in life are earned, never given.

Why would you WANT "constituent[s] in [your] district to pay for any other persons [sic] education" ??? Why would you ask that of the people, and more to my above point, what would you ask in return?

Now I completely believe in contract concepts: if one person agrees to pay for someone else's education, and the other agrees, then they have the terms of what they can demand from each other. I think this rep is saying that is not a contract the people of his district wish to be in because they also don't think it's worth being on the receiving end of the money and, therefore, the expectations and baggage that comes with it.

I agree the decline is not because of "one entity" - but I know that it is more controllable and correctable when there truly is one entity: the family.
When college is paid for by the students own work (seeking out contracts like loans/grants with stipulations that they agree to, family help, or working a job) then I fail to see any decline happening on a larger scale. This now become a true capitalist system where the best is attractive, and those institutions that fail have a choice to make. They can continue to fail, or they can change for the better - it becomes a competitive environment which only leads to great things. The only people who have an issue with this are those invested in the failing institutions, but you can't provide a service no one wants and expect the tax payers to foot the bill to support you. If you're not doing well at something, make a change for the better, or do something you are good at.

If the person fails to get enough money, or to meet the expectations of institutions willing to loan them money, or work out some other arrangement with the school, then they may fail. That sucks. For them. Not for all of this guys constituents. In failing, that person may find another way to do things. Maybe a better way. I'm a firm believer that when no one gives a job to a hard worker, that person will make a job. Those who can find a way and need to, do.

No comments:

Post a Comment