The education system

[WrathOfDeadguy]

The word "theory" can also be misleading to someone not familiar with how science works, as usage of the word in scientific study is different from how it is used in common discourse. What might be called a theory in conversation would be considered a hypothesis in science; a theory requires substantial and demonstrable evidence.

 

Note that I was careful there to not mention the elephant in the room.

 

I do not believe that schooling should be federalized, ever. That would give the federal government way too much control over what goes in in classrooms. Yes, that could- under the right leadership- lead to some good things, but it would disconnect the education system from the interests of children and parents- it would become all but impossible for the folks in the system to have meaningful input in the system, while teaching unions and lobbyists would have unfettered access. The more levels of bureaucracy you throw down between an individual and the managing authority, the more difficult it becomes for them to make their voice heard. There should be federal standards, but they should be more akin to the Constitution as opposed to the Tax Code- loosely defined and flexible enough to suit everyone's needs, not rigid and narrow with no room for minor adjustments according to local or individual needs.

 

Local governments, despite their inefficiencies (as if the Fed is any more efficient), are much more responsive to the needs of individual districts. Anything under federal control requires input from the entire nation to set or alter policy, and it is exceedingly unlikely that any provision for 'user input' would be made in any national education system. The Federal government usually serves its own interests, tempered only by the threat of what might happen in the next election year. Local governments can be affected easily by strikes, organized protests, petitions, and recall elections which simply can't touch any federal authority- especially when that authority is appointed by the President rather than elected, as school boards are.

 

It would be unwise to provide the exact same template for every single school district, anyway- for a small nation that might work, but variation in climate, population density, access to various services (including the distance to and from school), and other factors must be taken into account when setting school district policy. For example, how many snow days are available, when the school year starts or whether school is broken down into smaller blocks to account for local concerns... There are many districts where most of the students live an hour or more away from school; should they have the same 8-hour day as a district in which all the students live within 15 minutes of the campus? Or should they have a slightly longer school year but only a 6 hour day so that students don't spend all their waking hours on school, schoolwork, and travel between school and home?

 

Moving on, here's one thing that I believe must change- sick day allotments. In almost every school district in the country, students are only permitted a certain number of excused absences before they may be penalized and held back. Usually that allotment is set at a percentage of the total school days in the year; in our district it was 10% which worked out to about 14 days. Now, I understand the reason for there being a limit somewhere; after you've missed a significant percentage of your classes it becomes very difficult to catch up to missed lessons and assignments. However, I do not agree with the existing policy on what to do after that limit is exceeded.

 

If you've got a legitimate excuse, it should not matter how many days you miss- you should not automatically go from passing to being held back a year because you were sick for 15 days instead of 14 or even for 20 or more... the school district should provide an online classroom service so that you can make up your lessons even if you can't make it to school. Right now, if you're sick for too long or have to be away for some other reason, your family has to foot the bill for tutoring else you effectively lose a year of your life for nothing. Also, your allotment of sick days should be reset once you've caught up again- it makes no sense to maintain records of previous absences if you've made up the time you lost. What if you get sick again? What if there's a death in the family, and you've already used up your days but caught up on your work?

 

Again, it's an example of penalizing students for things beyond their control. If they've put in the effort and learned the material, they should get the damn cookie no matter whether they were in the classroom physically or not. Especially when the technology to provide online lessons exists- hell, set up a webcam in every classroom and now you can record lessons so students who missed class can watch them later- or in real-time from wherever they happen to be. Many colleges already have stuff like this. The school I went to, being in hurricane country, had an entire online backup system in place so that the whole school could be run remotely if it had to be evacuated for an extended period. I don't see why similar services couldn't be extended to students in public schools- it could easily be squeezed into most budgets, as it is a one-time expenditure with only token costs for server upkeep and tech support... which is a moot point for districts which already have individual school networks.

 

Basically, I'd propose a safety net for students who- due to forces beyond their control- miss one too many school days. An online classroom service for students who can't make it to school but are well enough to participate to some degree, and a tutoring catch-up service for those who have had to be down and out for an extended period of time. Much more worthwhile than a third gymnasium (yeah, my old HS really went there) or school-provided laptops/tablets. As an added bonus, it might even save kids from having to cut into summer when it snows one too many times, since teachers could still provide much of their curriculum online and then be able to condense classroom sessions later.

[1Sigil1]

Wrath.

 

Exactly, (in re to theory in science) what a person believes is irrelevant in science. Its all about reproducible data.

 

As far as the federalism thing goes. (And I realize you probably weren't directing your comments at me) I would support financing from the federal level (and dissolving local funding not only because of the inequity created by local funding but also due to whats going on in Wisconsin. States can't go into debt to maintain financing for education. The federal gov't can and if they had the whole pie and divided it equally among all kids who's parents earn less that say $200k a year then there is at least parity going into the system for all kids and systemic reliability.

 

Now I know its all the rage to balance the federal budget these days but surely if there is something that is worth going in to debt for its educating the next generation of people who will be filling and creating jobs (aka becoming taxpayers). People like to talk about growing our way out of debt, so how is that going to happen if we have a whole generation of kids that aren't qualified to do anything but flip burgers?

 

Education is an investment in the future of our citizenry.

 

I agree that "one size fits all" policy making from on high is not a good route because it tend to lead to mediocrity but at the same time local school systems have become little more than a political football for local politicians (and their religious/diversity/left/right agendas).

 

As I see it some of these kids who drop out of high school to pursue something (emphasis on TO PURSUE SOMETHING) are actually making a smart move. Our high schools don't prepare kids to do anything. I think we should rework the system so that kids don't come out of it until they have marketable skills or they find a position to do research, arts, etc. These kids are leaving school because they recognize that its only function is to put a stamp on them saying they met the criteria and then it tosses them out in the street.

 

If we are going to compete globally (and we are whether we want to or not) then we need to make sure these kids KNOW that they aren't wasting their time becoming "well-rounded" with no future.

 

Honestly I think the system could go as far as helping kids and employers connect so that a kid has some guarantee of a future position in exchange for the employer giving guidance of the students areas of academic study. I'm sure there are plenty of high tech and engineering companies that would be very interested in the opportunity to reduce their front end training costs by having that input.

 

We are living in a world where were menial labor is being shipped to those parts of the world where it is cheapest. That is an irreversible trend. Labor arbitrage will continue until global wage parity is achieved. That means the only future these kids have is more and more highly specialized technical work that can't be shipped away, medicine, service jobs (including educating), the military (which is being robotized) and trades. The factories aren't coming back. Period. Time to stop turning out line workers and start turning out specialists.

[IceMastaP]

This is my first time posting in a discussion thread... After reading through the majority of the first two pages, I thought I would drop in and give my two cents to help diversify the outlook on the subject.

 

First off, I graduated from Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) no less than two years ago, and I regularly attend my old high school. So I have a fairly recent view and idea of what is actually going on in classrooms, as opposed to what is said on TV and elsewhere. Since I graduated, I have done a fair amount of research on most things in my life in order to gain a better understanding of how they affect me. I have come to many astounding conclusions (which I, myself, DID criticize heavily) which really clarified things for me and my friends. I will go over a few things below.

 

1. The only system we (all things in existence) actually live within is Nature. Nature encompasses all things, all of time, and all events that take place there. Nature IS a perfect system. The only way you can derive imperfection is by judgment and morality. When humans are long gone (along with all of their systems) nature will continue as usual.

 

2. Based on #1, you can readily see why all manufactured institutions and systems are inherently flawed. All of our systems work underneath the grand system of Nature; which really means that our systems only serve a purpose if we deem them so. The education system is just one system that aims to simplify things, but in the end, only makes them more complex and convoluted. Among others (which I won't get into) are the monetary system, the justice system, laws, healthcare, government, etc etc -- Essentially most things in our daily lives.

 

What I believe really needs to happen is global acknowledgment and acceptance of the natural system. Doing so will make all of our systems essentially useless, as they have no purpose any more, seeing as nature has already taken care of it.

 

...To be more specific, in relation to Public Education... I think that after 12 solid years of it I can safely say that the only purpose it served was to show me exactly what not to do; for which I am very grateful, lest I be lost and ignorant. I think REAL education comes with experience. All the things I have learned since I graduated have been through direct experience. What is knowledge if it is not applied? I took Mandarin Chinese in my senior year... I don't remember a thing! Well, that's because I never speak Chinese with anyone. Same goes for math, history, science, etc.

 

So, how does nature play into our human learning experience? Like this:

 

Learn ---> Master ---> Teach

 

This is how someone would naturally learn something. One event leads to the next. (This is also how I learn things now, where my teacher is generally various internet sources and documentaries)

 

1. The person must have a desire to learn said subject.

2. The person will then go out of their way to attain the knowledge necessary for competence.

3. The person will gain experience by applying their knowledge to different situations.

 

4. The person will then be competent enough to teach, thereby speeding up the learning process for any student willing to learn.

5. The person will never cease to learn new things, and never cease to teach new things in new ways.

 

You can see that public education messes up right from the start. If I have no will or desire to learn, then what good is it to force-feed it to me using a fear-based, competitive system? The student must seek the teacher. Learning is by act of the student, not the teacher.

 

I will just stop here because I am tired and I deviate quite often... It can be difficult to express an emotion with language. I definitely didn't say all that I wanted to say, but I hope a general idea can be understood.

[marharth]

1. The person must have a desire to learn said subject.

2. The person will then go out of their way to attain the knowledge necessary for competence.

3. The person will gain experience by applying their knowledge to different situations.

 

4. The person will then be competent enough to teach, thereby speeding up the learning process for any student willing to learn.

5. The person will never cease to learn new things, and never cease to teach new things in new ways.

I am rather glad you found this section and started posting.

 

I agree with that list for sure, glad you posted that.

[HappyHerring]

As there are many immature parents who lack the skills or inclination to teach children how to behave in social contexts including education might I suggest that we abandon all children to packs of wolves for the first three years of life. Those who survive would be aware of the needs of others besides themselves and might indeed have the self discipline to learn! :dry:

[Pyrosocial]

For the past 4 years I have taken my highschool classes online. I think its better than puplic school, but the you have a lot of cheaters who google every answer.

[RZ1029]

1. The person must have a desire to learn said subject.

2. The person will then go out of their way to attain the knowledge necessary for competence.

3. The person will gain experience by applying their knowledge to different situations.

 

4. The person will then be competent enough to teach, thereby speeding up the learning process for any student willing to learn.

5. The person will never cease to learn new things, and never cease to teach new things in new ways.

I am rather glad you found this section and started posting.

 

I agree with that list for sure, glad you posted that.

I shall, for once, concur with you, Marharth. I definitely agree, and as I am still at the university level, it's not been so long since I was in a high school classroom.

 

I was always an 'honor student' (stupid title, I applied myself more than most, and I was lucky enough to get a nice roll of the die in the gene pool so things came easier to me), and I'm about to go into grad school next semester, which I might follow up with a doctorate if I'm crazy enough to think teaching is actually a good idea.

 

I think, in some ways, the former Soviet countries, like Belarus, kind of have the right idea. They go to school until they're... 12? 14? One or the other, I forget which, and at that point they take a competency test and either go into military, trade school, or continue their education for higher ed. degrees. While I don't think that particular plan works well in America, at the moment (due to a lack of a lot of manufacturing jobs), something similar would probably work well.

 

I'd suggest something like: they go school long enough to learn important, common-knowledge and practical application skills, in combination with their academic classes and arts. Then, say, at the middle school level (that's after 9 years of school, for the rest of the world), they make their decision based upon the experiences they have had, and decide what they want to do, basically. If they like learning, they go on to the high school and then university level. They prefer some trade they got some experience with back earlier? Cool, drop them into that trade school and get them a good job. Maybe they don't want to go into a trade right away, or they're undecided, let them enlist for a few years, they'll get a lot of exposure to different things, different people, and will hopefully become more aware in the process.

 

Now, those choices will be all be choices, I don't see any point in forcing someone to something they don't want to, because you'll never get the same quality of job as if they enjoyed what they do.

Edited March 5, 2011 by RZ1029

[Dicecaster]

1. The person must have a desire to learn said subject.

2. The person will then go out of their way to attain the knowledge necessary for competence.

3. The person will gain experience by applying their knowledge to different situations.

 

4. The person will then be competent enough to teach, thereby speeding up the learning process for any student willing to learn.

5. The person will never cease to learn new things, and never cease to teach new things in new ways.

I am rather glad you found this section and started posting.

 

I agree with that list for sure, glad you posted that.

I shall, for once, concur with you, Marharth. I definitely agree, and as I am still at the university level, it's not been so long since I was in a high school classroom.

 

I was always an 'honor student' (stupid title, I applied myself more than most, and I was lucky enough to get a nice roll of the die in the gene pool so things came easier to me), and I'm about to go into grad school next semester, which I might follow up with a doctorate if I'm crazy enough to think teaching is actually a good idea.

 

I think, in some ways, the former Soviet countries, like Belarus, kind of have the right idea. They go to school until they're... 12? 14? One or the other, I forget which, and at that point they take a competency test and either go into military, trade school, or continue their education for higher ed. degrees. While I don't think that particular plan works well in America, at the moment (due to a lack of a lot of manufacturing jobs), something similar would probably work well.

 

I'd suggest something like: they go school long enough to learn important, common-knowledge and practical application skills, in combination with their academic classes and arts. Then, say, at the middle school level (that's after 9 years of school, for the rest of the world), they make their decision based upon the experiences they have had, and decide what they want to do, basically. If they like learning, they go on to the high school and then university level. They prefer some trade they got some experience with back earlier? Cool, drop them into that trade school and get them a good job. Maybe they don't want to go into a trade right away, or they're undecided, let them enlist for a few years, they'll get a lot of exposure to different things, different people, and will hopefully become more aware in the process.

 

Now, those choices will be all be choices, I don't see any point in forcing someone to something they don't want to, because you'll never get the same quality of job as if they enjoyed what they do.

This is logical, it makes sense. But, in America, it's still wrong, because it's an encroachment on our freedom. If we're being forced to educate children (or send them somewhere to be educated) then it is directly violating the freedom we ought to have as Americans. Furthermore, education used to be something sought after; it was a great thing to be educated. But now, when education is required of us, we take it for granted, and often detest it, and therefore we put a lot into it (the phrase "What you get out of education depends on what you put into it," ought to be axiomatic enough), and it doesn't grow. If freedom of education existed, along with America's great abundance, then education would prosper.

 

In fact, as a general point, unjust force always has negative consequences, whether immediate or retroactive.