Education in the United States, problems and solutions (long)

[bholdr]

Lehighguy's post about big issues got me rambling into my old educational philosophies, reminding me about some concepts that I haven't thought about in a long time. In this post I will attempt to discuss what I personally think needs to happen to the American educational system in order for the US to remain competitive in the coming generations, and to fix the various catastrophic problems that American schools face. Most, or all, of this post will be opinion- I do not have the time to research the studies that will back up my points, but you are, of course, welcome to post any that either support or disprove my positions. Also, everything here is from a layman's perspective, albeit an educated one. I am not a professional educator (though I have been paid to teach or tutor many different subjects), but I am well-versed in the problems that face the current educational system. Okay, on to the post... (which is, as always, all IMHO)

Premise:

The American educational system is broken. American students, from kindergarten to high school graduates, are no longer competitive with their first-world counterparts, in terms of standardized test scores, employability, and just plain competence. to fix the problem, we cannot simply raise standards, initiate voucher programs, and pay teachers more (though these things do help, they are responses to symptomatic things, and do not attack the root of the problems that we face). what we need to do is totally tear down and rebuild the prevailing educational paradigm and the current infrastructure in order to remain competitive.

Problems: (which are NOT being addressed)

A: Children in America are generally taught many, many things. among those things, however, is not 'HOW to learn'- that is, kids pretty much have to figure out on their own how to best assimilate and organize information on their own. Teachers also often cater only to a single learning style they‘re not taught HOW to teach, only what to teach- the model of a teacher lecturing at the front of the class is effective only for aural-sequential-learners with an external locus of control- more on that later.

B: Also, that which they are taught is often taught without any CONTEXT- they are taught how to make a graph, but not how to apply it, how to write a sonnet, but not WHY one would want to. They know that Columbus discovered the Americas, but they do not understand the economic factors that made his voyage not only possible, but inevitable

C: Schools, as we build them now, are currently horribly unhealthy learning environments- factories for the minds of children, assuming that all kids have equal capacities and potential. There are far to many kids at each school, they are fed poorly and supervised improperly. The very DESIGN of most modern schools (high schools in particular) inhibits learning and creativity.

Symptoms of the problems: (which ARE being addressed, though not effectively)

Aa: Otherwise intelligent students are not able to learn. Standardized test scores are miserable. Children do very little learning outside of school.

Ba: Some students excel in certain areas but fail in others. Other students are unable to learn at all. Of that which they Do learn, they are unable to apply much of it effectively.

Ca: Bullies, gangs, drugs, dangerous lifestyles, depression, over-medication, irresponsible sexual promiscuity, cliques, and, once again, an inability to learn effectively. Also, a tremendous waste of money.

Potential solutions

Ab: First, we need to change the way that the TEACHERS are taught, at the university level. There is far too much emphasis put on the material and nowhere enough put on understanding the psychology behind learning. I mentioned that, in most schools, students are taught only one way- the classic lecture/notes/test/pointless homework format, with maybe some hands on work rarely to break the monotony. This is disastrous. Some people are naturally visual learners, and learn best be seeing the subject matter presented in a visual manner, others are aural (hearing) and do quite well in the normal format. Still others are primarily kinesthetic learners- they have to touch and feel the subject matter in order to learn it- these students have the toughest time under the current structure. In addition to the aural/visual/kinesthetic axis of learning styles, there are others:
**Some students learn globally, others sequentially.
**Some students learn best when a teacher does the teaching, others learn best when the teacher serves merely as a guide to their learning. Obviously, those students with an internal locus of control are having a hard time being taught- they would rather LEARN.
**Some students naturally work better in groups than individually, others are the opposite
**some students 'test well' others do not, even though they may have a far greater practical command of the material
** there are more, but those are the big ones.

These are clearly major things… but most teachers take a grand total of ONE or TWO classes in college to prepare them for dealing with the various learning styles- instead, they’re busy learning how to write a test, grade an essay, or organize a lesson plan, or they may be studying a subject in far greater detail than they will EVER have to teach it. Math teachers do not need to know how to do high-level calculus to teach algebra and geometry, and their time would be better spent trying to become better teachers than becoming better at math, for example. I would think that an ENTIRE year of school dedicated to learning about learning styles and how to adapt to and recognize them in students would not be too much to ask or our future educators, no?

Personally, I work for one of the best children’s ski schools in the world (imho), and we often are called to work with developmentally disabled students, students with ADHD, autisim, and other similar problems, children who‘s parents have described them as practically ‘un-teachable‘. well, in my experience, there is no such student, only teachers without the tools to adapt. Our pre-season instructor curriculum (which I now teach to the other instructors) dedicates approximately 35 hours of intense learning to targeted lesson planning and application- we call it “kid tech”- wherein we study learning styles, capacities, potential teaching formats, and so on and so forth. we then move on to “ski tech”- for a grand total of about 12 hours- we teach skiing, but we learn how to teach, not how to ski. Teachers in the American educational system (and the rest of the world, too, as far as I know) do the exact opposite, with miserable consequences. I can confidently state from personal experience that this is a far, far more effective method of teaching and learning than the standard ‘teach the subject’ paradigm.

Bb: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Who the hell cares if some dead dude once made a watch that kept time well enough to reveal longitude on ocean voyages? Nobody! But… did you know that the guy that did it was an eccentric rouge genius that had to fight the entire scientific community at the time to lay his claim to the biggest monetary academic prize in history? Wow… add a little context and things get interesting… (the book is “longitude” by Dava Sobel, if anyone’s interested- I highly recommend it to any student of history)

Right now, students are taught how to do math, but not how to apply it in their everyday lives, so it remains a boring abstraction to them. But, if a math teacher takes the time to show them how to apply the math… well, do you think they might learn a little more? What if they had to write an essay about the life and times of a famous mathematician, describing how that person came to the conclusions that they did, taking into account the social and economic pressures that their subject faced… now, all of the sudden, not only are they learning the math (and learning it better than they would just memorizing formulae and doing hundreds of ‘problems’), but they’re learning how to write, (and their writing is focused and has a purpose- to explain the math- that makes it far better and more interesting than just ‘pick something and write me a three page paper on it), and they’re learning history, and maybe some basic economics and geography, and… CONTEXT.

Context is at the core of ‘interdisciplinary learning’, which is a new educational paradigm that is slowly but surely beginning to be used in progressive universities and community colleges across the country. In an ID class, a student may receive, say, five credits of English and five of history, for a class that studies 19th century romantic literature, and also the lives and times of the authors. Context…ID learning SHOULD account for well over half of all lessons taught in public schools. Obviously, there are some subjects that will do better taught according to the current model- but I can’t actually think of one right now. Even metal shop could be combined with, say, chemistry, or drafting. History, English, math, and the other ‘core’ subjects can be almost universally applied to various subjects, and should be, since, for example, 99.9% of students will never write purely to write, but will be writing about things in their field, whatever that may become. Therefore, ID learning is not only a superior teaching method, but also better prepares students for real-life challenges. An ID class may often require a two-hour block of time for lessons and have larger class sizes, but that’s a good thing, as that means they also may support multiple teachers- all the better to be able to reach all the various learning styles, etc…

And get the parents involved in the learning process… if your class is learning about history, and a parent of one of the students is an antique dealer, get ‘em in there. If it’s math and a parent is an accountant, let them help the students learn, perhaps by having the parent come in and teach basic bookkeeping… if it’s politics, invite local leaders to hold a debate in front of the students… these are just examples.

Cb: Fer god’s sake, stop building big regional schools that cost a zillion dollars in land and construction costs. Build smaller schools, perhaps 500 students tops, maybe twenty teachers and a half-dozen staff. Trim the fat by cutting things that don’t really help students learn and grow as people, but have become institutionalized and are accepted as necessary now. No more phys-ed (in HS, not middle schools and elementary schools), no tax money paying for student dances, pep rallies, and the like. No more School sponsored sports that do not, in one way or another, support themselves. Also, though this is a little off topic, keep ADVERTISING and corporate interests the hell out of our public schools- it doesn‘t do a thing to help students learn, and probably hurts in the long run.

-Cut the size of the average high school in half and you make it much easier to police and eliminate many of the social problems facing our youth- drugs, gangs, violence, and so on. Restructure disciplinary procedures so that they may have some chance of HELPING the student that gets into trouble, instead of simply expelling them and moving them to what is probably going to be yet another school that will eventually expel them, too. That’s got to be great for a kid’s psychological well being, eh?

-Also, we must stop building big, depressing, modernist (le courbisur [sp?] was a shortsighted hack of an architect- modernism is the death of individuality and creative thinking) buildings. Build school campuses in such a manner that they promote and facilitate learning, not so they stifle it. More color, more light, better design, etc…

-Teach life skills in high school or even earlier. How much of a difference to this country would it make if EVERY single student was required to demonstrate that they know how to balance a checkbook? Change a tire and check a pilot light, work on the internet, etc? Or how to write a polite letter? Or at least how to put on a damn condom (well, we‘ll hold off on asking them to demonstrate that one).


*****

These are only a partial list of the problems and potential solutions to them facing the nation’s youth in our public (and private) schools. There is no panacea, no standard of accountability or law that will effect the necessary changes. It will take a long time, probably a generation at least, IF everyone agrees on a direction and strives for it. It will be massively expensive, but is hugely +EV in the long run, and bordering on a national necessity, and not to mention just plain better for the children.

This post may come off as being written by someone that couldn't deal with the current system. Nothing could be farther than the truth. I was one of the lucky ones, and my HS years were remarkably well adjusted- I went to all the dances and got my letter, had girlfriends and went to the parties… but I saw the system destroy some of the smartest and most talented people I knew- I had three friends attempt suicide in HS, and one get killed, many fell to drugs, a couple have AIDS, some are just losers that never got a chance or a solid educational foundation. I honestly feel that if their learning environments had been healthy and supportive, instead of impersonal and destructive, things may have been different for many of them. (btw, I’ve been thinking about all these things since I was 17- when, frustrated with it all, I dropped out of school and finished my education in community college)

Thoughts? (other than, 'good god, man, you wrote all this for a poker board?')

there will be no test.

[lehighguy]

Your post was spot on. My charter school functioned on many of the same principles you talked about. We had no sitting foward lecture courses, all classrooms were small 3-5 person tables with rolling chairs. Usually the professor would go over a concept for 20 min or so, then they would spend the next 40 min walking around the room talking to students that had questions. It was a mix of self/group work and lecture format. Students scheduled thier own classes in 20min mods and there were a lot of electives.

Classes tried to be as real world applicaable as possible. In design class we learned how to use design a product, use computer modeling, make a prototype, and the more successful ones actually sold thier inventions. In video class many students learned to use video editing and graphics tech so well they had thier work featured at trade shows. There are many other examples I could give, but the emphasis was always on turning out something concrete that affected the real world.

Every Wendsday we did projects, and senoir year we got internships. This was great as it gave us a chance to get out into the real world and learn how it worked.

A lot of the changes you talked about were made in my school. I wish all schools around the country ran like mine did.

I disagree that you corporations don't have a place in schools. If you mean when a school has Pepsi day in order to raise funds the superintendent will just steal anyway, then yes. In my school corporations were a valuable part of our functionality. Many corporations gave us grants and equipment because we helped serve them in some capacity. Teachers often taught corporate employees nights and weekends(which helped keep thier skills up to date) and in exchange we could use the equipment during the week. Many corporations gave us grants so students and teachers could do research for them. The relationship functioned much like graduate work in college. You helped do the work for a professors research project and you learned during the process. The company and the professor get the work done. Everyone wins.

I also disagree that the school shouldn't promote sports, cultural activities, and other after school programs. I know a lot of kids that kept on the straight and narrow just to stay on sports teams. It gave them a sense of community and drive. The skills you learn on a sports team are often applicable to real life situations. When they wouldn't let our soccer team travel to states because it would "interfere with thier schoolwork" it cause immense damage. It destroyed thier moral and will to learn for a good while. Things like teamwork, practice, communication, execution, etc. are an important part of the workplace. Many of the most successful people on my trading floor played sports in high school and college and considered it an essential part of thier learning experience. The same could be said of music, theatre, and other clubs and hobbies. Wanting to stay on the chess team and win states helped me do well in English junoir year. I think it's better to let principles, teachers, and parents decide what programs are beneficial to students lives and developement.

Your right that we need a totally different paraigm in the American education system. However, I don't see that happening as long as the forces that want to protect the status quo are in power: superintendents + high level admin, school boards, and the teacher's union. In order to break thier hold on power you have to attack it at the source, by giving parents the option of school choice.

[natedogg]

Vouchers are the only answer. Even your ideas, which sound good, cannot possibly be right for everyone.

Some parents may not want their child to attend a school that has sports programs and some may feel that school isn't school without sports programs. Some may feel that a big crowded school is a good social environment, and some may not. Some may feel that rote memorization is an important part of learning, and some may not. And then there's the obvious issue of reality vs. superstition -- oops I mean science vs. religion.

There is no way for a central planning approach to work for everyone. If we have one comprehensive rule that says, for example, "no art class in high school", or "everyone must take P.E.", we are bound to infuriate many parents.

The answer is to let every parent decide what they want for their kids and then enable them to act on it. To do otherwise is nothing short of agreeing that the state has more right to direct your child's education than you do.

And the only way to let parents decide is some sort of voucher system. Our current system is such that only the rich can decide what's best for their childern. Everyone else must simply accept whatever crap the state has to offer.

Also, home and self-schooling will grow rapidly with advancements in online education, which adds a new dimension to the whole issue. What happens when your child can get high quality chemistry instruction for free (or at least cheaply) online? Why would you risk sending him to an unacceptable school environment with teachers who
spend most of their time disciplining instead of teaching?

Just pocket the voucher and stay home. No voucher? Still worth it. Maybe you want to send your kid to school part time because you think the socialization is important, but all of his college prep classes are done at home online.

Online education, both structured and self-directed, is honestly going to revolutionize how we approach education in this country.

natedogg

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
We had no sitting foward lecture courses, all classrooms were small 3-5 person tables with rolling chairs. Usually the professor would go over a concept for 20 min or so, then they would spend the next 40 min walking around the room talking to students that had questions. It was a mix of self/group work and lecture format. Students scheduled thier own classes in 20min mods and there were a lot of electives.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, these are some good examples of a functioning learning environment.

[ QUOTE ]
Teachers often taught corporate employees nights and weekends(which helped keep thier skills up to date) and in exchange we could use the equipment during the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is fine, my concern is that the students should not be exposed to advertising in their schools.

[ QUOTE ]
Many corporations gave us grants so students and teachers could do research for them. The relationship functioned much like graduate work in college. You helped do the work for a professors research project and you learned during the process. The company and the professor get the work done. Everyone wins.


[/ QUOTE ]

well, i disagree with this fairly strongly. the motivation of the company and the goals of the school are not the same (education vs profit), and i'm assuming that the students were not grad students and probably weren't capable or involved in making decisions about which companies that work for and the potential about the moral implications of such work. this is actually a problem that i have with some private schools.

more tommorow, it's late.

[lehighguy]

Perhaps if you were there it would make more sense.

A company might want to design a product, make a webpage, do some statistical analysis. The professor would take on the job and his students would help him. The students learned a lot doing it. I never got the feeling anyone was being exploited. Most entry level people have to do work for little material compensation, instead thier compensation is in the form of taining and experience which they hope to use in the future. This was much the same.

Yes, advertising should be out of schools.

[ACPlayer]

In your vision:

1. How are schools funded?
2. What is the basis for admission to these smaller schools?
3. How do you get parents involved when both parents work full time? In many of the third world countries with high parental involvement there is only one working parent.

A lot of your ideas are implemented in some of the better private schools where the parent ponies up tens of thousands of dollars to send the child to that school. However, these schools will reject children if they feel that the child is not smart enough for them -- interviews, tests etc.

[jaym96822]

Great point about vouchers, but there is another issue to consider. I live in a state with some of the worst public schools in the nation (due mainly to a centralized school system and the strong teachers' union). The result? One of the highest private school attendance rates in the nation and some of the best schools in the country.

In Hawaii at least, bad public schools quite possibly created exceptional private schools. Without poorly performing public schools, the best students and most involved parents would have no incentive to concentrate in specific high-performing private schools.

[lehighguy]

I can't answer for OP on the first two, but your third statement is factually incorrect.

In many third world countries you are MORE likely to find both parents working. Especially amongst the poor because the poor have a much higher rate of dual-income households. In countries with high parental involvement (Asia, India) this is based on a conscious decision by the parents to look after thier children despite the fact that they have far less time to do so.

Parental involvement can't be regulated by the government. If parents don't want to be involved cause they don't give a damn about thier kids you can't make them give a damn. That kid is screwed no matter what educational system you impletement. The best we can do is make it easier for parents that actually want to be involved to do so.

As for your last sentence I've made numerous posts about my high school and the other charter schools I've worked for. Charter schools around the country have provided superior education often with a fraction of the funding regular school district get. They can do this because they are run correctly, and they are run correctly because they need to be in order to attract students.

If you don't want to read any of my posts about my experiences then at least glance at this article in todays NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tierney.html

[ACPlayer]

High parental involvement in other countries is a combination of:

1. One working parent households. I dont have facts to back this up (so i could be wrong), but I do believe that in the US middle classes there are more two parent households than in asia, where women are still supposed to be homemakers.
2. A desire to move on up. A desire that is lost around here. Welfare, parental wealth (available for inheritance perhaps), parental drive for own careers, generally an easier life. Hardship makes for great desires and provides that fire in the belly thing.

If you don't want to read any of my posts about my experiences then at least glance at this article in todays NYT:

Again with the pouty thing!!? THanks for the link. Did they teach you in school not to draw conclusions from experiental data?

If you want to think about vouchers, consider not what the voucher (which is a transfer of tax dollars collected for a public school system to a private entity) does for the person who can "escape" but how it effects the children left behind in the schools that the money is supposedly intended for. It would make more sense to simply argue that the public schools should be closed down and the tax money not collected at all. Vouchers are a way to close the public schools down one step at a time, while building parochial madrasas (ok, perhaps I went a bit overboard with that the madrasas bit -- sue me /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

If you believe in publicly funded schools which are built on the basis that all children must have access to "free" schools then you cannot support vouchers and must work to fix the school system. if you dont think that all children must have access to "free" schools then just abolish the school system and be done with it. Dont take my property taxes that are collected to meet the first objective and then transfer that money to private and (especially) parochial schools.

[vulturesrow]

Good post but I think the problem goes a bit deeper. In my mind the failures of the public education system have three sources.

1. Federal funding and control of education leads to a one size fits all mentality, you address this issue very well.
2. Lack of emphasis on education in society. Who are kids heroes today? Athletes, musicians, and actors. We, as a society need to be far more active in publicly lauding intellectual and people who have real, positive effects on society.
3. Last but certainly not least, the breakdown of the basic social unit, the nuclear family. Just about every study out there shows a direct correlation between family situation and school performance. As a corollary to that, the dwindling acceptance of baseline moral values for a society. This leads to poor family situations and also the rise of the "do what makes you feel good" mentality is harmful to egendering the discipline that every person needs to have to be successful in life, education included.

Funnily enough, ACPlayer, one of the most ardent liberals on this board, probably addressed this better than anyone else. How we regain ground on these issues is a tough question and frankly I think we may have missed the boat on it less a wholescale cultural revolt against the tawdriness that our children get blasted with on daily and every hourly basis.

[ACPlayer]

ACPlayer, one of the most ardent liberals

funnily enough, i dont consider myself particularly liberal. Go figure.

Of course, I am now quite worried about what exactly you liked about what I said. /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
funnily enough, i dont consider myself particularly liberal. Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood, nonetheless you more often come down on what I consider the liberal side. Sometimes generalizations are useful for the purpose of illustration. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I am now quite worried about what exactly you liked about what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont worry. Basically you are the only one that has even really touched at the societal issues at play here. Specifically the discussion of parental involvement.

[ACPlayer]

Federal funding and control of education

Is there any federal funding for education? I thought it was all local. Would like to know.

Federal control of educatin should be banished, as should the dept of education. Let NYC fund and control the quality and content of the school curriculum.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Federal funding and control of education

Is there any federal funding for education? I thought it was all local. Would like to know.

Federal control of educatin should be banished, as should the dept of education. Let NYC fund and control the quality and content of the school curriculum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush '06 Budget Cuts Education Funding (http://www.nea.org/lac/fy06edfunding/index.html)

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Federal control of educatin should be banished, as should the dept of education. Let NYC fund and control the quality and content of the school curriculum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Properly managed there is nothing wrong with centralised budgeting. Shouldn't education be equal for all? I agree with nearly all bholdr points but if it was left up to localised authorities to put it into action then education would become even more polarised than it already is. People move based on the local education standards and the middle class live in areas with better schools, it's sorta like the chicken and egg. At least a federally controlled budget would keep the playing field somewhat level.

[ACPlayer]

The problem with federal funding (of anything) is that this then concentrates money flow out of one place (washington DC for example). This then means that in order to effect the money flow the lobbyists can concentrate their efforts in one arena (the congress). Therefore the flow of money is now impacted by which lobbyists have the most say, clout and expense accounts, rather than what is necessarily best for the communities.

With local control, the national lobbyists have to diffuse their efforts and local communities have to get more involved. The lobbyists cannot force the feds to pass mandates to be followed by the local districts.

So, in general, federal control of anything is undesirable.

THis is specially true of education, where I would be quite worried if, for example, red states values crept into our blue state schools via federal rules and mandates and poison the young minds.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Some parents may not want their child to attend a school that has sports programs and some may feel that school isn't school without sports programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that parents are one of the biggest problems with children getting a decent education. (The reverse of this is true as well, great parents will make some excel.)

I think parents who want to dictate what they think is important regardless of whether it is vital to the child's education... will interfere and hinder their child's competitiveness.

I think most parents are completely absent from their children's education... those children will suffer. I recently watched a documentary on the national spelling bee. They followed a half dozen or so finalists as they made their way to the national finals. The majority of the finalists had heavy parental involvement in their learning. They discussed with their children what they were learning, helped them with drills, attended functions with their children, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Online education, both structured and self-directed, is honestly going to revolutionize how we approach education in this country.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find this unlikely. I don't think online courses are interactive enough nor compelling enough to keep a teenager engaged.

I'm inclined to think bholdr is on the right track.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with federal funding (of anything) is that this then concentrates money flow out of one place (washington DC for example).

[/ QUOTE ]

This should save money. Wal Mart et al do it for this reason.

[ QUOTE ]
This then means that in order to effect the money flow the lobbyists can concentrate their efforts in one arena (the congress). Therefore the flow of money is now impacted by which lobbyists have the most say, clout and expense accounts, rather than what is necessarily best for the communities.

With local control, the national lobbyists have to diffuse their efforts and local communities have to get more involved. The lobbyists cannot force the feds to pass mandates to be followed by the local districts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how local authorities would get round this. Where are they buying their books, pens, computers, furniture, food etc? The lobbyists work for the suppliers who have head offices who take the supply orders from the local schools/authorities if I read you correctly.

[ QUOTE ]
So, in general, federal control of anything is undesirable.


[/ QUOTE ]

It depends IMO

[ QUOTE ]
His is specially true of education, where I would be quite worried if, for example, red states values crept into our blue state schools via federal rules and mandates and poison the young minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except this is not what would happen. Schools would not converge to a medium they would grow farther and farther apart between rich and poor areas.

[natedogg]

I would argue that parents are one of the biggest problems with children getting a decent education. (The reverse of this is true as well, great parents will make some excel.)

I think parents who want to dictate what they think is important regardless of whether it is vital to the child's education... will interfere and hinder their child's competitiveness.

First, let me note that the state has done a fine job already of dictating what they think is important regardless of whether it is vital to the child's education.

You either respect parents' choices or you don't. If you think the state should be allowed to overrule the parents' decisions about their child's education, then there's no way we'll agree.

The answer to the biggest problems we have in education right now can be easily solved by simply giving parents the choice of schools.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Federal funding and control of education

Is there any federal funding for education? I thought it was all local. Would like to know.

Federal control of educatin should be banished, as should the dept of education. Let NYC fund and control the quality and content of the school curriculum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, this means that states would be free to explore any solution, including eliminating public education alltogether. I'm all in favor of allowing the states to do whatever they like but be sure you are ready to live with the consequences.

natedogg

[natedogg]

You also forgot one thing. It goes without saying that the teachers' unions must be eliminated as soon as possible.

natedogg

[superleeds]

What a weird thread. I find myself agreeing with the concerns of natedogg and arguing with AC Player /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
First, let me note that the state has done a fine job already of dictating what they think is important regardless of whether it is vital to the child's education.


[/ QUOTE ]

First... its often not the state. Its the school board which are often elected members from the community. This is how special interest groups (like religious nuts) get in and start to dictate agenda. And I thought the point of this thread is to explain how to reform our education system to make our children competitive with the rest of the world?

This is a completely different question then; how can each parent choose what they want their kid to study. What it takes to better educate our nation's children has very little to do with vouchers or no vouchers. Or if the state is making the decisions or the Federal government. Its the competence of who makes the decision that's important.

[ QUOTE ]
You either respect parents' choices or you don't. If you think the state should be allowed to overrule the parents' decisions about their child's education, then there's no way we'll agree.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's two different (and very emotional) issues here; who has the RIGHT to make these decisions and who can make the BEST decision in there areas..

I have no problem saying I think most people aren't bright enough to know how best to fix the schools, how best to insure their children get the best education, etc.

Let's pretend that we were talking about medical treatment instead of education. No one would agree that if a child was really sick, we should ask the parents what kind of medical treatment they should receive. Most parents do not have the expertise to diagnose and treat their children for anything worse then the flu.

Why do we pretend that most parents have any clue what their children need to be competitive? MOST parents have minimal involvement in their children's education.

I just simply can't agree that most people have any clue what their children need to get a good education.

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to the biggest problems we have in education right now can be easily solved by simply giving parents the choice of schools.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see you can say this. If the question was, how can the kids be competitive in today's market, and a parent decides to send their kid to a school that teaches their kids that science is unnecesasry and blasphemy, prayer is the only way to treat illness, etc. That's the parent's right, but that child will not have had an education that is competitive.

Parents who don't want their children learning about Evolution, will never have a fundamental understanding of biological theory.

etc.

My concern about homeschooling is that the children often cannot grasp subjects beyond the comprehension of their parents. If a parent is sharp and astute, then the child may flourish. If the parent isn't too bright, then it will be difficult for the child to learn.

[ACPlayer]

At some level this is true. If the voters elect local officials who want to eliminate public schools, then they will suffer the consequence.

[lehighguy]

If we can't trust parents to educate thier children, why trust them to raise them at all if they fail miserably at that task.

Perhaps we should have a test to determine who has the right to have and raise children. The test would have to be made up and graded by the educated elite, especially east coast liberals since they are the brightest and most worldly among us.

In fact, why bother having the tests at all. We know most people will fail them. So we might as well just not let people keep thier children. Best to have them all raised in "nurturing camps" or places such as that since there aren't enough knowledgeable and worldy people in this country to take on the children individually. It's clear that the family unit has failed miserably at this excersize and its time for the state to take over.

[lehighguy]

My experience living in Japan was that women have lots of shitty part-time jobs that end up taking 40 hours a week anyway. From what I understand it is the same in a lot of Asian economies. It is especially more prevelent in lower income households because there is no other way to make enough money. Having a stay at home mom is an economic luxury. Women are still supposed to be the homemakers, they just don't have nearly enough time to do that and work. The solution in those societies is that lives of women end when they become mothers and they turn in to workhorses; never sleeping, resting, or doing anything for themselves.

Do you really believe that schools can't provide a quality education for the same tuition that is effectively being charged when we attend public school. My high school and a myriad of charter and private schools in my area and others prove otherwise. They often provide better educations for LESS money. For instance, my school only sent $6,000 in grants to my charter school, even though it recieved $8,000 in taxes and federal funds per student. So for every student that left my school to attend the charter school the people back at my old school had an extra $2,000 to play around with. So the arguement that it drains resources is rediculous.

If a voucher system was started tommorrow it woudl create a HUGE market for educational services. And MANY private schools would open up whose tuition would be equal to the voucher each student recieved. It would just make plain economic sense. We wouldn't be taking away a "free" education from anyone.

If you want your kid to attend the same school he's in now your free too. With the voucher you can do that, its your money. So you can't make a case based on me using your tax revenue to send my kid to another school.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If we can't trust parents to educate thier children, why trust them to raise them at all if they fail miserably at that task.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're comparing Apples to Oranges. A parent may know how to take care of a kid in terms of feeding, clothing, loving.. ie general parenting. That doesn't mean the parents know how to teach their kids what they need to learn science, technology, math, history, etc.

And many parents ARE failing miserably at educating their children. I would argue that a lot of the deterioration of the quality of our children's education is that many parents aren't involved; they don't monitor if there kids are studying, helping them, etc. I've seen numerous articles correlating a child's success with a parent's involvement. (Note: there is a difference between a parent being an involved participant and saying that the parents are the experts on how best to educate the child.)

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should have a test to determine who has the right to have and raise children. The test would have to be made up and graded by the educated elite, especially east coast liberals since they are the brightest and most worldly among us.


[/ QUOTE ]

And now you're just getting hyperbolic and cliched. Clearly there are people who have studied what techniques work best for teaching kids. And there are certain subjects which are more important for general skills; (reading, writing, arithmatic, science, etc.) Why is it so hard to accept the idea that there are people who know about education techniques then the average Joe?

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, why bother having the tests at all. We know most people will fail them. So we might as well just not let people keep thier children. Best to have them all raised in "nurturing camps" or places such as that since there aren't enough knowledgeable and worldy people in this country to take on the children individually. It's clear that the family unit has failed miserably at this excersize and its time for the state to take over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you're looking at this logically and not just having a ridiculous emotional overreaction.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
which companies that work for and the potential about the moral implications of such work.

[/ QUOTE ]

like i said, it was late. i try to stop posting when i stop making sense.

[ QUOTE ]
I never got the feeling anyone was being exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

in your particular example, that's probably accurate. advertising is my primary concern, as long as some kind of reasonable standard or oversight on the part of the school's board or PTA, i think that type of copperate involvment may be feasable.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
1. How are schools funded?


[/ QUOTE ]
the same way they are now

[ QUOTE ]
2. What is the basis for admission to these smaller schools?


[/ QUOTE ]
universal admission- i believe that smaller schools should completly replace today's model

[ QUOTE ]
3. How do you get parents involved when both parents work full time? In many of the third world countries with high parental involvement there is only one working parent.


[/ QUOTE ]
In much the same way that they're involved today, through PTAs, rotarys, etc, but more of an emphasis should be placed on parent and community involvment, and, like lehighguy discussed, some involvemnet from business may be a good idea, too.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Federal funding and control of education leads to a one size fits all mentality, you address this issue very well.
2. Lack of emphasis on education in society. Who are kids heroes today? Athletes, musicians, and actors. We, as a society need to be far more active in publicly lauding intellectual and people who have real, positive effects on society.
3. Last but certainly not least, the breakdown of the basic social unit, the nuclear family. Just about every study out there shows a direct correlation between family situation and school performance. As a corollary to that, the dwindling acceptance of baseline moral values for a society. This leads to poor family situations and also the rise of the "do what makes you feel good" mentality is harmful to egendering the discipline that every person needs to have to be successful in life, education included.

[/ QUOTE ]

as for #1 and #2- that is a part f the problem, but it's the way it's approached, not the fact of the involvement that leads to the problem you point out- like i said, we need a complete paradigm shift when it comes to education.

[lehighguy]

agreed

[natedogg]

I have no problem saying I think most people aren't bright enough to know how best to fix the schools, how best to insure their children get the best education, etc.

Of course they aren't. But again, I disagree that it is the state's role and right to step in and give a committee of bureaucrats the right to make those decisions.

I didn't expect to see such an outright admission of elitist authoritarianism from you. You central planning types are amazing.


There's two different (and very emotional) issues here; who has the RIGHT to make these decisions and who can make the BEST decision in there areas..

Labeling the issue emotional doesn't help. The question who can make the BEST decision is certainly up for grabs, but the question of who has the RIGHT should not be.

I strongly support freedom and liberty, even if it means that some portion of the population will make mistakes with their liberty. Some people apparently do not. And this doesn't even touch on the fact that you are living in a dream world if you think the state can mitigate personal foolish decisions.

natedogg

[natedogg]

requires login
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tierney.html?hp&oref=login

no login:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3786

natedogg

[[censored]]

Step 1: Read OP

Step 2: Search for Natedogg replies

Step 3: Read said replies, think about if I agree or disagree.

In this case I pretty much agree 100%

[lastchance]

Just one thing. If American educational system is terrible compared to most first-world countries, (and most people would agree it is), then couldn't one simply poach off those countries that have superior educational systems?

[lehighguy]

There are good and bad facets of foriegn educational systems. Understanding how to get the good without the bad requires some of the critical thinking OP demonstrated.

[lehighguy]

good articles.

if you dont have an NYT acount know getting a login is free if you want to read the articles

[lastchance]

True dat. Still, getting the good with the bad is better than some state's educational systems.

[ACPlayer]

If a voucher system was started tommorrow it woudl create a HUGE market for educational services.

You dont get it. If you want to gut the public school system then do that and get rid of the process of collecting taxes and then distributing vouchers. Let the people not pay property school taxes (and corresponding lower rents) and simply pay for the education be writing a check. Dont collect money for a public system and then funnel the money back into vouchers.

Vouchers are not free money from the government they come from our taxes.

Do you really believe that schools can't provide a quality education for the same tuition that is effectively being charged when we attend public

You are the one that doesnt believe it. Instead of working to improve the system, or even arguing for trying to improve it, you are arguing to gut it.

I think that the schools can provide a quality education for the money that is being raised and that it is not a good idea to remove money from the system, but to fix the system. I suggest the following:

1. Remove federal mandates.
2. Charge a modest tuition for all students, with exceptions for the poorest. The reason is that when the parents write a check every quarter they are more likely (IMO) to be involved. People now consider schools as an entitlement.
3. Make it easier for outstanding local non-teachers and local professionals to teach in schools.
4. Work with local industry to understand what vo-tech programs should be implemented and perhaps obtain funding.
5. Learn from the excellent schools

I am not in the educational system so I cannot say whether these would work or whether there are other ideas that should be implemented.

The bottom line is, IMO, if we raise money from the public for a public school system them keep that money in the public schools and fix the system. If we dont want a public financed school system, then gut it, kill the property tax charges and make it a private free for all.

[Cornell Fiji]

I am sorry if I am repeating the comments of others. I have not yet read the replies, I have simply posted my comment from This thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=1687845&Fo rum=f20&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=250&Main=1686957 &Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=19741&daterange=1& newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodypr ev=#Post1687845) on the topic made in OOT in Feb.

-----------





I think that one of the myriad of factors that drives our suboptimal educational system is definitely the teachers and their wages etc. The curriculum also needs to be altered and there are other issues in there as well that need to be changed.

In New Jersey, and I believe almost every other state (although I am not sure of this) the Teachers Association (evil union) has handcuffed the state government into accepting a contract that includes tenure. Tenure is the one of the biggest reasons that our educational system is not what it should be.

In New Jersey teachers are pobationary for their first two years on the job. As a probationary hire a teacher does not recieve the full benefits of membership in the teachers union, mainly they are subject to employment at will, meaning that they can be fired for poor performance.

Once the third year begins however the teacher CAN NEVER BE FIRED without just cause (ie hitting a kid, coming to work under the influence, or forgetting that evolution is only a 'theory' in Southern states.) This means that a teacher can not be fired because they are bad at what they do, in fact if there is a really bad teacher who begins her third year of service in your school district she might be there for the next fifty years.

Furthermore, the teachers union's collective bargaining agreement is set up so that their salary is based SOLELY on the basis of seniority. Every year that they stay with the school they are given a standard increase regardless of their abilities, motivation, or performance.

Human nature is to be selfish and to only do things that benefit ourselves in some way. The primary motivation for teachers is their salary and benefits, although some are intrinsically motivated by the feeling that they get from helping a student. Because of the teachers union, wages and benefits are gauranteed and no longer can be used as an incentive. Therefore the only incentive for a teacher to work hard is an intrinsic desire to help others. Unfortunately, this desire often wears off after a few years thus leaving many teachers unmotivated.

The current educational system now has teachers in their first two years who are inspired to do a good job (so that they can reach tenure and slack off) and older teachers who simply don't care anymore. In my oppinion that the job security and wages/benefits gauranteed by the teachers union that in turn decrease incentives for teachers to do a good job which in turn decrease their motivation is one of the main reasons that our educational system is not up to par.



One person made the following argument in the thread:

[ QUOTE ]
currently, our public school system isn't a free market system where wages can be determined by consumer demand. all I am saying is that if they pay teachers better, they will probably get better teachers. how do go about doing that, I am not sure of.



[/ QUOTE ]

To which I replied:


Although paying teachers more would be nice I think you used the perfect word here. We need to pay our teachers "better" meaning that we pay them for merit and not tenure. Unfortunately that is absolutely impossible given the current laws that we have protecting unions and the rights of union members. As long as there are unions there will always be seniority based pay and as long as there is seniority based pay performance will not matter and whenever performance doesn't matter teachers will have no incentive to do a better job. So in short, were fuked until we can change the laws that protect unions.

-Steve

[lehighguy]

Providing a public education is an essential service of our nation. To that end we must raise taxes to provide for it. Without vouchers poor kids wouldn't have any school to go to at all.

There have been numerous examples of how the "gutting public schools arguement" is a falicy. They can be found both within our own nation and abroad. Even some of your favorite socialist European countries run on vouchers were private schools make up a huge portion of the system. See natedogs links if you don't believe me.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course they aren't. But again, I disagree that it is the state's role and right to step in and give a committee of bureaucrats the right to make those decisions.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you agree, then how can you not take the next step and say that there ARE people who know more about education and should direct our educational program?

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't expect to see such an outright admission of elitist authoritarianism from you. You central planning types are amazing.


[/ QUOTE ]

How is it elitist to say the people most qualified to direct a program do so? I would expect doctors to decide how best to run a medical program. Is that elitist?

And central planning is how most successful businesses run. I'm guessing here, but it seems your objection is to the idea of any central organization. Your objection doesn't address the notion that there are areas where there can be expertise, and people with said expertise might be best at running certain programs.

I don't think nor want everything run by the state or federal government. But there are certain things that make more sense to be organized by 'experts.'

Obviously, a poor committee can do a poor job, but ideally, if people made sure that people who run the committee are qualified, then it would work. MY pessimistic side says that POLITICS will allow unqualified people to get involved. But the idealistic side of me thinks it makes the most logical sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Labeling the issue emotional doesn't help. The question who can make the BEST decision is certainly up for grabs, but the question of who has the RIGHT should not be.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I'm discussing whether or not a parent can decide to homeschool, or take their kids out of a certain district. I am merely saying that public schools can be saved and made better if they're revamped. And there's no reason 'the state', if uncorrupted and pursued with the correct intentions, couldn't be the best way to solve the problem of public schools.

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly support freedom and liberty, even if it means that some portion of the population will make mistakes with their liberty. Some people apparently do not. And this doesn't even touch on the fact that you are living in a dream world if you think the state can mitigate personal foolish decisions.


[/ QUOTE ]

We're not discussing freedom or liberty or parental rights. We're discussing how to best salvage our public educational system.

They are not one and the same.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
We're discussing how to best salvage our public educational system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder we are talking past each other. We have different goals. My goal is to provide a quality education for everyone. Your goal is apparently to "salvage our public educational system." The system itself is unimportant. Who cares what form it takes as long as our children are educated and all children are given the opportunity?

natedogg

[lehighguy]

The quality of "experts" who run private and charter school tends to be much higher then the "experts" in the federal government. The nature of how are school system is set up promotes incompetence. If you really wanted smart competent people to be in charge of childrens education you would allow the private sector in, because that is were most of the smart capable people are.

[ACPlayer]

So, you are advocating using tax money to send children to private schools?

When the private schools want to raise fees, we raise taxes to pay them?

I am keen on your telling my how, if we gave a tax payer paid voucher to every kid in the town to go to a private schoo, it would not gut that school?

Providing a public education is an essential service of our nation.

Thats correct -- providing a public school education is. Providing access to private schools is NOT essential.

[CollinEstes]

It hasn't been but 4 years since I graduated HS in Texas and I think one MAJOR problem is the need to teach towards the tests. By that I mean in Texas we had to pass the TAAS tests to graduate. Personally I answered close to 95% right. But I was forced to take TAAS preperation class for two years!! Why, because the more students that passed the more money the school got. This happens now from 4 grade all the way to 12th. Teaching kids how to take a test does not prepare them for life or even college in my opinion.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
No wonder we are talking past each other. We have different goals. My goal is to provide a quality education for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that we're at ends. I don't see why the public education system can't, if run properly, provide a quality education for everyone? Its worked for the majority of American's for decades.

My elementary/high school and part of my college education were all public schools (and state). I was lucky that the schools I attended (I don't like to think about how long ago that was... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif) were good learning environments with (except for an exception here and there) competent teachers.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know that we're at ends. I don't see why the public education system can't, if run properly, provide a quality education for everyone? Its worked for the majority of American's for decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah it worked because of a different social order. See my post further back. I think it is a real mistake to ignore the social issues at play here. Im not sure how we can fix them honestly, but its wrong to ignore the context.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
The quality of "experts" who run private and charter school tends to be much higher then the "experts" in the federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it begs the question; why can't (and doesn't) the federal government hire those experts?

[ QUOTE ]
The nature of how are school system is set up promotes incompetence.

[/ QUOTE ] Great... then get people in there to fix it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you really wanted smart competent people to be in charge of childrens education you would allow the private sector in, because that is were most of the smart capable people are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ideally, the govt. could contract those people to fix/reform the school system. (or the state, that is, since I believe most of it is handled at the state level)

I think we all agree that our public school systems have problems (at least in some areas... I stand by my personal experience and have to assume that there are many excellent public schools out there.) I find it puzzling that, to some, the only solution is to dismantle out public education system. I don't see the need to destroy institutions that have been largely successful for decades when they might just need repair.

On a related note: I remember a few years ago when Time magazine did a number of features on Charter Schools. From what I remember, it sounded like a lot of them have great ideas. I was impressed by the schools and applauded those that were successful. I think Public Schools should be learning from these innovators and applying the techniques which work to their programs.

Finally, on another related note: another problem with education... our textbooks SUCK. Here's 2 really good books which discuss the subject (and they're both very different)

1) Language Police by Diane Ravitch... this is about how special interest groups from the left and right are destroying our textbooks. This book is fascinating in the way it portrays the battle over language and content by both extremes and how it basically ruins the books for the students.
2) Lies My Teacher Told Me- If you like history, you'll probably find this book fascinating. Its written by a College History Professor and its premise is; History is the one subject that, the more you study it before coming to college... the dumber you are. It looks at several different areas in History and talks about what really happened vs what is taught in high school. It looks at how this misinformation gets there. Its an interesting look at history and the politics of how that history gets retold for future generations.

It also suggests how 'real' history can and should be taught (including the good, the bad and the ugly).

[lehighguy]

I don't think the public education system can be run properly in its current form. The very nature of having no school choice makes it impossible.

[lehighguy]

You have to understand. If you can't choose what school you go to then there is no incentive to change the system. The lack of options means people can go on being incompetent and never get replaced. There is no competition. Without competition why should schools adopt any worthwhile changes.

[lehighguy]

If every student in the public school decided to leave, it would only be because that school was run incompetently in which case its a good thing we got kids out of there. I've explained a few times how voucher don't decrease the amount of per student funding the original public school retains, in many cases per student funding goes up because the voucher isn't even equal to the spending in the home school.

There are also numerous real world examples were vouchers improved the local schools by forcing competition. As I've said, please read some of the links natedog posted as they provide numerous examples both here and in other countries. Often even the home public school improves because they are FORCED to by competition.

No, we don't raise taxes. If every child in America had a voucher there would an immense public demand for schools. There would be many many schools to choose from within your community. Tuition wouldn't get out of control because parents wouldn't be able to pay money above and beyond the voucher amount. They would simply switch thier child's school if things got out of control. And new students wouldn't enroll in the school if its tuition was too high.

You use goods and services correct. What do you do when someone raises thier price? Perhaps that will lend insight as to how this sytem will work.

[Spladle Master]

Here. (http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/unschooling.shtml)

[ACPlayer]

You use goods and services correct. What do you do when someone raises thier price? Perhaps that will lend insight as to how this sytem will work.

OK, I will start from the bottom. You are apparently of the belief that the supply of schooling will be plentiful in the small and big markets alike. I disagree. Perhaps in NYC there will be many schools but in small towns that is less likely.

If every student in the public school decided to leave

Private schools excel by, among other things, being choosy about their student population. As part of the voucher system are you planning to prohibit schools from denying education to the handicapped, learning disabled, backward, hard to manage or just average student. Or is your plan to leave those kids to a, by this point, woefully underfunded public school system.

Can a student now use this voucher for home schooling? Presently home schooled children have to work with a local school to ensure that they meet certain standards of education.


I've explained a few times how voucher don't decrease the amount of per student funding the original public school retains, in many cases per student funding goes up because the voucher isn't even equal to the spending in the home school.

OK. Lets see if you understand basic business. When you add the thousandth student to your rolls, is the cost of providing service to that student the same as it was for the first student added to the rolls?

When you remove a student and remove, lets say the average cost per student from the money available to the school, the rest of the student suffer. The incremental cost of servicing that child the less than the amount you remove. So if a school with a thousand students lose a hundred students and the revenue associated with those hundred students, then the remaining 900 students are going to lose services.

In NYC the parents have a choice of which public school to send their kids. So a student living on the upper west side may have five or six schools that the child is entitled to go to. This is a good way to increase competition between public schools. There may well be other things that can be done (I provided some examples in a previous post). If the Republicans quit their partisan grumbling about teachers unions, and spent as much mental energy into improving the school system perhaps something can be done. The Dems certainly cannot improve the public school system.

[kurto]

That was a very interesting lecture. I think there are some benefits to a broad education and certain basics (reaing, writing, arithmetic)... and I am greatful that for many books I was forced to read that I would have otherwise missed. That being said, I think he's on to something when he points out that a lot of unnecessary stuff is being taught and children are not able to pursue subjects that really interest them.

[lehighguy]

I've worked in Charter schools that select by lottery, from very poor neighborhoods. They have been better then the public schools, and it has nothing to do with only taking the better kids.

Fixed school costs, mainly the school building and equipment, are already payed for. So I don't think the incremental cost of an additional student is all that much greater then the cost for the first few students. Most of the cost of running a school, like any business, is workers. Less students means you need less teachers, and if it weren't for tenure you could fire them.

Being able to choose among public schools is a big start, but msot of the power will still be in the hands of the current incompetents. Consider my mothers school in Washington Hieghts. It's considered one of teh best in the city, and parents go ass over backwards to get into it. However, I know from my mom working there that it is a horrible school. The kids don't understand basic concepts, its violent, its corrupt. It is the best of the worst, and that is all we will ever get as long as the basic power structure remains the same. Politics isn't going to change that because like anything powerful interest groups like the teacher's union will buy congress. The only way to break thier hold on power is to bypass it completely by giving control of the funding back to parents.

[ACPlayer]

Fixed school costs, mainly the school building and equipment, are already payed for. So I don't think the incremental cost of an additional student is all that much greater then the cost for the first few students.

You lack a fundamental understanding of business.


The kids don't understand basic concepts, its violent, its corrupt.

If they were in a private schole they would be expelled forthwith. Now how do you deal with education access for all including these kids?

[lehighguy]

I worked in charter schools that took kids in based on the lottery system, not selected admissions. And you'll note I didn't blame the kids there, the problem is that the school is poorly run. If the school was run well then the kids would understand basic concepts, and it isn't about to be run well as long as the current people are in power.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If the school was run well then the kids would understand basic concepts, and it isn't about to be run well as long as the current people are in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... rathar then dismantle the public school system... focus on the last part of your sentence. "the current people are in power." Get those people out. Replace them with more qualified people.

I understand that politics and special interest groups get in the way. This is why we need election reform. We need it so that our politicians are forced to serve the interests of the people.

To be idealistic, people need to stop thinking about their parties interests and look at how elections can be financed differently. (and elections can be run cheaply so they're forced to raise so much money)

We need to make our politicians accountable to us.

Unfortunately, this requires a change since most people either don't care and too many people never look beyond what their party says (I hate to call name names, but people like Jaxmike... who never stray from their party line)

It kind of requires a revolution... people have to care and get involved and demand change.

I know this is bigger then the subject of reforming schools... but they're all tied together. The public school system needs fixing. There are problems with teacher's unions. The way our textbooks are created. What is the best way to run a school? Why can't we get rid of the people in power?

Get some politicians who are serious about the issue... have them study the schools that perform the best and figure out what they're doing differently... and implement changes. Fire bad teachers. Fire people who don't how to run schools and hire people who do.

[lehighguy]

Maybe its just because I've only known corruption, but I don't share your optimism. Government inevitably puts the worst people in power, at least in its current form. That's why I want to limit government power, and education is the most important thing I want it out of.

The topic of election reform is probably worthy of another thread. I for one think special interests are such a part of Washington BECAUSE government power has grown. When the government has less control over things there is no point is lobbying. There are also other issues at play. A really good book on some of the things that went wrong in our electoral process is:
The Future of Freedom
"Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad"
The first half discusses democracy abroad and the prospects and problems with democratic reforms in the middle east. The second half talks about the developement of political process in america over the last 50 years. Emphasis is on the "liberal" aspect of liberal democracy (not political liberal, like the laws that bind our political structure togethor).

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe its just because I've only known corruption, but I don't share your optimism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not optimistic that it will happen. I'm only optimistic that it is completely possible if enough people changed their attitude towards our government.

I always think back to the Daily Show segment where they contrasted the Tony Blair town hall with a Bush Town Hall (and I'm not singling Bush out for this,... this is just an example of a widespread problem with ALL of our politicians)... Tony Blair is REQUIRED to be grilled by the people. They don't softball him, they GRILL him and demand answers. The people who have issues directly question their public representatives. Cut to Bush Town Hall which was a choreographed lovefest.

The same happens with our debates... all the questions are prescreened and approved. Softball questions are tossed. And if a candidate doesn't like the question... they just avoid the question and just repeat the talking points they want to get out. Does the moderator press the question? Of course not... that's not part of the rules.

(I know this is stuff that could and have been parts of different threads, but I think they're all part of a big picture)

[ QUOTE ]
Government inevitably puts the worst people in power

[/ QUOTE ]

Because no one challenges our government to be better. Look at Bush with the environment. Clearly they're fudging science to ignore the problem. A problem a majority of American's consistantly say they think is important. But people will do nothing.

I still remember when Marion Barry was still re-elected after he was jailed for crack use. How the hell was that guy a smart choice?

[ QUOTE ]
The topic of election reform is probably worthy of another thread. I for one think special interests are such a part of Washington BECAUSE government power has grown.

[/ QUOTE ]

The parties of convinced people that limited special interest's groups is violating someone's freedom of speech. The parties are PROTECTING their power and your average partisan, against their own interests, reject reform that can reduce the power of special interest groups.

And that of course could be another thread.

I think American's are being screwed out of serious health care reform (including the ability to buy reasonable pharmaceuticals) because of the interference of special interest groups.

I think American's won't have environmental problems seriously addressed because of special interest groups.

I don't think we've had real solutions to energy concerns addressed because of the powerful energy lobby groups. (not to mention what happened with the Gaming of the California Energy Markets or serious focus on developing other energy sources)

The same with education.

I will try to check out that book. I commute 2 hours a day so I get a lot of reading done (unless I played poker too late.... in which case I nap)

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe its just because I've only known corruption, but I don't share your optimism. Government inevitably puts the worst people in power, at least in its current form. That's why I want to limit government power, and education is the most important thing I want it out of.

[/ QUOTE ]


Then come right out and say that we should dismantle the public school systems. Your suggestion leaves the school system in place with all the attendant problems and promotes a massive tax giveaway to private and parochial schools.

According to you if the demand is there affordable schools will crop up to meet that demand.

Vouchers rank right up there with the private account proposal for social security -- a non-solution to the real problem but not necessarily a bad idea but ONLY AFTER THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS ADDRESSED.

The thing to understand in both these cases is that the proposals are designed to end the programs slowly by strangling them. They do not fix the system - they both leave the broken system in place, but each does benefit a segment of society at the expense of the rest.

[lehighguy]

Plz read the book. Its the best book I've read in a long time and an NYT bestseller. I would talk about it but I think we would have a more fruitful conversation if you read it first.

P.S. Jon Stewart is the man. I would vote for him for president even though I disagree with him on a host of issues. In case you haven't seen his appearence on CNN here is a link its great:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831?htv=12

[lehighguy]

Dismantle the public school system, yes. Dismantle the public education system, no. The purpose of the public schools are to provide education to the public. They fail miserably, I believe, by the very nature of thier being government run. And even if there were an effective way for the government to run them I don't believe it is politically feasible for that outcome to occur. Thus is order to provide public education I believe vouchers are the best method for the reasons I've stated.

Under a voucher system I don't believe it is impossible for "public schools" to exist if we redifine what we mean by public schools. I'm sure the people that work in our public schools won't want to just get new jobs when the system changes. Many will want to provide the same services and expertise they have been. To that end current public schools could be reorganized as non-profit entities that would compete for students with eachother and private schools. This would benefit our existing schools greatly, as they would no longer have policies dictated by washington or state governments. If a school choose to get rid of tenure or kick out the teachers union it could. If they wanted to change the curriculum they could. I believe the added freedom would make our existing public schools more competitive. In addition, people could start new non-profit entities if they wanted to open thier own "public school". I can think of several education professionals I know that would jump on the chance to run thier own independent school. Often that's how charter schools start, but this will make them even freer in thier decision making.

You can agree or disagree with me on this one. Based on all of my experience, research, and though I think it is the best and most feasible solution to our problem. I still don't understand how you can draw some of the conclusions you have, but I can't convince you otherwise so that's where we stand.

SS privatization does provide no solution to our current crisis. It does however get rid of pay-as-you-go, the concept that got us in this mess in the first place. And it will help protect people's "contribution" by giving them real assets to draw of at retirement. However, as you've stated, it doesn't solve our current crisis.