Please feel free to help me edit this article. I have added a section “arguments against”.
http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education#References
I like this quote:
“Since public education is constitutionally mandated by each of the 50 United States[citation needed] (for instance, Article VIII of the Virginia Constitution requires the legislature to “provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth”[2]), its abolition presents a formidable task for anti-education groups.”
apparently being against the state-run and tax-funded school system makes us anti-education. >_>
Wikipedia, I coud see that turning into a very uphill and frustrating battle. As soon as you put in an “arguments against” there will be a counter to that and probably edit wars. Besides I think if you want to put it in, “Arguments against Public Education” should be its own article.
Think of it like this, If I had an article on say Communism/ Capitalism/ Jesus the articles are so big and contriversial that I think it must be divided up into as many articles as possible. The main article on Communism should be trying to keep the facts as dry, clear, and in a way short as possible. There should be a large “See Also” section to it though with “arguments for and arguments against type articles” being links. See my point?
That being said I think a full article on “arguments against public education” is a good idea. I think articles like that are part of wikipedia’s great charm and one of its great assets.
Somebody beat me to the edit. 
They changed it to anti-public education.
Changed what to “anti-public education”?
I’m all for an “arguments against” section, but isn´t it just a little bit tactless to put it at the top of the article? That’s one way to make sure that your edits are completely erased and the article locked.
I would think it is core to the article. I think any debatable topic should start with a section of arguments for and against.
Wikipedia really puzzles me. online i trash wikipedia, but in the classroom i try to defend it. Because wikipedia is a really quick and easy source for term-papers and essays
Don’t wanna be a jerk, but the “Arguments against” section needs to have citations and not be so blatantly POV if you want it to stay. Otherwise I can guarantee you that stuff will get deleted.
edit- also, wikipedia is likely to have rules about where an “arguments for and against” section should come, so you won’t have to make that decision.
I did add a reference. But you think I should make it a note instead? In regards to only half the funding goes to instruction.