Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on January 10, 2012, 04:09:03 PM
-
Should public schools be abolished?
-
Yes.
Best case solution:
Everyone provides for their own kids' education.
Acceptable Compromise:
Voucher system.
-
Your question is too broad. Federal and state control of public schools should be abolished. My preference would be that there be no public schools at all, but under the constitution, there is no restriction of that power for the localities.
So, I would prefer they be abolished, but I am opposed to imposing such a preference on localities. Sate or Federal control/influence? Abolish it, no question.
-
Yes.
Best case solution:
Everyone provides for their own kids' education.
That will eliminate any educational consistency in the US, and reduce US educational levels.
It will not work.
-
Since before the founding of this country public education was important to the colonist. Education should be controlled locally. Today, being a teacher has turned into a comfy gov job, summers off, every holiday known to man off, tenure, a gov retirement (that in some states cannot go broke) and a nice income. Hey, I'm making the case to abolish the education system.
-
That will eliminate any educational consistency in the US, and reduce US educational levels.
It will not work.
Agree.
I use to be pretty libertarian about this; but the sad truth is, most people are just too damn irresponsible to provide k-12 for their kids. Hell, most people can't handle their finances well enough to not have a ton of high-interest consumer debt (spent on depreciating liabilities) and living paycheck to paycheck. These are the people that are getting foreclosed on because they can't make good financial choices about the real estate they buy. Know why there's payday loan places with predatory intrest rates everywhere? Because people use them.
To make sure the government even gets income taxes, we have to have withhold even giving that money to people - otherwise it would be all gone by the time tax time comes around.
And these are the people that I'm expected to believe will put themselves in a position to educate their children on their own dime?
Now, maybe it's the theoretical right way to run a society. That if someone screws over their kids future, it's their right. And, maybe that is "right". But that society on top of current American culture would sprint towards destruction like an Olympic event. Not a world I want to live in.
-
Yes.
Best case solution:
Everyone provides for their own kids' education.
Acceptable Compromise:
Voucher system.
This.
Amazingly, this is what some European Countries do for primary and secondary education. They just give each family $xxxx per kid, and you go pick the private school of your choice. They all compete in a mostly semi-free market on the quality of their education.
Funny how the American Left is usually so quick to point out "Europe does it this way"... "Europe does it that way" etc.
-
And a number of European nations offer business-oriented apprenticeship programs in addition to public ed at the secondary school level. These are through private industry.
-
Your question is too broad. Federal and state control of public schools should be abolished. My preference would be that there be no public schools at all, but under the constitution, there is no restriction of that power for the localities.
So, I would prefer they be abolished, but I am opposed to imposing such a preference on localities. Sate or Federal control/influence? Abolish it, no question.
Technically speaking, under the Constitution there's no restriction of that power to the states either, and several state constitutions mandate public education to be maintained.
But of course I am not sure what you mean by "imposing". Do you mean no Federal enforcers should come in to shut down the last surviving public school in Nowhere Country, East Kentucky, or do you mean that there should be no attempts by private citizens from out-of-state to persuade the East Kentucky school board to shut down?
-
Yes. I'd take a voucher system as being a good alternative. At the very least, kick out the federal government let states administer it without federal interference.
-
That will eliminate any educational consistency in the US, and reduce US educational levels.
It will not work.
Wrong.
Do you think the big city school districts are doing much of anything to teach their students in the first place? Do you think that showering them with taxpayers' dollars improves educational outcomes in any statistically significant way? If you do, you reach that conclusion by faith, as the empirical data shows otherwise. Kansas City, the court-ordered billion dollar experiment is but one data point.
It will increase the educational level of the population that matters: those who go on to work in useful occupations and pay taxes.
It doesn't matter much if the rest are housed in the same building while wasting their time (and taxpayer dollars). Sure, some urban athletic powerhouses that feed the NFL/NBA will take a hit, but that is not too great a price to pay.
-
Ge the Fed out of education and turn it over to the states. Eliminate the Dept of Ed completely.
-
Wrong.
It will increase the educational level of the population that matters: those who go on to work in useful occupations and pay taxes.
Isn't this a good thing? They can pay taxes to support the uneducated deadbeats!
-
I use to be pretty libertarian about this; but the sad truth is, most people are just too damn irresponsible to provide k-12 for their kids.
So? Would the world be worse off?
I think that formal education in the form of government education, is a bad thing, so I think the less of it children get, the better off they will be.
All those little angels who are being forced to go to high school don't learn CRAP unless they want to. If they wanted to, they would learn anyway. I'm fairly smart, but I would never give formal education the credit. There is no doubt that I would be stupider than I am, if I had to waste entire years of my young life attending schools like my peers.
VOLUNTARY education provided for people who WANT to be there and who will be kicked out if they are disruptive (actually they wouldn't need kicked out; they wouldn't be there in the first place if they didn't want to) would be superior for those who actually want to learn.
You don't have to believe me. It's pretty clear that as a nation, our 'educated' children graduate as idiots.
Take the actual amount of retained knowledge gained from highschool, and you could probably teach it in a short summer class, to someone who actually wants to learn it. For the amount of actual knowledge kids absorb, it's such a colossal waste of resources.
Thinking that our nation will magically be better off if we force everyone to send their children to (an arbitrary amount of) (government-run) (so-called) education is wrong-thinking. It's a cargo-cult effort.
Would it be ok for us to mandate that (for example) ADULTS attend (an arbitrary amount of) (government-run) (so-called) education from say age 30 to 35? Is it ok for the government to mandate that? Why not? Don't you want people to be smart? If it's not mandatory, people might decide their time is better spent on something else!!!!!11
A person's teenage years could be better spent in an apprenticeship, in productive voluntary education, or working than wasted in boring classrooms, burning millions of gallons of diesel riding around in buses, under the thumb of government authority, being probed by school administrators, contracting and spreading STDs in the taxpayer-funded, pseudo-prison environment of public education.
But the idea of (gasp)children actually being productive and free, and parents being free to raise them as they see fit, is too far against the cultural tide to be considered.
-
An interesting corollary to this poll would be to ask how many people here are parents who actually have, or have had, children in school. If I recall from similar threads, a number of participants do not have or have had any children of school age, and their distaste for public schooling comes from their own experiences.
-
Technically speaking, under the Constitution there's no restriction of that power to the states either, and several state constitutions mandate public education to be maintained.
But of course I am not sure what you mean by "imposing". Do you mean no Federal enforcers should come in to shut down the last surviving public school in Nowhere Country, East Kentucky, or do you mean that there should be no attempts by private citizens from out-of-state to persuade the East Kentucky school board to shut down?
By definition, persuasion is not imposition. I am meaning no federal enforcers showing up and shutting down the schools.
-
Take the actual amount of retained knowledge gained from highschool, and you could probably teach it in a short summer class, to someone who actually wants to learn it. For the amount of actual knowledge kids absorb, it's such a colossal waste of resources.
And this is true. Even for the knowledge the kids are intended to absorb it's a colossal waste.
I've had better results with the kids I taught English in a few months, 2 hours of face-time a week, than their teachers had in 3 years. And I am not a qualified English teacher.
-
Kind of.
The Federal department of Education should be abolished.
And then, methods of education should be left up to the states.
In my own state, I would support the abolishment of public schools.
That will eliminate any educational consistency in the US, and reduce US educational levels.
It will not work.
There is already no educational consistency in the United States.
-
. . . this is what some European Countries do for primary and secondary education. They just give each family $xxxx per kid, and you go pick the private school of your choice. . . .
Other European countries are rather different - Sweden and Germany are downright hostile to the concepts of home schooling; the Swedes have gone so far as to seize a child off an airliner prior to departure (parents were moving to India, the birthplace of the mother) in order to force the child into a Swedish school; there's actually a small unofficial cottage industry there where people "rescue" children from the Swedish version of CPS so they can escape to other countries with a better educational system. (Poland is often mentioned.) And not to Godwin the thread, but Germany actually is enforcing Nazi-era education laws against things like homeschooling; German judges have come right out and said that beyond academics, the purpose of schools is to indoctrinate the children with acceptable German values.
As for here in the USA, they're constantly crying about money for the schools - over half of my property tax bill goes to the local school district, which has a really fancy athletic field. But that's not the worst in Texas - a local school district up around the Dallas area built a $60,000,000 athletic stadium. Yep, that's right, sixty million dollars for high school football. And they're complaining about money shortfalls. :facepalm:
-
Yep, homeschooling was easier prior to 2011 or so. Now you need some extremely special circumstances if you want to homeschool your kids. We do have school vouchers here though, so you can place your kid in an independent school if you want to. I don't know if vouchers extend to private schools, and I'm not quite sure of the difference between private schools and independent schools (who are also privately owned and operated). Might have something to do with curriculum, and probably also if they are selective of their students...
-
Kind of.
The Federal department of Education should be abolished.
And then, methods of education should be left up to the states.
In my own state, I would support the abolishment of public schools.
There is already no educational consistency in the United States.
There is educational consistency which is confirmed through standardized testing.
My kids participate in Terra Nova testing yearly, and my daughter will take the SAT in a few years in order to attend college.
I never said that I agree with the efficiency of the current educational system.
Money is not generally spent wisely, teachers are usually not held accountable for their own performance, and there are no incentives for improvement in the results of school's efforts.
The educational system does need huge improvements.
The most logical and cost effective way to improve US education is to allow vouchers in all states.
The competitive pressure from parochial and private schools would force extreme improvements in public schools.
Currently in OH, in my area specifically, public schools average about $9,000 per student.
The Catholic school where I send my kids is about $4,500 per child.
I see extreme amounts of waste with the public schools - building new schools that are unneeded while existing buildings are scuttled unnecessarily.
-
I would be a fan of vouchers if:
the private schools had to take all applicants, and provide them with the same education for the same amount of money as any other school. So if you have a $ 5000 voucher, and your child requires special education, is disabled or is a disciplinary problem, any private school has to take your child and educate them for that $ 5000.
We ask the public schools to do this, so in a voucher system, why should the private schools be exempt? I think it would create a nice level playing field that will give us the opportunity to see who does a better job.
-
The "level playing field" concept is precisely what has ruined public schools. Why transfer that concept to private schools?
-
Also, i friggin laugh at the idea that standardized testing makes learning "consistent."
Sure. Consistent.... if by consistent you mean "we train to the test instead of actually teaching the children."
I worked for the public school system in Texas. The majority of the year was spent doing "TAKS" prep. Ignoring critical thinking and actual learning, in favor of just training the inmates students to take the test
-
There is educational consistency which is confirmed through standardized testing.
My kids participate in Terra Nova testing yearly, and my daughter will take the SAT in a few years in order to attend college.
I never said that I agree with the efficiency of the current educational system.
Money is not generally spent wisely, teachers are usually not held accountable for their own performance, and there are no incentives for improvement in the results of school's efforts.
The educational system does need huge improvements.
The most logical and cost effective way to improve US education is to allow vouchers in all states.
The competitive pressure from parochial and private schools would force extreme improvements in public schools.
Currently in OH, in my area specifically, public schools average about $9,000 per student.
The Catholic school where I send my kids is about $4,500 per child.
I see extreme amounts of waste with the public schools - building new schools that are unneeded while existing buildings are scuttled unnecessarily.
If you really think that the schools in the inner city of any major city compared to those in the suburbs, especially the more affluent suburbs, have any consitency, I've got a bridge to sell ya. Many schools have shifted from teaching to test prep.
Standardized testing is just another unfunded federal mandate that the states bear the burden for.
The DoE is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Federal government has no right nor responsibility to create "consistency".
I do not support vouchers. I support pay-as-you-go non-public schooling. If you'd like public schools in your state, and a voucher system, the beauty of the constition is that you'd then have the ability to support political candidates who support those things.....IN YOUR OWN FREAKING STATE.
-
The "level playing field" concept is precisely what has ruined public schools. Why transfer that concept to private schools?
If indeed private schools are so much better, then they should be able to overcome this. If much of the success of private schools comes from their ability to select the students, then we should not criticize public schools for their results that may come from having to take all comers.
My wife has taught in both public and private schools and put her kids in a private high school. She is of the opinion that the cost and selectiveness of private schools tend to select out for a better grade of parent and student and you consequently get better results, because the kids and parents are motivated. If private schools had to accept and keep all comers, she thinks that most of them would end up not significantly different than the public schools. She thinks that the socioeconomic status of the parents and their involvement with the kids is still the most important factor, regardless of the school setting.
-
The time and effort spent supporting the idiots, the demotivated, the thugs, and the other inmates DRASTICALLY reduce quality of education for the ones who want to be there.
I say again: anything with a "level playing field" concept is doomed to failure because of this.
-
Bitch all you want, but unless there is some common benchmark in place there can be no transferring between schools, entrance to various colleges, nor transfer of credit hours, etc.
-
That's another thing...
anyone else here think that colleges could be better able to judge people based on their writing and personal interviews than their SAT/ACT/other retarded test scores?
-
That's another thing...
anyone else here think that colleges could be better able to judge people based on their writing and personal interviews than their SAT/ACT/other retarded test scores?
I don't. The results of standardized testing are VERY highly correlated with expected performance in college courses. (This is why I tend to point out the average SAT/ACT scores of students who choose education as a major...)
-
Bitch all you want, but unless there is some common benchmark in place there can be no transferring between schools, entrance to various colleges, nor transfer of credit hours, etc.
Why do we need public schooling for this? SAT and ACT are run by private organizations, you know.
???
-
I don't know. Perhaps it's just anecdotal, but I know plenty of people who had high SAT scores that turned out worthless.
Besides, what in the hell does SAT scores have to do with public education, anyways?
Last I checked, the gummint didn't run that stuff.
-
I don't. The results of standardized testing are VERY highly correlated with expected performance in college courses. (This is why I tend to point out the average SAT/ACT scores of students who choose education as a major...)
Actually, in the book 'The Big Test' and other articles/books, the SAT scores only correlate to success in the first year of college, if I recall correctly. Not necessarily graduation or overall GPA.
-
Actually, in the book 'The Big Test' and other articles/books, the SAT scores only correlate to success in the first year of college, if I recall correctly. Not necessarily graduation or overall GPA.
So, even if I accept the premise of a book written by a biased author confirming their preconceived position (with very little statistical rigor), what you are saying is the SAT is a good measure of how prepared a student is for college?
-
Why do we need public schooling for this? SAT and ACT are run by private organizations, you know.
???
So if the masses are home schooling, how will there be any commonality of education between those millions of households?
Does every body use a dart board for curriculum choices, or secret decoder rings?
-
So if the masses are home schooling, how will there be any commonality of education between those millions of households?
Does every body use a dart board for curriculum choices, or secret decoder rings?
You don't know much about homeschooling, do you?
-
Sure. Consistent.... if by consistent you mean "we train to the test instead of actually teaching the children."
That's sort of going to happen as long as there are tests, though.
As a student, I am invited to attend historical conference. One was dedicate to the teaching of history in high schools. Professors and industry professionals spoke. It was... very eye-opening on the subject of testing.
-
You don't know much about homeschooling, do you?
What I have seen around here is a complete joke.
-
So, even if I accept the premise of a book written by a biased author confirming their preconceived position (with very little statistical rigor), what you are saying is the SAT is a good measure of how prepared a student is for college?
Not being an expert in the field, and having read this book many years ago, I merely relay my recall of one of the main premises of the book. By your choice of language, it certainly sounds as if you have an opinion, though.
-
Bitch all you want, but unless there is some common benchmark in place there can be no transferring between schools, entrance to various colleges, nor transfer of credit hours, etc.
That is why the SAT & ACT were invented: so that kids of ability from crappy schools could get a shot.
There is educational consistency which is confirmed through standardized testing.
BTW, there is no academic consistency.
Standardized testing does not mean anything is consistent between schools. It is a metric, that is all.
I would be a fan of vouchers if:
the private schools had to take all applicants, and provide them with the same education for the same amount of money as any other school. So if you have a $ 5000 voucher, and your child requires special education, is disabled or is a disciplinary problem, any private school has to take your child and educate them for that $ 5000.
We ask the public schools to do this, so in a voucher system, why should the private schools be exempt? I think it would create a nice level playing field that will give us the opportunity to see who does a better job.
Uh, why? Part of the idea behind a voucher system is a market: parents choosing schools and schools choosing kids (via entrance, performance, and behavior standards). You know, choice & voluntary association.
Parents who give a damn send their kids to academically/vocationally rigorous School A, parents who don't send their kids to McWarehousing. Mixing the two is a disservice to the former and annoys the latter. The educational analog to trying to teach a pig to sing.
Really, is it any surprise that kids from parents who are ignorant dumbasses with little impulse control are likely to be ignorant dumbasses with little impulse control? I guess it is surprising to those who have squeezed common sense out of their brain by overexposure to Dept Ed coursework.
So if the masses are home schooling, how will there be any commonality of education between those millions of households?
Does every body use a dart board for curriculum choices, or secret decoder rings?
What is this hobby-horse of consistency & commonality supposed to get you? Right now, the only consistency gov't education brings to the table is high cost, piss-poor results, and lack of choice. We can have unmotivated students not learn much more cheaply if we can get over the idea of a socialist education system. Pulling the wagon is getting tiring. I'd like some relief, thanks.
Consistency WRT the SMET subjects (science, math, engineering, tech) is baked into the cake. Newtons Third Law is the same no matter the venue. Same for English, outside of the goofball venues (remember, "Ebonics" was pushed by gov't school educritters, not home- or private-schoolers).
I don't see why we have to stick with an industrial era, progressive liberal fascist gov't education system when the rest of the economy has moved into the 21st century.
-
What I have seen around here is a complete joke.
What parents put into homeschooling determines their children's success, very much like parents' involvement in the public or private education of their children also plays a big part in their children's success.
I can show you an example of a homeschooling success: just look at the username directly left of this post.
Background:
My mother has a bachelor's degree in computer science, and my father has a master's degree in electrical engineering.
My school history:
I was homeschooled throughout grade school and high school, except for 3rd grade when my mom was ill. In 6th or 7th grade my mom administered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills to evaluate my education. I scored in the 99th percentile. When I took the PSAT in high school I scored in the 91st percentile. When I took the ACT I scored a 30/36, placing me in the 97th percentile.
I attended Marquette University for my undergraduate degree and was awarded their largest merit-based general scholarship for four years. I studied electrical engineering, and was hired for multiple engineering internships while an undergraduate student. I joined two engineering honor societies which select their new members based on academic performance, Tau Beta Pi and Eta Kappa Nu. I graduated Magna Cum Laude with an overall GPA of 3.88/4.00 and an engineering GPA of 4.00/4.00. I was awarded a fully-funded research assistantship for a master's degree in electrical engineering from Marquette University, and I just began another part-time electrical engineering internship with Rockwell Automation.
My parents put the required effort into my education to ensure I was successful, and so far, it's worked!
-
I don't see why we have to stick with an industrial era, progressive liberal fascist gov't education system when the rest of the economy has moved into the 21st century.
Interest group politics.
-
So if the masses are home schooling, how will there be any commonality of education between those millions of households?
Does every body use a dart board for curriculum choices, or secret decoder rings?
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, ???
-
Scores from the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment to be released Tuesday show 15-year-old students in the U.S. performing about average in reading and science, and below average in math. Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-12-07-us-students-international-ranking_N.htm
Yep. Public education is doing a great job.
-
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.
-
K-12, Liz.
-
My wife has taught in both public and private schools and put her kids in a private high school. She is of the opinion that the cost and selectiveness of private schools tend to select out for a better grade of parent and student and you consequently get better results, because the kids and parents are motivated. If private schools had to accept and keep all comers, she thinks that most of them would end up not significantly different than the public schools. She thinks that the socioeconomic status of the parents and their involvement with the kids is still the most important factor, regardless of the school setting.
My wife's experience has been similar.
Vouchers will lead to just as much waste and abuse as the public schools, except that the wasted of taxpayer money simply gets transferred to the public sector.
I remember when school vouchers were on the Ballot in California when my wife was teaching at a private school. The principals and pastors in her school system salivated at the idea of a $2700 per-student voucher, as their plan was to simply raise the cost of tuition by $2700 a student.
-
K-12, Liz.
Are we saying can't count (cause I can) or that there can be no reasonable comprimise, axe it or keep it?
-
I'm saying that the poll question concerned K-12, pursuant to the discussion in another thread. I hadn't considered the 8th grade cutoff you suggest.
-
I'm saying that the poll question concerned K-12, pursuant to the discussion in another thread. I hadn't considered the 8th grade cutoff you suggest.
My vote stays because I don't see the other options as a workable alternative to what we already have.
=|
Damned if we don't, damned if we do.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :laugh:
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.
-
Seriously? Health Education some liberal social experiment? :laugh:
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.
-
Seriously? Health Education some liberal social experiment? :laugh:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Abraham Lincoln was home schooled and then self educated.
That should end this debate, right there.
:P
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Private standardized tests already exist in England. They are a fact. I have taken one.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Do you have any insight as to why the Pano district does better for less money?
-
Do you have any insight as to why the Pano district does better for less money?
I would guess smaller, rural type setting where the whole community is involved with the schools.
-
I would guess smaller, rural type setting where the whole community is involved with the schools.
I Googled and could not find a Pano, Texas or a Pano School District. I wonder if he meant Plano, Texas, which seems to be a pretty wealthy area. If this is the district in question, I imagine that the good test scores parallel the socioeconomic level of the region. Wikipedia says that Plano actually sends money to other less affluent school districts in accordance with a Texas law requiring this. Huh.
-
Do you have any insight as to why the Pano district does better for less money?
Many more white & asian students, many fewer black & mexican students(0). It costs less money and you get better results from dollars spent on smarter kids with fewer behavior problems and better impulse control.
Same deal as when comparing, say, Iowa or Wisconsin to Texas. Texas may get more performance out of black and hispanic students, but the large numbers of both relative to Iowa & Wisconsin results in poorer overall statistics.
The simple fact is, the average black score is consistently one standard deviation poorer than the average white score. This holds true over time and test changes. Hispanic scores fall in the middle, roughly 0.5-0.8 SD poorer than white scores (1)
I Googled and could not find a Pano, Texas or a Pano School District. I wonder if he meant Plano, Texas, which seems to be a pretty wealthy area. If this is the district in question, I imagine that the good test scores parallel the socioeconomic level of the region. Wikipedia says that Plano actually sends money to other less affluent school districts in accordance with a Texas law requiring this. Huh.
Yes, "Plano" is the correct spelling.
They call it "Robin Hood." Not popular with the folks who get kicked in the jimmy. At least DISD can build larger football & basketball facilities with the money to better serve as farm/feeder teams for the NFL & NCAA.
(0) This is changing, though. The days of native whites and immigrant asian tech sector parents pounding their fists on the table at school board meetings, insisting on academic excellence, and getting the school board to hop are coming to a close. The destruction of the urban housing projects, combined with increased illegal immigration have shifted them to where housing is cheaper. Places like Plano. There was a last gasp of the asian immigrant community in my town this last school board election. He couldn't manage against the money & organization of the educrats, who see the illegals and their needs as their best source of gravy...and pushy damnably smart asian immigrants great big PITAs. When teachers "Teach to the middle" and the middle droops lower & lower, academically, due to an influx of Oaxacans, it is the sharp natives and second-gen asians who take it in the face. This is why places like Frisco and McKinney have grown.
(1) Much effort has gone into making this go away, but to no avail. The delta in percentage who pass whatever standardized test is given can be manipulated, with the extremes (very easy or very hard) showing the smallest percentile gaps. A mildly entertaining post explains the data here:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/adverse.htm
More on the topic can be found here:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
-
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.
IIRC, that's the European way. Middle class/wealthy people live in town, poor/minorities live outside.
-
IIRC, that's the European way. Middle class/wealthy people live in town, poor/minorities live outside.
In some places, yes. Funny how that reflects in politics...inner city Stockholm (inside the "tolls") is white & affluent, journalists, musicians, actors, politicians, people working in high positions in various charities, community organizers and such. Our immigration policies are a *expletive deleted*ing mess, because the beautiful people seldom have to interact with the criminal elements they've imported into the country. Compare to Copenhagen, mixed up like crazy, wealthy parts right next to ghettos and islamofascist mosques (as far as I've understood it atleast)...and the Danish politicians, probably as a result, have way less tolerance for idiocy than our do.
-
Private standardized tests already exist in England. They are a fact. I have taken one.
The best-known and most significant standardized tests in America are privately run. SAT and ACT. I think it's safe to say that they affect home school curricula.
No. No. Sorry.
You've already asserted my first point, and on the second point you are factually wrong. I hope it's not flame-fanning or pot-stirring to point that out.
-
It looks like the complete abolition of public schooling enjoys the support of more than 25% of the members here. The most popular option is to return the schools to local government support only.
-
It looks like the complete abolition of public schooling enjoys the support of more than 25% of the members here. The most popular option is to return the schools to local government support only.
And ~87% support getting the Federal Government out of schooling entirely.
-
And ~87% support getting the Federal Government out of schooling entirely.
(Libertarian members: take note of this and learn to argue for INCREMENTAL changes that will get broad support. You know, like getting the Federal Government out of schooling entirely. That's a nice first step towards your goals. Or, since this forum is defenitely not a representative sample of the country, how about decreasing Federal involvement to start? Maybe giving up control. Maybe something like vouchers that further rips control away from government.)
-
Public pedagogy predictably produces piss poor pupils. Like it or not, public education continually moves toward the lowest common denominator.
Additionally, actual education is a very small part of what modern public schools do.
Schools in my state are now in some cases serving three meals a day to the students. Initially, students were served lunch because they were at school over the lunch hour. Then some kids weren't getting a breakfast because mom and dad didn't want to get up early enough to prepare a bowl of cereal, so schools started serving breakfast. Then someone decided that kids weren't getting the right dinners, so that somehow became the State's job too. Except in a vanishingly small number of homes, it is not an issue of being able to put food on the table for the kids.
As with so many other things, we may look around us and say "Look how poor a job everyone does with __X__, they certainly can't be trusted to plan and provide for __Y__," the truth is that if people are not given responsibility (and are allowed to fail if they choose to), you will stunt their growth and they will not develop the capacity for it. Just as if you tie your kids shoes every single time, they won't ever learn, when you make the State raise kids, some folks will simply stop trying to do so on their own. Worse, the kids that are supposed to benefit the most from the public education will still fail because until we start completely turning our kids over to the State at the age of six and getting a general issue adult twelve years later (only partially kidding here) lack of parenting and educational support at home can completely offset whatever benefit public education provides.
-
Two words: Khan Academy.
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/salman-khan-talk-at-ted-2011--from-ted-com?playlist=Khan+Academy-Related+Talks+and+Interviews
-
(Libertarian members: take note of this and learn to argue for INCREMENTAL changes that will get broad support. You know, like getting the Federal Government out of schooling entirely. That's a nice first step towards your goals. Or, since this forum is defenitely not a representative sample of the country, how about decreasing Federal involvement to start? Maybe giving up control. Maybe something like vouchers that further rips control away from government.)
One of the reasons I'm leary of vouchers is that I'm worried the fed.gov will decide that with vouchers comes increased federal oversight of private schools. Just putting that out there. [tinfoil]
-
One of the reasons I'm leary of vouchers is that I'm worried the fed.gov will decide that with vouchers comes increased federal oversight of private schools. Just putting that out there. [tinfoil]
You mean, like has already happened in Europe?
Nah, couldn't be.
-
You mean, like has already happened in Europe?
Nah, couldn't be.
I was unaware of it happening in Europe but am unsurprised.
Here's how I see it
Federally allowed/mandated vouchers
Then, private schools get told they can't be discriminatory at all on who they allow to use vouchers.
Then, private schools get told they have to give up some of their cirriculum control to the federal goobermint.
Just sayin. [tinfoil]
The Federal government has no right, nor constitutional authority, to regulate education in this country. Especially not primary education, as no interstate commerce occurs in the process. A weak case could be made for Secondary education, as students cross state lines sometimes to get education. But that's a weak, shitty case at best.