[flagged]
The correct response to downvotes is to think about how you could express your point in a way that people can connect with. That's the art of a good comment. The best comments on HN are ones that make a point that many in the community may have disagreed with, but it is expressed in a way that creates a pathway for people to see things in a new way, and persuades them to see the issue from the new perspective you're illustrating.
I believe that's uncalled for. If you're looking for a discussion, that's not the way to go about starting it. You're just turning it hostile before it can even begin; what sort of response do you expect from such hostility?
If not for that pesky education system we could all be hiring fully capable 14 year olds into our empty job postings!
Of course, they might have trouble getting to the workplace. Or doing anything that benefits from a high school education. Maybe shuttle them to the mines?
[As a reminder, this is a thread that is using sarcasm to advocate for a thing opposite of what is explicitly stated. Or at least I think it is.]
Ignoring the existence of well-off suburban public schools.
I don't have data on this, but it certainly SEEMS to be that way.
However, trying my best to answer sensibly:
> Every now and again there is an aberration where teachers actually teach something in a public school, but in the US, why take the chance?
You seem to be backing up your argument that a high school education doesn't have value (and shouldn't be funded) by stating that the US has an overall-poor standard of public education. That's a circular argument which doesn't even try to address the reasons that the quality of education is lacking or comment on whether a higher-quality education would have general value. I can't understand your viewpoint that the actual education of students shouldn't be funded, because the quality is already poor. You seem to be ignoring the fact that a well-funded and correctly-motivated (in terms of education, not just which high school can build the most football fields) education system can produce graduates who go on to add extra value to society.
Why should a decent high school education be reserved for the wealthy who can send their kids to private schools?
Also, I'd recommend against including statements like the one that you make in your last paragraph. Saying (paraphrasing) "I'm right, everyone who downvotes my high controversial and unpopular opinion without spending time to reply is an uneducated idiot" is starting from an unconstructive place.
That being said... there's a critique that keeps coming up that the structure of public education is largely unchanged since Victorian times. I've heard people say that the reason you get kids up in the morning and have them move from class to class every hour is to prepare them for life in the mines and mills. Certainly there is some validity to this observation. If we're trying to prepare students for the world of modern work, maybe they should be in front of a computer monitor for 8 hours a day and run to a local gym in 1 hour shifts in an effort to ensure their lives are not completely sedentary.
There's an "unschooling movement" that has made some interesting points, but still gets some of the details wrong (in my opinion.) "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" is a great read, even if you disagree with Freire's politics or semiotics.
When I say "high school is nothing more than child-care" I should probably say "I fear high school is nothing more than child-care" or "Some high schools are nothing more than child-care." I don't think low academic achievement is universal, but I also think there's a correlation between per-capita spending and academic achievement.
Most (many?) public schools in the US were set up in the post-war period to be funded with property taxes. But since the 60s / 70s many (most?) states have policies similar to California's Prop 13 that limited property taxes. [Don't have the data on this handy, point me at the data if I'm wrong.] So it seems like it's a perfect storm of decreasing teacher salaries, deferred maintenance for school district property and low academic achievement.
As a society, we can have as good a school system as we're willing to pay for.
At this point, if there's any way to supplement public school budgets with money from the football stadium... I'm all for it. I would just prefer that the money goes from the profitable football program to the general academic fund and not the other way around.
[Edit: I'm informed out of band that there's a correlation between a state's median income and public school educational achievement. This is a small, but important update on the assertion above saying there's a correlation between per-capita spending and academic achievement.]
That is not at all the impression that I got reading your original comment. It seemed (and continues to seem, on a second reading), that you disagree with further funding education, because there's no point, high schools "just" day care for teenagers.
Please consider that, just because someone doesn't bother to reply to you, it doesn't mean that you're right. They may simply see no point in arguing with some stranger with whom they'll hopefully never have to interact. With this follow-up comment, it seems to me that your actual opinions are significantly different from both the words and tone in your initial message. That isn't helped by the notes about downvotes without comments (and the Latin snark in the edit).
I was considering commenting when I originally downvoted but thought it would detract from the core conversation.
But now that you’ve added this bit I’ll just say: a number of people (including myself) will auto-downvote any comment that complains about impending downvotes regardless of other content.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-s...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/educational...
There's broad correlation between per-pupil spending and academic achievement. Massachusets has high per-pupil spending and high academic achievement. Florida's educational attainment is higher than I would have thought, given how little they spend on education. Maybe their graduation requirements are laxxer than Massachuset's? Maybe they're more efficient? Cost of living in rural Florida has to be less than in Mass.