Re: LOGO-L> real life learning?

[Tom Woods <woods@moose.ncia.net>]

Dale wrote:
>But that rich learning environment is available in real life....

and

>Score one for street smarts (etc.)

I'm slowly beginning to get a handle on this philosophy, but I want to be
sure. Are you saying that rich non-school learning environments exist for
all children and the proof is in the street smart homeless girl who scored
9th in a field of 700,000?

If I were to argue Michael Maveal's point, that these environments are not
available out of school to large numbers of children would you disagree? Or
would you agree and say that it is up to the kid, and/or his or her family
to find and utilize it -- it's not the community or the government's
responsibility.

>Public schools are welfare schools...

Usually when I think of the term 'welfare' I think first of the destitute
and disabled. I think second of that hot-button word that points accusingly
to freeloaders and milkers of the system. In this sense, I'd say no. public
schools are not welfare.

But when I think of the overall objective of public education: to promote an
informed populace; and when I think of the preamble to the U.S.
constitution, 'to promote the general welfare...", I'd have to say yes.
Public schools exist to promote the welfare of all of us (even though this
is generally a responsibility left up to the individual states). Schools may
be far from perfect, but that's the philosophical underpinning.

I have no problem with home-schooling, or private schooling, but I think a
lot of people would lose if that were all we had. I fear that if we did not
fund public schools, we'd have to fund jails instead. In my view, the former
is much more desirable (and cheaper).

---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.