"Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> The United States has one of the best and most forward thinking public education
> systems in the world and of all time. All citizens have access to education, in
> fact it is mandated for school age children barring alternative home or other
> schooling.
There are laws requiring it, but it is not constitutionally based. There is no guarrantee to a public education in either the national or my own state's Constitution. This is one of those things that the statists slip in under the 'general welfare' clause. Many state constitutions make specific requirements for education, not all do, but not New Hampshire (note, NH has had its students score in the top five states for average SAT scores, with one of the top five levels of participation by the student bodies, while also having one of the three lowest per capita spending levels on education in the country.)
> I had the opportunity to work for the local school district in high school as a
> computer assistant for a couple hours after school, I worked for the special
> services department that provides track based learning to both developmentally
> disabled and accelerated students. They are wonderful people.
>
> I am the product of a self-taught and public education, and attended a private
> college.
>
> Of course, individuals have different experiences with education, as well they
> certainly should!
Public education systems are at best negligent when it comes to the education of the most gifted students. The phenomonon of 'ADD' students are that those students are the brightest kids and need more one on one /self paced instruction. The educational system is treating them like disabled students so they can manipulate the system to get extra tax funding while they force these kids to fit into the mediocre average education.
> The thing that I feel has helped me the most is the skill of reading and having
> learned to read somewhat intuitively from the ages of 3 to 7 for basic reading
> skills, and 8 to now for advanced reading skills.
Yes, I was taught to read at age 4 by my grandmother. By 6 I was playing scrabble with her.
>
>
> I was subjected to a rigorous public education, and am the better for it.
'rigorous public education' is like 'military intelligence'. Its oxymoronic. Unless you mean it in the British sense, where 'public' schools are rigoruous, but they are far from public.
>
>
> Learning is a lifelong process. Learning isn't just about school, it's also about
> socialization skills and the myriad other things that make life a rich tapestry.
Bull. You don't need to know anything about anyone you went through elementary school or high school with. I doubt I have even seen more than a dozen of my classmates since graduation, and the 'socialization skills' I learned then have not been useful at all in the business world. There is no reason why the public should be taxed so kids can socialize. Let them do it on their own time.
Real socialization skills are things like etiquette, dancing classes, etc. which stand you in good stead later in life, which only the rare school has.
>
>
> It is not good that not every student has the same opportunities, that is, not all
> public schools are the same, but at the same time, I feel almost any person if
> raised and educated well could surpass, for example, me, whom I consider well
> educated.
They claim that all should have equal opportunity, but in relation to what? Their ability to excel? In that case most money should go to the bright kids, not the retarded kids. It is even worse when you limit opportunities for bright kids because you want to 'socialize' or 'mainstream' them.