The future of U.S. public schools... by chrisisall

I move we consider abandoning the idea of the private school by introducing a simple rule.

Here's the current state of things:

1. The govt. has an obligation to pay for education.
2. At the moment towards that end it pays $15,000 per child per year in public education.

The new rule I propose is this:

Why not just open the field to competition?
$15,000 per child per year to any institution which meets a certain set of academic standards, which can easily be measured in the form of test results for viability.

If someone is teaching intelligent design and not teaching evolution, then the majority of their students will probably not be able to answer this question:

Which of the following is the closest relative of man:

A. Octopus
B. Starfish
C. Oyster
D. Lobster

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:21 AM

LIMINALOSITY

Yes please, let's fix the broken schools. It would be a fine way to fix many of the cracks in our whole way of thinking, and we really miss the mark with the way schools are set up in this country. I had a good number of gifted teachers, and most of the best of them brought fresh ideas of how to work around the constraints of the system. The thing they all had in common was an understanding of native intelligence; that really all it takes to allow a mind to open is respect for intelligence, and an ability to help a child find tools to learn -how- to learn. I think that there are many teachers who could be great, but they are mutilated by a school system that values conformity over brilliance.

I think the current way of schooling 8-3, straight through the day doesn't take best advantage of people's attention span and abilities to process. I've read plenty about 8 being too early for kids, especially teenagers. Straight through the day burns anyone out unless the idea is handled very creatively, and one person's creative can be another's bor-ring.

If we create something different, what is the absolute base that should be tested for, and how do we allow for other things a child might want to learn? Who would do the testing?

What about children who are discipline problems? I think this would drop to a much lower baseline if the system weren't so restrictive, but western culture nurtures challenges to attention and attitude in many other ways.

Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If someone is teaching intelligent design and not teaching evolution, then the majority of their students will probably not be able to answer this question:

Which of the following is the closest relative of man:

A. Octopus
B. Starfish
C. Oyster
D. Lobster

I was taught evolution at school, but nonetheless I give up. Which one is it? I guess since it's generally accepted (I think) that the earliest creature that moved to land was a fish, the answer should be a creature that's most closely related to fish. I don't think any of those are fish (not even starfish), but I guess I could be wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:55 AM

khyron,

Now that would be telling. You are correct on two points though, which is that none of the above is a fish, and than man is more closely related to a fish than to any of these. This shows that school is doing something, but clearly it could do more. There is a need here for evolution of education. Everyone should know the answer to the above question, one of the above creatures is a much closer relation to man than the other three, evolutionarily and genetically speaking. I'm assuming someone will come along who knows the answer to this question.

lim,

the standards would have to be set by statute, and that statute would have to be set by state because that's how education is done in this country. The statute would only vaguely describe the standards as in "comparable knowledge of chemisty to the average japanese student of the same grade" or something like that, anyway. From there, the testing would be farmed out to private corporations who would compete for contracts. No need to speculate whether or not this would work, we know it workds, this is how it's done now.

In addition, I think it would be nice to have a redundant system here, it would be nice if three different companies were test the students each once a year, in their own independently devised way, so every four month, in staggered formation.

I think this would be the standard for something I'd call mainstream students. Separate standards could be set for exceptional students, both gifted and special ed. But I'm assume 90% of students would fit to the mainstream standard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:29 AM

Alright then, I'm not sure how to argue this in terms of evolution, but in terms of biological features, the octopus has the most complicated nervous system of those four, including a fairly developed brain. Also (from what I've heard, but maybe I misheard), its eye is also pretty similar to that of vertebrates. So my guess is octopus, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm way off.

I guess, in the evolutionary sense, it must be an invertebrate that's most similar to the ancestors of fish, and since I haven't got a clue from which invertebrate vertebrates came, I give up.

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:25 PM

Goodbye to intelligent design.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4545822.stm

Well, at least in parts of Pennsylvania.

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:36 PM

DC4BS

Oh well. Beat me to it... I go with the octopus for the same reasons. Just can't see it being the bivalve, the exoskelital bug or the starfish (way to primitive structure). Besides, Hoodini the octopus rules! I'd way rather be related to him than any of the others in the list.

As to what schools were like in the 80's, I'm not all that sure how much I learned in scholl verses the thousands of books I've read on my own time. Er.. and on "school time" as well.

I used to average about a book a day in highschool aside from school reading assignments. So because I didn't do well in english class because I got straight A's on the all the tests but only did "just" enough homework to average a c- so I'd graduate each year, guess what they did to "help" me? Yep! REMEDIAL READING CLASS! No! Don't throw me in that briar patch! please! AHHhhh... Hahahaha!

God, I hated highschool and the moronic system that ran it and continues to run it into the ground. If/when I have kids, I'll SERIOUSLY look into home schooling them.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dc4bs:
God, I hated highschool and the moronic system that ran it and continues to run it into the ground. If/when I have kids, I'll SERIOUSLY look into home schooling them.

I also considered home-schooling, but the problem with that is that it takes up a lot of time, while I and the future missus will probably have busy careers. International schools (offering IBs - international baccalaureates) are pretty decent. Far more expensive, but if you can afford them, the education is much better.

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:11 PM

DIEGO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Which of the following is the closest relative of man:

A. Octopus
B. Starfish
C. Oyster
D. Lobster

Easy, the starfish! Echinoderms are our fellow deuterostomes. I used to give essentially the same question to my students in a zoology laboratory course I taught.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:18 PM

DIEGO

Quote:
Originally posted by dc4bs:
Oh well. Beat me to it... I go with the octopus for the same reasons. Just can't see it being the bivalve, the exoskelital bug or the starfish (way to primitive structure). Besides, Hoodini the octopus rules! I'd way rather be related to him than any of the others in the list.

Things like the complex eyes and brains of cephalopods (squid, octopus, and their allies) are examples of convergent evolution. It's pretty cool that you can see a whole spectrum of complexity of eyes in mollusks (the group cephalopods belong to). And the devil is in the details. The cephalopod eye is actually more "intelligently designed" ;) in the way it's wired.

Starfish may seem primitive but they share a similar pathway of embryonic development (heck they're used as proxies for many embryology studies) and their aparrent "primitive" state belies the fact that they are actually quite derived.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Diego:
Easy, the starfish! Echinoderms are our fellow deuterostomes. I used to give essentially the same question to my students in a zoology laboratory course I taught.

Huh! Interesting. Wouldn't it be funny if dreamtrove used to be one of your students? That's probably not the case though.

Starfish would've been my first choice. After octopus and lobster. My main criteria were nervous system and eyes; I always forget to judge a species by those darn embryological traits.

Dreamtrove, maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see how *everyone* could know that. I went to a fairly decent school, and maybe biology classes have changed in the 10 years since I had them, or maybe I forgot more than I thought I did, but I certainly didn't know that starfish are deuterostomes and the others in the list (apparently) aren't.

EDIT: But thanks for the question! I really enjoyed thinking about it and then reading Diego's answer to it.

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 5:05 PM

DC4BS

Well, starfish would have been my second choice. I think I might have known that anyway but the coolness factor of the octopus blinded me.

Octopi rule. They are really hard to find but WAY cool to see when scuba diving.

Starfish tend to just sit there. Like people watching TV. Hmm... Maybe a closer relationship than I thought.

I didn't like biology. Cutting up worms and frogs and stuff was OK but the formaldehyde smell made me ill. Just couldn't take it.

The down side of having a highschool biology teacher who happens to be your scoutmaster and also the track coach: Getting railroaded onto the track team after making the mistake of running too fast on a camping trip one weekend... Doh! I didn't like that much either.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 5:44 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
"And I'd like to throw out this little gem - every billion dollars spent shooting people and building schools in Iraq that we blew up in the first place is a billion dollars that doesn't get spent in our own schools, where kids are shooting each other and some schools haven't seen a fresh coat of paint in a decade. They cut head start and programs for gifted and disabled kids to pay for this little field trip, so in 10, 15 years when everyone is complaining because the U.S. educational system is in a sorry state, I'd like them to remember stuff like this (and it isn't just GWB's fault either, but this is a topic for another thread)."

---------
I thought schools were in bad shape when I went through them as a kid. The bright spots for me were the teachers I had that wanted to teach; the system itself was a nightmare.
And if it's gonna be worse than that now....

SAT challenged Chrisisall

Interesting topic. Personally, I think institutionalized education should be abolished. Its primary function is the indoctrination of a compliant workforce.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 5:54 PM

DC4BS

Yah, NOW it is...

Go back in history.

The whole idea of schools originaly was to produce better educated warriors.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:07 PM

Diego is of course correct. The subtle point to the question was that you actually have to have studied the subject to know. The logical conclusion without knowing the evolution of each would be the octopus, which brings up the whole octopus' eye question which

is an internal evolution debate. But the three octopus, lobster and oyster are all of the trochophore branch of evolution which contains earthworms and insects, and the starfish is in the tonarian branch that includes us and fish.

I guess part of the point is the suckiness of the education system. It doesn't take being an expert in the field to know the answer to this question, but I was suspecting that our public education system, which as a home schooler myself I didn't attend, would have

taught people this. Our education system is very mechanical and does not involve a lot of research and thought. It wouldn't take much in the way of actual education to bring everyone to a solid enough understanding of evolution to answer the question.

I think one of the most innovative ideas for an educational environment is the Giles' Library dynamic. Subtly, Joss has given us a truly wonderful potential education concept. The gang in Buffy study very hard and learn much about demons through this mechanism of

mild supervision. Giles for the most part keeps them from spending too much time talking about boys or whatever, and then is there to help with the sticky parts of demonolgy they don't quite grasp, but mostly it's self motivated. And with pizza!

I was impressed that you had taught a lab and asked this question, or one like it. I used to write questions for standardized tests, but I never submitted one like this, that would only have been acceptable if it were preceded by a passage with all of the necessary

information in it. I suspect radical change in our system of education is needed. I agree with DC4BS that octopi rule. One of the most curious theories I read on the whole octopus' eye thing was that some parasitic micro-organism had copied the eye code from one

of our ancestors to one of theirs or vice versa. It's an interesting idea. Clearly this has happened in cases with shorter amounts of genetic sequence, it's not impossible, and I suppose given a billion years of evolution, which is about what separates us from an

octopus, just about anything could happen. Even if this were so, the starfish would still be by far the closer relative of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:33 PM

HAOLEHAOLE

... My brother home-schools his 3 kids, together with 3 other families (not sure how that came about, butthere are about 10 kids altogether, being taught by parents according to what those parents are best at).

... Don't know about the other kids, but my bro's kids have aced every test they've been made to take by the state. My sis-in law is a math wiz. No doubt that helps.

... Money is not the answer, however, in public schools. I have no links to offer, but I have read time and again about the disparity bewteen amounts spent per child in certain districts and the grades of the kids there.

... One thing is for sure - America is cranking out a herd of relative morons. Relative to their counterparts in Asia, anyway (don't know enough about Europe, Africa, etc.. to comment). Not ALL of Asia, but in China and in India kids are coming out of high school, having mastered physical sciences and advanced mathematics that university students in America never even encounter. As for Liberal Arts majors . . . well, poetry and all that is great, but science and tech "wins the war" ... and America is losing, quite badly.

... Here in Japan, the kids study at levels quite high when compared to Americans, but not quite on the same level as the Chinese and Indians.

... I met a HOMELESS Indian girl from Calcutta, about 13 years old (she was in Japan on some charity exchange or something). She could do her multiplication tables from 1x1 all the way to 99 x 99 !!! I have to tell you, I was very impressed.

... Politics and Idealism have invaded American schools. In my humble opinion, that might be the place to start looking should you wish to fix them. (to say nothing of of schools with zero dollars to work with, of course).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:44 AM

FLETCH2

My school banned pocket calculators and instead taught tricks in mental arithmatic (99x99 can be solved by doing 99X100 (easy) then subtracting 99) Kids actually set other kids math problems during breaks which was interesting.

As for Gile's library, well the likelyhood that what you are studying may be out to kill you is a great motivator. I am told that this is the way subjects were traditionally taught at Oxford and some of the better public (private) schools in the UK.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by haolehaole:

One thing is for sure - America is cranking out a herd of relative morons.

This should win a medal. It cracked me up. I think it might be the truest thing ever said on this forum.

You're right, money won't help our public schools. Nothing will help the public schools. But there must be enough money for private schools to make the idea feasible.

Quote:

As for Gile's library, well the likelyhood that what you are studying may be out to kill you is a great motivator.

True. Maybe they can study global warming and terrorism. Or their own govt. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

You're right, money won't help our public schools. Nothing will help the public schools. But there must be enough money for private schools to make the idea feasible.

Actually, I wasn't going to comment on this thread, contrary to Chrisisall's invitation, if only because as an actual teacher I get worked up over this subject. The fact that the majority of people that complain about our teachers and our public school system have never taught nor know what it takes to teach usually turns my stomach before the dialogue ever starts.

There's a lot that will help the public schools, you just will never see it done in this country, and money is at the top of the list. The current system for funding the schools (local taxes)creates a system where inner city and impoverished schools are always fighting for revenue and not getting it. A wealthy school district has triple the revenue at a third of the tax base - which is why wealthy school districts produce better educated kids. But you will never - NEVER - see anyone in a wealthy district say, "you know what, share our money equally with that poor district, they need computers too."

Someone brought up calculators. Standardized tests nowadays allow students to use calculators - but what of the kids that can't afford them? They do worse on standardized tests because they're using scratch paper instead of a machine that does the work for them (and don't tell me this isn't true, I've seen it with my own eyes). The kids that can't afford them come from generally poorer districts, and low performance puts said district on a watch list for NCLB with a threat for funding cuts and federal takeover. It's lose/lose for the schools.

Teachers get classes of over 30 kids (one teacher I know had 40 kids in a room) and are expected to get them all on task as well as provide extra attention for IDEA or 504 (special needs stuff) kids. Why? Because the money isn't in the budget to hire more teachers. Contrary to popular opinion, by the way, teachers work very, very hard for very little pay. As much as 6 years of full time schooling on average just to do the job, into a career that people don't see the value in paying for (we spend more time with your children than you do - how much do you think your time is worth?) We don't get "summers off," we spend them in prep, teaching summer school, coaching, and seminars.

I hate to break you out of your laugh about how rotten the schools are Dreamtrove, and there's a lot more I could rant about, but I want to get back to what you said. You said no amount of money can fix it, and I say as someone who sees schools every day, you're flat wrong. If impoverished districts (namely anything not suburban 'white flight' districts) had the resources that some schools get, education in this country would be a different story. I stand by my original statement - the 300 billion spent in Iraq for no good reason pumped into our schools would make a HUGE difference.

**Addendum - Subjects I decided not to rant about:
- Lack of parental involvement
- Lawsuits against teachers by the religious right
- Lawsuits against teachers by the ignorant (notice yet why teachers and administrations play it safe?)
- Political pressure on classroom material
- etc.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:39 AM

And what I forgot to comment on - your idea about private schooling. What's next, limiting the right to vote to only a select group? Because that's the ultimate end of the private school argument (call it a slippery slope if you will, but I don't think so). Schools exist, at least in the ideal, to produce productive citizens capable of participating in the political process. If you make all schooling private, in a learn-by-paying program, how will the lowest end of the spectrum receive an education? Especially at the rate the government tries to cut funding to school programs (gifted programs were cut all over the country this year and last).

So, you want a private, pay system to educate the citizens, and you think that will be a better idea? A nation of illiterates? As easily led as the majority of the population is now, and you think letting them know less is to be admired. What would the response be, besides restricting the vote? Because otherwise you'd have nothing but demagoguery and control by fundamentalist groups (look at other countries that have low literacy rates). I think that before that happened in the US, we'd become an oligarchy - rule by the educated elite (rich).

/Takes off tinfoil hat
//Still thinks privatization is a bad idea

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HaoLeHaoLe:

... Money is not the answer, however, in public schools. I have no links to offer, but I have read time and again about the disparity bewteen amounts spent per child in certain districts and the grades of the kids there.

You say this, and then you say this

Quote:
In my humble opinion, that might be the place to start looking should you wish to fix them. (to say nothing of of schools with zero dollars to work with, of course).

How will giving money to schools with zero dollars to work with not help them? Or did you mean to say money is the answer? If you would like to see some info about actual disparities between performance as it relates to per-child spending, I would suggest you check out Jon Kozol's work. But to say money won't help but then point out that some places have no money (and by having none are broken) is a contradiction.

I don't dispute that home schooling works, provided the educator in the home is qualified (your sister the math whiz teaching them math, that's fine). But one area that home schooling has a major simultaneous positive and negative is in values education. I can't get away with much in the way of trying to instill values into kids, otherwise I get a big fat lawsuit because someone gets their panties in a snit; at home you can teach whatever values you think you want them to learn. On the other hand, some use home schooling to indoctrinate their children into things they would be better off avoiding - people who really know zero about education (Creationists, white supremacists, etc.) but don't want their kids to mingle with the "trash."

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:56 PM

HAOLEHAOLE

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
How will giving money to schools with zero dollars to work with not help them? Or did you mean to say money is the answer? If you would like to see some info about actual disparities between performance as it relates to per-child spending, I would suggest you check out Jon Kozol's work. But to say money won't help but then point out that some places have no money (and by having none are broken) is a contradiction.

I don't dispute that home schooling works, provided the educator in the home is qualified (your sister the math whiz teaching them math, that's fine). But one area that home schooling has a major simultaneous positive and negative is in values education. I can't get away with much in the way of trying to instill values into kids, otherwise I get a big fat lawsuit because someone gets their panties in a snit; at home you can teach whatever values you think you want them to learn. On the other hand, some use home schooling to indoctrinate their children into things they would be better off avoiding - people who really know zero about education (Creationists, white supremacists, etc.) but don't want their kids to mingle with the "trash."

... Well there it is, "straight from the horse's mouth". Who better qualified to comment than a teacher in the public school system?

... Thanks for that, SevenPercent. Kind of shuts people up, myself included, to hear a teacher comment on the topic.

... So it IS money. Got it. ... But we're talking about money the families have as well. Poor kids don't have calculators, etc... In Ohio, the Cleveland school system (Cleveland East Distric) had many millions poured into it after many years of near non-performance . . . they had the highest dollar per student rate in the state. Even with all that money, results failed to appear. That was my point: "Money is not the answer."

... But I bow to your position and your experience on the topic. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HaoLeHaoLe:
... So it IS money. Got it. ... But we're talking about money the families have as well. Poor kids don't have calculators, etc... In Ohio, the Cleveland school system (Cleveland East Distric) had many millions poured into it after many years of near non-performance . . . they had the highest dollar per student rate in the state. Even with all that money, results failed to appear. That was my point: "Money is not the answer."

Thanks. Maybe I should have added an addendum to my point, which you did for me I think. It's not just money, but money spent well. Often, the school board and the state are at odds over how to spend the money, and it doesn't (at least imo) get allotted as it should. Believe me, if teachers got to make the budget, not admins, you can bet your ass you'd see results.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:21 PM

SERGEANTX

I'm coming at this issue from a somewhat different perspective. Perhaps I'm so far in left field we can't find enough common ground for discussion but, Sevenpercent, I'm actually interested in your point of view on this.

My issues with the status quo of education center around the generally accepted notion that institutionalizing children is a good way to educate them. I don't buy that. I've seen many kids, including my own, find fantastic results by dropping out of school and pursuing education as a goal rather than 'schooling'. I'm curious what you think about this.

As a disclaimer, I'll say up front that I realize certain children will be at a disadvantage because of poverty, or other circumstance, and I have no problem with helping them out as public policy. But I don't accept the notion that the average parent can't be trusted to make sure their children get a decent education.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:25 PM

7%,

Have you read nothing I've posted?

You should know that I used to teach special ed. and that I posted about the difference in funding about 7 times on this forum and no one ever said "oh, let's correct that."

Anyway, of course I wasn't blaming teachers for this disaster, I was one, my sister still is one. The system is a disaster. It's totally bureaucratic socialism.

No system without competition ever evolves. This one sure doesn't. For some reason liberals love the idea that private school should be only for the rich. Well screw that.

If we had actual competition, then actual education would evolve, and people would not be illiterate, and maybe they'd be educated. I've worked briefly in private schools on temp gigs, and let me tell you, the quality of education wasn't just a little better, it was stunningly better. It was night and day better. And the teachers were the same, me an my friend, but the students there actually wanted to learn, and knew stuff, and had resources. And this school was a $10K/year school, 2/3 of the budget of a NY public school.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Private schools have the advantage of picking and choosing their stdents. Public schools - not so much. It's similar to public health v private.

In either case the term is 'cherry picking'.

If public schools got to select out only the best students and weed out all the rest, I'm sure their costs would go down and their success rates go up.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
7%,

Have you read nothing I've posted?

You should know that I used to teach special ed. and that I posted about the difference in funding about 7 times on this forum and no one ever said "oh, let's correct that."

I don't read every thread, nor do I always comment when I see something I think is incorrect. I don't have a perfect memory even if I had seen it before, so I did not know you taught special ed. Some topics I pay attention to more than others, and if you said it in one of the "others," I probably missed it.

Quote:
No system without competition ever evolves. This one sure doesn't. For some reason liberals love the idea that private school should be only for the rich.

How would it not be? Explain to me how, as a fiscally conservative person opposed to big government (as I know you are from most threads I see), you are going to make it so that everyone in America receives the education that they should have (I'd say are entitled to)? You want private schools, but explain to me how the poor are going to pay to get their kids into good schools? Competition isn't going to change that.

Quote:
And the teachers were the same, me an my friend, but the students there actually wanted to learn, and knew stuff, and had resources. And this school was a $10K/year school, 2/3 of the budget of a NY public school.

That is nice for those kids. But what of the kids who don't have the resources, who were never taught that learning was important, or who are ignored by their parents? Privatization will throw kids like that right out of the system, and not look back to see where they landed. That's exactly the kind of kids that I see every day and try to turn into good and decent American citizens; kids who might not be good at school but who can at least read contracts and do well in interviews. I try to instill in them a love of learning and give them a chance they probably didn't get at home. Privatization is nothing more than a rich man's shell game; the poor will always be trying one second too late to find where the funding is. You're preaching a system guaranteed to leave some kids out while condemning a system that, while flawed, at least tries to help everyone (although without the necessary resources to do so).

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:06 PM

Rue,

Possibly, but I strongly doubt that these were the guiding factors. I think these private school students were selected on the basis of parents' income, not students' merit.

George W. Bush would not be an easy student to have in your classroom, esp. if you've read the stories.

I think if anything, fear of being kicked out helps a little. But the real guiding thing here is superior methods. A teacher in a rigid system can do only so much within the confines of the public school structure, in comparison to what they could do in another structure, say montessori, or whatever. There is room for competition and many ways of doing it. Socialism is a disaster in every other walk of life, I don't see why we stick with this socialized school structure. Same teachers, same students, different structure, things might change. Attitudes might change. It's at least worth trying both models side by side with equal govt. funding to test and see if maybe it might help. Something's gotta.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm coming at this issue from a somewhat different perspective. Perhaps I'm so far in left field we can't find enough common ground for discussion but, Sevenpercent, I'm actually interested in your point of view on this.

Nah. I can't recall once where you and I couldn't find common ground. I don't think this thread will be any different.

Quote:
My issues with the status quo of education center around the generally accepted notion that institutionalizing children is a good way to educate them. I don't buy that.

And I don't disagree. Which is why I'm against 30 kids or more in a classroom. Students learn best through small group or one-on-one interaction, it becomes institutionalizing when teachers have to mass produce lessons because they don't have the time for the one-on-ones, and have to cut out values ed because of lawsuits. But again, as per my point, more money for more teachers means less kids per room, means more interaction, means better learning. Can't get much simpler.

Quote:
I've seen many kids, including my own, find fantastic results by dropping out of school and pursuing education as a goal rather than 'schooling'. I'm curious what you think about this.

But I don't accept the notion that the average parent can't be trusted to make sure their children get a decent education.

I come out pretty hard vs. homeschooling, but hear me out. I know what I had to do to become a teacher, and the requirements have tightened even further in the few years I've been out. English teachers in my state need an Eng. degree, a speech degree, and a teaching certificate just to teach reading. We have to know how to teach reading as it relates to every other subject (and the new 'reading across the curriculum' thing has even math teachers trying to teach reading now).

So, here's my point. I know all that I know (and my specialty is writing), and did all that work, and all I am qualified to teach is English (well, I'm also certed in Soc. Studies, but I don't actually want to teach it). But I know next to nothing about math or science (I couldn't even answer the question about mollusks in this thread, and I'm a college graduate). I'm sure there are a lot of smart folks out there home schooling their kids. But do they have that level of knowledge in their subjects? I could home school my child in Eng., but I'm not qualified to teach them math - so how could I home school them in math? I'd send my kids to public or private school where I knew each instructor that my child had held at least a college graduate level knowledge base in their subject field.

I don't object to home schooling at an elementary level, certainly, but after that I think the subjects should (at the least) begin to become too complex for the average person to teach at home (especially high school level subjects like physics and calculus). I just don't see the average American possessing those skills - you know the people you see every day at work or hear on talk radio; do you think they have those skills?

Feel free to carry this to email, Sarge, if you want - that way we don't clog the thread (and I'll include anyone else that wants in to the response).

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:43 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
...I'm sure there are a lot of smart folks out there home schooling their kids. But do they have that level of knowledge in their subjects?...
...I just don't see the average American possessing those skills - you know the people you see every day at work or hear on talk radio; do you think they have those skills?

You seem to be making a common assumption about homeschooling that I haven't seen in reality, that its all about educating your kids yourself. We didn't approach it like that at all. We just looked for whatever resources we needed and found them to be very easy to access. We were fortunate in that we live in a college town, which made tutors and ad hoc educational opportunities more readily available, but I'm not sure our experience was completely dependent on that bit of good fortune.

What we did was probably more properly referred to as 'unschooling'. Our situation was far from ideal. I'm a single father and was working full time. But when my oldest son came to me with his overwhelming frustration with junior high school, it hit home. I hated school and have spent many years trying to get past the bad lessons I learned there. I couldn't bear to see my sons go through the same crap.

So he dropped out. He worked through some homeschooling books in biology and history at home. I supervised and helped him find resources for the things he was interested in. He emailed local teachers and professors, experts on the internet, forming many fruitful relationships he still maintains. When he was fourteen we forged papers saying he was sixteen and signed him up at the local community college for several classes.

My son's experiences weren't always productive or ideal. It was spotty and I'd say there were definitely things he missed out on by avoiding high school - I'm aware of the benefit of a skilled educator. But what he gained was a sense of control over his own education. He gained confidence in his own judgement and an optimism that his interests were worth following. These are lessons and values that I don't see supported in traditional schools where playing the system and satisfying 'requirements' override a students natural desire to learn.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Possibly, but I strongly doubt that these were the guiding factors. I think these private school students were selected on the basis of parents' income, not students' merit.

There is unfortunately a strong correlation between parents income and academic readiness. Early reading, readiness for school, role models, involved parents, the knowledge that college is ultimately available (and expected), go up with income levels.

On the flip side, imagine you are living in, oh, let's say Compton, CA. Probably have a single parent home, no one sitting and reading to you, gangsters as your sole role model for success, chaotic life, and no expectation that anything different will be available to you. Now imagine a classroom where the vast majority are such children.

I don't care how innovative the teaching method, it would take a lot to overcome these handicaps. (Though it does happen, Jaime Escalante for example.)

I agree on some things. One is that with large school systems there are inefficiencies of scale, as well as efficiencies. There are other issues as well. Bush's 'no child left behind' program is underfunded and misguided. There is no concerted effort to study which teaching methods work best and what curriculum to pursue. (Though there is good evidence that bilingual education doesn't work and intensive English immersion is the better path to pursue, that teaching reading by modified phonetics works better than 'whole word' recognition, and that as a country the US is still stupidly debating evolution.)

OTOH, with large scale could come rapid progress in educational techniques and efficient curricula, if there were a concerted (apolitical) effort.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:59 AM

Quote:
There is unfortunately a strong correlation between parents income and academic readiness. Early reading, readiness for school, role models, involved parents, the knowledge that college is ultimately available (and expected), go up with income levels.

Rue, I'm not sure that this holds up. Just a gut feeling. During the time I was in school, the richest kids were not the best students, and the same was true when I taught. Of course that was spec. ed. I don't know about gifted students. I would imagine there is probably some corruption involved because I would be stunned if rich parents didn't go the extra mile to have their kids be in gifted programs.

Bush has no concept of education at all, I exhibit no surprise. I think his father had a lot of ideas.

But in general, I guess my main point is that it's not up to us to define what's 'good enough.' The Koreans and the Japanese define it, and if we don't match that, then we lose. So I do feel that in order for the best method do evolve, the doors need to be open. Competition needs to happen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Rue, I'm not sure that this holds up.

Unfortunately, DT, Rue's right; the research that's out there backs it up (which is a sad fact in this country). Check out Kozol's work, and I think Alfie Kohn did some stuff related to this as well.

Quote:
I don't know about gifted students.

Another scary figure; when gifted programs are cut, or AP classes aren't offered, the numbers show that students considered in the gifted range have just as high a dropout level as those with various LD's - 5% to 5.2%. For gifted students, the pull-out programs seem to work best, contrary to the inclusion you generally see for LD. Having no outlets for their skills can have a deep psychological impact on gifted kids and cause them severe socialization problems - That's partly why I am so upset that funding for gifted kids has gone right out the window lately in the US.

Quote:
Bush has no concept of education at all, I exhibit no surprise.

On this we have total agreement. When you put out a mandate (NCLB) that isn't worth the paper it's printed on and then underfund it, you are definitely not the education president.

Quote:
I guess my main point is that it's not up to us to define what's 'good enough.'

'Good enough' should be up to the educators, working with cooperative parents, working with proper funding, if the world was perfect. But it isn't. Each day I go in I ask myself, what can I do to make these kids lives just a little better; what can I do to make sure they have the skills they need to achieve. It's the best I can offer them, really, given the system that I have to work with. I just don't feel privatizing the system is the way to go.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:29 PM

CHRISISALL

In my thirties, after years of having one piece of crap used car after another, and constantly breaking down on highways, I INVESTED some cash in a new, well made American economy car. Saved me trouble, time, AND money in the long run.
Our government needs to respond similarly to the educational system's needs.

Good investments get good returns. The more smart people a country has, the better, right? (Unless there is a quite different agenda...sheep shouldn't get too smart- it's been said.)

Chrisisall, cynical of why schools choke while military entanglements thrive...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:41 PM