Poll: Should public schools be abolished?

[Jamisjockey]

Are we at all differentiating between basic schooling and advanced college or tech prep?

My hesitent opinion on the subject is to limit public school (kids have to have something) to the old "eigth grade standard. Basic reading, writing, math, science and some history and perhaps language.

After reseaving that, it's up to the parents, child and local oppertunities.

My HS was basically supposed to be college prep and teaching us to pass standerdized test without actually preparing anyone for college.

I don't see why their shouldn't be a comprimise between what needs to be mandatory and what is optional.

Liberals and neo-conservatives have seized upon the opportunity to use public schools as social-engineering experiments.  Health Ed, drivers Ed, sex Ed, and a host of other extraneous topics clog up the system.  

[BlueStarLizzard]

Liberals and neo-conservatives have seized upon the opportunity to use public schools as social-engineering experiments.  Health Ed, drivers Ed, sex Ed, and a host of other extraneous topics clog up the system.  

Thus the need to rein them in.

[Jamie B]

How do they choose curricula for private schools, under your proposed voucher system?

Why do make a connection between public schooling and standardized tests? Either one could exist without the other.

And I reiterate, 

Curriculum under vouchers would be driven by the state, just like it does now.
Vouchers will not immediately eliminate public schools.
Some standard testing is required to maintain commonality amongst schools, just like it exists now.
The current public school system will never cease to exist, and likely will never change, no matter what you think.

[MillCreek]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-12-07-us-students-international-ranking_N.htm

Yep.  Public education is doing a great job.

I found this portion of the USA Today article to be interesting:

The PISA study does not look to draw cause-and-effect relationships, but does highlight some findings about what the top performing countries tend to have in common.

Schleicher noted that some of the top systems are centralized, while others are very decentralized. There was also much variation in class sizes, with some of the best performers finding success in putting quality teachers in larger classes. But in each case, teachers are subject to evaluations and have a high standing in society. Also, schools have a degree of autonomy in determining their curriculum — but are also held accountable.

"In other words, autonomy without accountability would be a very bad outcome," he said.

He said many of the things the United States is doing, such as developing common academic standards and smarter assessment systems, are important, positive changes.

"What we have seen from other countries doing similar things is those initiatives do pay off in the longer term," Schleicher said.

The study found that the best school systems were also the most equitable, meaning students from disadvantaged backgrounds were just as likely to do well academically. In the U.S., 17% of the variation in student performance was found to be related to a pupil's background — compared to 9%, for example, in Canada.

It would be nice if there was some rigorous research showing causal relationships between student performance and various approaches used for K-12 education.  I wonder if such research exists. 

[Seenterman]

Liberals and neo-conservatives have seized upon the opportunity to use public schools as social-engineering experiments.  Health Ed, drivers Ed, sex Ed, and a host of other extraneous topics clog up the system. 

Seriously? Health Education some liberal social experiment?   

If you guys think the welfare problem in this country is bad now, what do you think will happen if you abolish public schools? It's going to get better?
Education is fundamentally to the survival and health of any country.

[Jamie B]

Seriously? Health Education some liberal social experiment?   

If you guys think the welfare problem in this country is bad now, what do you think will happen if you abolish public schools? It's going to get better?
Education is fundamentally to the survival and health of any country.

Hmmm - good point.

[Fitz]

Seriously? Health Education some liberal social experiment?   

If you guys think the welfare problem in this country is bad now, what do you think will happen if you abolish public schools? It's going to get better?
Education is fundamentally to the survival and health of any country.

Love that last sentence, coming from someone defending public schools... but I digress.

Education IS fundamental. However, the department of education is doing a piss poor job of providing said education.

Abolishing the D of E, or abolishing public schools, moving to voucher systems, etc, don't abolish EDUCATION. You're just removing the inept, corrupt, ineffective agencies responsible for managing it, and shifting that management to where it belongs: local or state government.

[MillCreek]

Love that last sentence, coming from someone defending public schools... but I digress.

Education IS fundamental. However, the department of education is doing a piss poor job of providing said education.

Abolishing the D of E, or abolishing public schools, moving to voucher systems, etc, don't abolish EDUCATION. You're just removing the inept, corrupt, ineffective agencies responsible for managing it, and shifting that management to where it belongs: local or state government.

I am not certain that I buy into the premise that local or state government is any less inept, corrupt or ineffective than the Feds.  I have seen far too many cases proving the exact opposite. 

[Fitz]

Doesn't matter. The point is: the state or local governments should be deciding how to manage their own schooling. Whether thats with a centralized education system or abolishing it entirely in favor of private schools.

I'm not even convinced that we SHOULD have "education for everyone" as a goal. Part of the difficulty in the job market right now comes from what I call "education inflation," with even the most retarded jobs requiring a bachelor's degree.

[Perd Hapley]

Curriculum under vouchers would be driven by the state, just like it does now.
Vouchers will not immediately eliminate public schools.
Some standard testing is required to maintain commonality amongst schools, just like it exists now.
The current public school system will never cease to exist, and likely will never change, no matter what you think.

So you agree that there can be a standard curriculum without public schools. Can we also agree that standardized tests can exist without a public school system, and without any government involvement at all?

I am also pessimistic about seeing much change in public schools. No matter what I think. I guess. 

[MillCreek]

I'm not even convinced that we SHOULD have "education for everyone" as a goal. Part of the difficulty in the job market right now comes from what I call "education inflation," with even the most retarded jobs requiring a bachelor's degree.

Although this is probably not a popular opinion on this board, I think one of the quickest ways for any country to essentially devolve into a failed nation-state is to fail to invest in their human capital.  The upbringing and education of our children is such a key investment.

Does anyone here think that a model after the madrassa of Afghanistan is the way to go?  No standardized curriculum, local control, religious-based, no government involvement.  Graduates are able to read and write at a minimal level and recite the Koran.  Great if you want dirt farmers, maybe not so much if you want to be a country of consequence in the 21st century. 

[Fitz]

There's a difference between not investing in human capital, and the "everyone succeeds, no matter how lazy or stupid" system that we have currently.

But good job using the "removing government from the equation will automatically relegate us to third world status" card.

[makattak]

Although this is probably not a popular opinion on this board, I think one of the quickest ways for any country to essentially devolve into a failed nation-state is to fail to invest in their human capital.  The upbringing and education of our children is such a key investment.

Does anyone here think that a model after the madrassa of Afghanistan is the way to go?  No standardized curriculum, local control, religious-based, no government involvement.  Graduates are able to read and write at a minimal level and recite the Koran.  Great if you want dirt farmers, maybe not so much if you want to be a country of consequence in the 21st century. 

Cargo cult thinking.

Intelligent people tend to get more education. Intelligent people end up working in more skilled jobs and making more money.

Giving more education to people who are not as intelligent only creates the need for different signals as to capabilities. Hence, the "credential creep" that Fitz is referring to in his previous post.

Further, we've decided "schooling" is the only acceptable means of education. Why are not apprenticeships acceptable? Why are we failing students who should never go to college and telling them its the only means of a future?

Skilled laborers are necessary to EVERY society. Lawyers/Sociologists/Womyn's Studies/Liberal Arts graduates? Not so much.

[MillCreek]

Intelligent people tend to get more education. Intelligent people end up working in more skilled jobs and making more money.

So which came first?  Intelligence or education?  The world is full of intelligent or educated deadbeats. 

I agree completely, however, on the industrial training or apprenticeships.  College is by no means required to make a positive contribution to society.  I have often admired the apprenticeship system in Germany to produce skilled workers. 

[Jamisjockey]

Abraham Lincoln was home schooled and then self educated. 
That should end this debate, right there.
 

[roo_ster]

Cargo cult thinking.

Very much so.  Along with the scads of policritters who see what stuff the middle class has (education, house, broadband internet, etc.) and say that we must now reduce, say, lending standards for home buying to get more middle class people.

The thing is, it is not how much stuff gov't provides or even the stuff at all that makes one "middle class." It is culture, attitudes, and habits; mixed with a stern dollop of impulse control that makes a prosperous middle class.  Slather a no-account ghetto rat with the accouterments of middle class life and you will soon see a bunch of useless, unused, or broken crap and a no-account ghetto rat.

What brings about a third-world polity is sucking the middle class dry to support the shiftless and their progeny.  Take a look at Los Angeles, Detroit, and any other place with super-strong public school unions and high taxes to support them.  It is a conspiracy of the very rich and very poor against the middle.

Tossing resources at kids who have no desire to learn is the greatest waste of money at the state & local levels.

[MillCreek]

Tossing resources at kids who have no desire to learn is the greatest waste of money at the state & local levels.

I would be interested to hear your opinion on what should be done with these children, then.

[Perd Hapley]

Does anyone here think that a model after the madrassa of Afghanistan is the way to go?  No standardized curriculum, local control, religious-based, no government involvement.  Graduates are able to read and write at a minimal level and recite the Koran.  Great if you want dirt farmers, maybe not so much if you want to be a country of consequence in the 21st century. 

This ain't Afghanistan, and the religious influence is Christian, not Islamic. Private schools and home-schoolers have a pretty good track record. Why would it enter your mind that our non-public education would turn into something like a Middle-Eastern madrassa?

[MicroBalrog]

This ain't Afghanistan, and the religious influence is Christian, not Islamic. Private schools and home-schoolers have a pretty good track record. Why would it enter your mind that our non-public education would turn into something like a Middle-Eastern madrassa?

Homeschooling has already been prevalent in some previous periods of U.S. history. U.S. education performed quite well.

[MillCreek]

This ain't Afghanistan, and the religious influence is Christian, not Islamic. Private schools and home-schoolers have a pretty good track record. Why would it enter your mind that our non-public education would turn into something like a Middle-Eastern madrassa?

It was more from the standpoint of pointing out that an institution existed that espoused some of the desired attributes expressed in this thread: local control, religious based, no government interference and no standardized curriculum.

PS: and if I recall correctly (and I may not be), I have read of similar schools here in the USA with similar attributes, run by some conservative ethnic/religious groups, such as an Orthodox Jewish group in New York, and the Amish.  But I might be wrong about this.  I recall reading about them in the context of religious freedom appellate court cases.

[Jamie B]

So you agree that there can be a standard curriculum without public schools. Can we also agree that standardized tests can exist without a public school system, and without any government involvement at all?

I am also pessimistic about seeing much change in public schools. No matter what I think. I guess. 

No. No. Sorry.

[MicroBalrog]

Private standardized tests already exist in England. They are a fact. I have taken one.

[Boomhauer]

If we are going to keep public school (and I am strongly doubting the responsibility of the fed. .gov to provide education, especially since it is a role they invented for themselves...), some drastic measures need to be taken.

Axe the Dept of Ed.

As said above, stop the social engineering crap. I came to school for learning, not brainwashing. Don't try to lie to me about history, don't try to turn me into a zombie by not teaching critical thinking skills, don't try to force politics on me. It goes far beyond the "evolution vs. creation" argument that most focus on. The schools responsibility should be to turn out well-rounded, well-informed, skilled citizens, not mindless zombies who can't think for themselves.

Get rid of the bullshit. School should be just that, school. Extracurricular activities such as sports and clubs can be handled by local organizations such as dept. of parks and rec and libraries. This should greatly cut down on bullshit such as multimillion dollar stadiums and athletes getting preferential treatment

Have a rigorous screening program for teachers. Hire teachers who can actually teach, think, and care, and fire those who don't. Get rid of teacher's unions. Right now many college teacher certification programs are populated by the types of people who are basically college level equivalents of high school cosmotology students (i.e., the idiots who have no clue).

Solve the real discipline problems. Got some yahoo kid running around the halls like an idiot and repeatedly disrupting classes? Expel them. Same for bullies. Those that want to be in school and do well should not have to suffer stupidity. Drop the zero-tolerance BS and hit the real problems instead of coddling them.

Get rid of the administrative kingdoms, both at the school and board levels. The principles should not be able to pull the stupid *expletive deleted*it they get away with now. School board members should not be so corrupt as to make congressmembers look like angels...and they especially should not be telling the taxpayers "We're going to do it this way and you'll damn well like it, so STFU!"


Let's bring back some real apprenticeship programs and get them off the ground. Actually, I think everyone should be taught a useful career skill-set (doesn't have to be a full apprenticeship, just enough to get you in the door at a job) in addition to the basic education cirriculum...I don't think other countries methods of basically forcing you into either an apprenticeship or college is a good idea, but at least offer some real programs so that it's easy to become a plumber, welder, machinist, construction worker, mechanic, cook/chef, truck driver, firefighter, police officer, EMT, or whatever. There are some career programs and such out there in the high schools, and similar programs at tech colleges, but it's really not the best system.

[roo_ster]

I would be interested to hear your opinion on what should be done with these children, then.

Before we explore my solution, how's about we see what the gov't and gov't school system is doing with them?  Why don't we even stack the deck in your favor?

The state of Texas, relative to most other states, does well by its black and hispanic minorities, education-wise.  Higher grad rates, better test scores, etc.  Statistically significantly better than, say, states like Wisconsin & other super-majority white states with highly regarded gov't school systems.

But "better" is relative.  Majority minority (& super-majority minority) districts do not graduate over half of freshmen who enter high school:
http://www.edweek.org/media/texas_eperc.pdf
(page 5)

Dallas, Houston, Ft Worth, and San Antonio are the big urban (super-majority minority) districts(1) of note and fit this.  You can bet the other districts with < 50% grad rates are, too.  Dallas ISD is something around 95% NAM (Non-Asian Minority).  Dallas still has a significant white & asian population, but only very, very few send their kids to DISD.  The entire tax-paying class pays both property taxes (most of which go to DISD) and they pay private school tuition.  Two dogs and a sheep deciding who pays for dinner.

Anyway, back in 2008, DISD spent ~$10500/student per year (2)...which makes it something less than $21000/high school student graduated per year (averaged out over the four years of HS if we include the costs of those who didn't graduate). 


So, whatever the "roo_ster solution," it is a win if it can graduate more for the same amount of dollars or graduate the same proportion while spending less money.

Given the folks we know currently or recently taught in some of these districts, many of those being educated housed have no desire to learn.  "I just want to be a roofer like my dad(3)," is a common refrain and excuse for lack of effort.  Merely letting those who don't want to be there leave would save money. 

WIN! <fist pump>

OK, my solution? Let their parents pay for their kids' education.  That way citizens don't have to pay the way for illegals and folks might have some incentive to refrain from birthing entire new generations of ignorant tax-consumers.  (Who knows, if the parents are paying for it, they might begin to value it and motivate their kids.)  When either kid or parent says, "No mas," let them enter the work force.  If they don't like their station in life, they can go back for more schooling on their own dime.



(1) "But what about Austin," you might ask? Obviously I must be pulling something nefarious to exclude far-left "Berkeley on the Colorado."  Well, not so much.  Like most other places beloved by lefty hipsters (Portland, OR; Madison, WI) as wonderful places to live, Austin is majority white.  "Keep Austin Weird" means "keeping out the scary minorities," it looks like.


(2) Pano ISD, with test scores much, much better than DISD, spent $7500/student.


(3) "I'm going to have a baby and get a check" is another. 

[MillCreek]

Do you have any insight as to why the Pano district does better for less money?