The education system

[marharth]

Here's a thought: how about we get rid of public school? In a government-controlled school:

 

1. They're going to be fed exactly what the government wants them to think, so if there's any government corruption (which there definitely is, to some degree) these kids aren't going to know about it or be taught to investigate it.

2. The children will typically be thought of as numbers and statistics. They're not going to get a personalized education, they'll be forced to fit into whatever cookie cutter the schools are using at the time. Even if specific teachers try to counteract this, they can only do so much when they have to look after 30 kids at once.

3. Schools can't teach religion, so here's what they teach instead: evolution. I'm sorry, what? "Well, we can't teach them about God or Buddha or anything, because that might be offensive to their religion or philosophy. Oh, I know: we'll teach evolution, which nearly all religions disagree with." With respect, what drugs are you smoking today, pal?

4. They don't get necessary time with their parents. Unless the parents take great pains, these kids will most likely become completely different from their parents (and never in a good way). Plus, all the stuff they don't teach in grade schools (like, y'know, morals) will be learned from their school peers (who know just as little as they do).

 

These are the major problems that come to my mind at the moment, but the problematic minutiae are innumerable. With private schools the parents have a choice about exactly what their kids learn (it's still not ideal, but it's way better than public school), and with homeschooling almost all the problems with both vanish.

I think it should be up to the states, personally I think school should be mandatory until at least 15 or 16 at which point they should be able to opt out for a another type of school.

 

While such is certainly not the case, the general idea about America is that it's a free country. Forcing parents to send their kids to school is a direct contradiction of such rights to freedom.

We are not supposed to be talking about religion but evolution is a scientific theory. It is taught as a theory, and not as it being factual.

 

How do you propose we educate people if we don't have a public system?

[evilneko]

We are not supposed to be talking about religion but evolution is a scientific theory. It is taught as a theory, and not as it being factual.

 

Therein lies the proof of my earlier claim about what's being taught in our science classrooms. It is a sad state of affairs.

[Dicecaster]

1. They're going to be fed exactly what the government wants them to think, so if there's any government corruption (which there definitely is, to some degree) these kids aren't going to know about it or be taught to investigate it.

 

I take it you've never been to a poorer school. In my high school years, pretty much all the history teachers were Vietnam vets. Think they had anything positive to say about the government? Think again. Hell, even my econ teacher was quick to criticize and she'd never served in any form or fashion.

 

2. The children will typically be thought of as numbers and statistics. They're not going to get a personalized education, they'll be forced to fit into whatever cookie cutter the schools are using at the time. Even if specific teachers try to counteract this, they can only do so much when they have to look after 30 kids at once.

 

Thirty is not that bad a class size, really. I'd love it if all my classes had thirty students. I do agree that teachers need to be more flexible with students though, but my own experiences in education make me wonder if it's not so much the class size, or even the system, but the teachers themselves. To be sure, everything else is a factor, but a good teacher can make a much larger difference than I think you're giving them credit for.

 

As well, the public school system would need to be replaced by a system of Federal and state assistance for people to pay for private schooling. Private schools would need to expand exponentially to handle the influx of students, and where do you think all those teachers'll be coming from? That's right -- the public schools. Kids'll end up with the same teachers as before. It'll be rough going, probably for a few years, and I don't really have much confidence in a completely-private system ending up that much better than what we have now.

 

3. Schools can't teach religion, so here's what they teach instead: evolution. I'm sorry, what? "Well, we can't teach them about God or Buddha or anything, because that might be offensive to their religion or philosophy. Oh, I know: we'll teach evolution, which nearly all religions disagree with." With respect, what drugs are you smoking today, pal?

 

There's good reason for that. The only place for religion in education (public or private, IMO) is in a comparative religion course, or dedicated theology courses (though I'm sure both of those would cause plenty of controversy in public school, I think at least a comparative course would have definite benefits, namely in increasing understanding and tolerance of other religions). And, unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of focus on evolution in biology classrooms. It leaves students grossly under-prepared for college-level natural sciences, should they choose to go into those courses.

1. Yes, individuals who have seen government corruption will speak out. But a.) It's individuals vs. a giant, ever-growing system; the system is going to overrun them, and b.) Even if all the public school teachers were trying to leak info to the kids, they wouldn't be able to without being fired.

2. Yes, good teachers do far better than poor teachers, but they still can't give a personalized education to each kid, because they teach the same thing to each child in the classroom. If they simplify it so the dull ones can understand it, you'd be holding the smarter ones back, while if you catered to the bright ones, then the dull ones would be forced to try to absorb it all faster than they can. Again, even great teachers can only do so much.

3. Okay, I was trying to give an example of a broader point; obviously I chose poorly. Here's what I mean: with the exception of, say, mathematics, there will always be conflict about what curriculum is being used in public schools. One group might want a certain book banned because it contains offensive language, while another might advocate it because it contains accurate information about whatever it's subject is. Whereas with private schools, you can choose at least an underlying theme for their kids' education, and with homeschooling the parents have complete control.

 

@marharth

Line 1: See #3, above.

Line 2: Either private schools or homeschooling (preferably a combination of both, to allow for options).

[evilneko]

I'm sorry, the whole "public schools feed youth propaganda" line just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps that might be a risk if the school system was more centrally controlled, but the way it is I just don't see that happening on a wide scale.

 

@#2: The rest of my post would address that.

 

@#3: Fair enough. Private schools don't have to bow to a democratically-elected school board. Instead, they bow to the almighty dollar. This is why experts and concerned, educated citizens need to get involved to keep misinformation out of school curricula.

[marharth]

1. They're going to be fed exactly what the government wants them to think, so if there's any government corruption (which there definitely is, to some degree) these kids aren't going to know about it or be taught to investigate it.

 

I take it you've never been to a poorer school. In my high school years, pretty much all the history teachers were Vietnam vets. Think they had anything positive to say about the government? Think again. Hell, even my econ teacher was quick to criticize and she'd never served in any form or fashion.

 

2. The children will typically be thought of as numbers and statistics. They're not going to get a personalized education, they'll be forced to fit into whatever cookie cutter the schools are using at the time. Even if specific teachers try to counteract this, they can only do so much when they have to look after 30 kids at once.

 

Thirty is not that bad a class size, really. I'd love it if all my classes had thirty students. I do agree that teachers need to be more flexible with students though, but my own experiences in education make me wonder if it's not so much the class size, or even the system, but the teachers themselves. To be sure, everything else is a factor, but a good teacher can make a much larger difference than I think you're giving them credit for.

 

As well, the public school system would need to be replaced by a system of Federal and state assistance for people to pay for private schooling. Private schools would need to expand exponentially to handle the influx of students, and where do you think all those teachers'll be coming from? That's right -- the public schools. Kids'll end up with the same teachers as before. It'll be rough going, probably for a few years, and I don't really have much confidence in a completely-private system ending up that much better than what we have now.

 

3. Schools can't teach religion, so here's what they teach instead: evolution. I'm sorry, what? "Well, we can't teach them about God or Buddha or anything, because that might be offensive to their religion or philosophy. Oh, I know: we'll teach evolution, which nearly all religions disagree with." With respect, what drugs are you smoking today, pal?

 

There's good reason for that. The only place for religion in education (public or private, IMO) is in a comparative religion course, or dedicated theology courses (though I'm sure both of those would cause plenty of controversy in public school, I think at least a comparative course would have definite benefits, namely in increasing understanding and tolerance of other religions). And, unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of focus on evolution in biology classrooms. It leaves students grossly under-prepared for college-level natural sciences, should they choose to go into those courses.

1. Yes, individuals who have seen government corruption will speak out. But a.) It's individuals vs. a giant, ever-growing system; the system is going to overrun them, and b.) Even if all the public school teachers were trying to leak info to the kids, they wouldn't be able to without being fired.

2. Yes, good teachers do far better than poor teachers, but they still can't give a personalized education to each kid, because they teach the same thing to each child in the classroom. If they simplify it so the dull ones can understand it, you'd be holding the smarter ones back, while if you catered to the bright ones, then the dull ones would be forced to try to absorb it all faster than they can. Again, even great teachers can only do so much.

3. Okay, I was trying to give an example of a broader point; obviously I chose poorly. Here's what I mean: with the exception of, say, mathematics, there will always be conflict about what curriculum is being used in public schools. One group might want a certain book banned because it contains offensive language, while another might advocate it because it contains accurate information about whatever it's subject is. Whereas with private schools, you can choose at least an underlying theme for their kids' education, and with homeschooling the parents have complete control.

 

@marharth

Line 1: See #3, above.

Line 2: Either private schools or homeschooling (preferably a combination of both, to allow for options).

If you have only private schools then the only people getting a education will be people who can afford it...

 

Why not reform the public system instead of making it so only people who can afford it can get a education?

[Dicecaster]

I'm sorry, the whole "public schools feed youth propaganda" line just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps that might be a risk if the school system was more centrally controlled, but the way it is I just don't see that happening on a wide scale.

 

@#2: The rest of my post would address that.

 

@#3: Fair enough. Private schools don't have to bow to a democratically-elected school board. Instead, they bow to the almighty dollar. This is why experts and concerned, educated citizens need to get involved to keep misinformation out of school curricula.

1. Even if they don't feed youth propaganda now, they have full power to do so whenever they want. They own public schools, and therefore can put whatever they want in public schools. What would keep them from raising a politically correct generation if they could do so clandestinely?

2.A. And these teachers wouldn't be regulated by the government; they would be free to teach without boundaries (within the limits of whatever school they chose, of course).

2.B. Furthermore, private schools aren't the only alternative. Homeschooling is an incredibly effective method of education.

3. That doesn't address what I'm saying. If everyone gets more involved, that will only cause more conflict (and if you're talking about private schools or homeschooling, they don't have a right to do that).

 

1. They're going to be fed exactly what the government wants them to think, so if there's any government corruption (which there definitely is, to some degree) these kids aren't going to know about it or be taught to investigate it.

 

I take it you've never been to a poorer school. In my high school years, pretty much all the history teachers were Vietnam vets. Think they had anything positive to say about the government? Think again. Hell, even my econ teacher was quick to criticize and she'd never served in any form or fashion.

 

2. The children will typically be thought of as numbers and statistics. They're not going to get a personalized education, they'll be forced to fit into whatever cookie cutter the schools are using at the time. Even if specific teachers try to counteract this, they can only do so much when they have to look after 30 kids at once.

 

Thirty is not that bad a class size, really. I'd love it if all my classes had thirty students. I do agree that teachers need to be more flexible with students though, but my own experiences in education make me wonder if it's not so much the class size, or even the system, but the teachers themselves. To be sure, everything else is a factor, but a good teacher can make a much larger difference than I think you're giving them credit for.

 

As well, the public school system would need to be replaced by a system of Federal and state assistance for people to pay for private schooling. Private schools would need to expand exponentially to handle the influx of students, and where do you think all those teachers'll be coming from? That's right -- the public schools. Kids'll end up with the same teachers as before. It'll be rough going, probably for a few years, and I don't really have much confidence in a completely-private system ending up that much better than what we have now.

 

3. Schools can't teach religion, so here's what they teach instead: evolution. I'm sorry, what? "Well, we can't teach them about God or Buddha or anything, because that might be offensive to their religion or philosophy. Oh, I know: we'll teach evolution, which nearly all religions disagree with." With respect, what drugs are you smoking today, pal?

 

There's good reason for that. The only place for religion in education (public or private, IMO) is in a comparative religion course, or dedicated theology courses (though I'm sure both of those would cause plenty of controversy in public school, I think at least a comparative course would have definite benefits, namely in increasing understanding and tolerance of other religions). And, unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of focus on evolution in biology classrooms. It leaves students grossly under-prepared for college-level natural sciences, should they choose to go into those courses.

1. Yes, individuals who have seen government corruption will speak out. But a.) It's individuals vs. a giant, ever-growing system; the system is going to overrun them, and b.) Even if all the public school teachers were trying to leak info to the kids, they wouldn't be able to without being fired.

2. Yes, good teachers do far better than poor teachers, but they still can't give a personalized education to each kid, because they teach the same thing to each child in the classroom. If they simplify it so the dull ones can understand it, you'd be holding the smarter ones back, while if you catered to the bright ones, then the dull ones would be forced to try to absorb it all faster than they can. Again, even great teachers can only do so much.

3. Okay, I was trying to give an example of a broader point; obviously I chose poorly. Here's what I mean: with the exception of, say, mathematics, there will always be conflict about what curriculum is being used in public schools. One group might want a certain book banned because it contains offensive language, while another might advocate it because it contains accurate information about whatever it's subject is. Whereas with private schools, you can choose at least an underlying theme for their kids' education, and with homeschooling the parents have complete control.

 

@marharth

Line 1: See #3, above.

Line 2: Either private schools or homeschooling (preferably a combination of both, to allow for options).

If you have only private schools then the only people getting a education will be people who can afford it...

 

Why not reform the public system instead of making it so only people who can afford it can get a education?

If public schools were no longer an option (and provided that the government dropped restrictions on education altogether), people will adjust to suit the situation. People got just as well educated (if not better educated) when public schools didn't exist.

[marharth]

If public schools were no longer an option (and provided that the government dropped restrictions on education altogether), people will adjust to suit the situation. People got just as well educated (if not better educated) when public schools didn't exist.

People would adjust to suit the situation how?

 

I would go ahead and say a good date for the start of all public schooling in the US is 1918, when all states have made public school mandatory.

 

Hate to tell you, but before that date only rich people got good education and a lot of people couldn't even read.

[evilneko]

@Dicecaster: The anti-government conspiracy theory schtick is wearing a little thin.

 

And I must absolutely disagree with you. People getting involved is exactly what is needed. Voter (and citizen in general) apathy is a large part of the problem, it's why the National Center for Science Education (among other organizations, such as the Texas Freedom Network) is out there trying to raise awareness and get experts and concerned citizens to actually attend school board meetings. You make it sound like conflict is something to be avoided at all costs. This is absolutely not the case.

 

While private schools may not be beholden to the general public, they are regulated by the states in which they operate. The regulations vary from state to state, but they have also have a monetary interest in the concerns of their customers. To imply that private schools are bastions of incorruptible tranquility in a sea of chaos as you seem to be doing is disingenuous at best.

 

If public schools were no longer an option (and provided that the government dropped restrictions on education altogether), people will adjust to suit the situation.

 

Name some restrictions aside from what arises from the First Amendment. And how will people adjust? Homeschooling is not an option for everyone, and not everyone can afford a private school even presuming cheaper private schools sprang up as a result of the abolishment of the public school system. Abolishing the public school system would accomplish one thing, and one thing only: denying an education to those who need it most.

[1Sigil1]

Personally. I think they should reorganize the education system in the US to get rid of local school districts and property taxes as the base mechanism for funding schools. Lets face it, this method is just a mechanism to allow the relatively rich (not the top 1% which all go to elite private schools) to have better schools than poor urban/rural schools. Have one Federal budget and allocate money from it directly to families with school age kids so the amount of money spent per kid is equal. Of course the super rich will still spend more but that will happen with any system. The govt should use means testing too and make the affluent pay for their kids education, which they usually do anyway.

 

Then restructure the curriculum to be skills based and oriented to fields of study. They do this in Europe all the time, test kids and the one who have the interest, intelligence and aptitude for higher level studies get funneled toward university prep and a more focused curriculum. The kids who have a the ability and interest in technical applications or trades get funneled toward those areas.

 

In a nutshell, all kids need to be taught at least English, math, basic civics, basic history/geography, basic science and (I would add) fundamentals of logic. After that they should start sorting them via testing and the kid's interests and talents to focus on skill sets they can apply to getting a job or advanced studies in the sciences, mathematics, etc.

 

I fully support the arts in schools and athletics but my basic premise is that not all kids are cut out for academics or the arts or athletics. They are often good at a few things and trying to make them good at things they have no talent or aptitude for is a waste of resources and makes kids feel inadequate.

 

Once they get the k-12 restructured they should work on the rest of the system to make education far cheaper than it is now, easy for labor to get retraining and updating or refresher courses and in general, start selling the public on the notion that education is a lifelong process and not something that's finished and never to be repeated.

 

Frankly I think they should seriously consider scraping the whole Baccalaureate, Masters and PHD system altogether and make the whole thing far more focused. Then people can go back and take courses that are tangential to their field. As we all know, a piece of paper with a credential on it is fairly useless in an actual work environment.

[1Sigil1]

As far as this whole thing about religion in schools. What's wrong with parents and houses of worship teaching kids religion? Why is that a function the state should be involved with at all?

 

And please, in science there is a concept called "weight of evidence" which means if there is a vast reliable quantity of factual data supporting a theory and none or very little supporting a counter theory then the first theory is considered true until proven otherwise. Its not a matter of opinions. Its a matter of facts. People can choose to reject evolution if they wish but it makes about as much sense as rejecting gravity (which is only a scientific "law" because no one is full of nonsense enough to suggest a countervailing theory).