: SDF: I went to a private school for six years, then I chose to go to public universities for awhile. I don't see "government monopoly," nor do I see "force".
Anecdotal. Mr Gort has already been shown the "error" of his ways on this matter.
: SDF: Gee, whose writings have so far been completely uncritical of capitalism,
They have. Except you include in 'capitalism' a plethora of other phenonoma of which I have been critical - including the various international financial bodies, Bhopal etc etc. Best ignore those though - just think of me as those cartoons popular in the early 20th centurty - the fat fellow with the cigar. Makes it easier.
: is here telling us not only what Dewey's writings on education say (not that he could possibly name any of Dewey's opus, much less tell us all about what any part of it means in sum)
First - The paragraph is taken to represent the kind of writing I have seen in libertarian circles. Second - I do wish you would not be presumptious about what other posters do and dont know - it does you no favors;
My Pedagogic Creed (1897)
The School and Society (1900)
Child and the Curriculum (1902)
Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (1916)
How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process (1933)
Experience and Education (1938)
I personally wouldnt critize Dewey without knowing more about his work - but I have noted the name critisied, observe Borgs post quoting him.
: but furthermore he is telling us about "independant (sic) critical thinking" in much the same way all libertarians "indepandantly" tell us the exact same thing.
This is the idiotic belief that if two libertarians agree on something then that agreement somehow invalidates indivualism;
"hey look at those libertarians, they both crossed the road at the same time during a gap in traffic"
"yeah, the frauds"
: SDF: I await any substantiation of the claim that there exists something called "state preferences," independently of public opinion
Its independent of individual thinking. Consider, when you next walk down the street, that when you see a person it is an entity in and of itself and that 'public opinion' at best is nothing but a mixture various 'colors'.
Public opinion is grey-brown paint - no matter what the differing tastes of the individuals.
And in state particularly its relatively more influenced by so called 'public servants' than by the dubious 'public opinion'
If it pleases you, you may reintroduce and update concerns over voucher systems - of which I am suspect anyway - and enjoy a renewed discussion.
: SDF: Gee writes completely unawares of the rich debate about the owles and Gintis thesis in SCHOOLING IN CAPITALIST AMERICA.
And if I were aware of this document I would be converted? It was heavily criticised even by its' 'own side'.
: SDF: How about that! The idea that libertarians could criticize anyone for being "self serving"! What a curious notion, almost as empty as "self-interest"!
No, its an understanding of why governments grow rather than shrink. Why there is someones' career at the head of the latest welfare farce! Or did you think they were being 'selfless' with other peoples resources?
: SDF: In the above passage, I was not criticizing, I was describing, and my description was of the category of SECONDARY public and private education, that it was neither democratic nor coordinated. So not only was I not criticizing all education,
I didnt suggest it.
: SDF: State-run Montessori schools are a distinct possibility, as are private schools that are worse than state-run schools, but which nevertheless thrive economically. The above proposition repeats the popular fallacy that "state ownership" and "private ownership" are terms that necessarily say something about how a school is RUN, whereas in fact they only describe WHO OWNS THE SCHOOL.
Essentially. It does assume a seperation of ownership and control though - and thats is not what happens in actuality. Hence state run montessori schools may be, erm... 'less common' than other models despite having a good track record (or, said in conspirational tones, because they have a good track record).
: SDF: Such criticism is usually rendered unimportant by its detachment from the real life context in which "actual skills" count for something. Do students who grow up to be manual laborers really need to learn "actual skills in the science, math and english"?
No, but most poeple grow up into roles that require significantly more than muscular movements.