re: Why are we congregating large groups of children in schools with our remote capabilities?

quote:

---

When is the last time a government school heralded that they were spending less per student by increasing efficiency? I have only heard ‘spending more per student’.

---

Education requires consumables. The price of these consumables never decrease.

Ironically, proponents of privatization actually increase inefficiency through advocating for models that require fractured infrastructure (buses, food services, HR and other admin positions, etc).

For example, traditional school districts have centralized buses. Charter schools have contracts, which often amounts to the school's largest expense.

Keep posting, you’re only hurting your argument. The return and output isn’t worth the input and investment with the current model. There’s nothing positive with a socialist system which is what you continue to argue the benefits of such. Nobody is saying to get rid of education it’s a discussion of the flaws that only procures mediocrity.

quote:

---

I personally agree with you that schools aren’t really needed anymore with technology

---

See, here is where I disagree. I think the addition of so much technology in our schools has been the problem. And also one of the reasons why you keep hearing we need for funding for schools.

I say go back to chalkboards, chalk, pencils and paper.

I don’t disagree until a certain point. Much is remedial just to fill time. That’s why I do like how most schools are transitioning to allow older students do college, credentials, on the job training etc. it’s fine for k-5, middle school should be the transition and high school should be focusing on adulthood. I feel like there’s not much necessity to go above the age of 16 but our culture here in the United States says you’re not an adult until 18.

Covid has been brought up itt and if you had kids during Covid you saw how little time is needed instead of a full 8 hour day and how digital technology was used.

So that poorly educated college educated women can have a job is all I got.

quote:

---

The Romans were…socialists?

---

They were, in fact, fascists.

quote:

---

Seems like we could transition over to a pods type learning system with remote instruction

---

I see you don’t have children and didn’t live through Covid. This is an awful idea, and 2020 proved how bad it was.

quote:

---

If you had kids in school during Covid you know how much public school got exposed.

---

Are we just making shite up now?

quote:

---

DeBoar

---

ah.

Just thought it was funny that you used Romans to make this point since they invented the fasces.

To answer your question seriously—there are two primary definitions of socialism. The first is the Marxist historical phase of government after capitalism in which the means of production are under public ownership. The second, more common usage, is central economic planning in contrast to decentralized market order.

So yes, to the extent that ancient civilizations had centrally planned economies, they were “socialist” even though Marxist theory had not started.

There’s a reason societal wealth takes off in countries that have more market ordering. I’m sure you understand this is Adam Smith’s main thesis in Wealth of Nations—even though he didn’t have the term “socialism” to use.

ETA: to fix wording in third paragraph

It’s also funny seeing those who consider themselves staunch conservative libertarians now blowing public education and socialism. Again you guys continue to show you’re really leftists.