[Fandrew]

Ok, so for the most part, the No Child Left Behind Act has flopped. However, I do agree with the theory that public education needs a complete overhaul, but perhaps using different methods than standardized tests scores. I shall return to this thread later tonight in order to outline my basic philosophies for an overhaul.

In the meantime, please post you own thoughts about what's good and bad with the current public education system.



And on another note.
As an education major, I'm convinced that roughly 90% of what I am being taught it completely useless in the field.

[OneHope]

Is it true that in the US tax dollars from one area get put into the schools in that area leading to rich areas having better schools and more funding than poorer areas?

[Katze]

Public education it's self isn't bad. What's bad is what our current, federally mandated system has come to.

It would be one thing for a group of people who live near-by to organize a public school. It's another for the federal government, who doesn't have the constitutional power to do so, to mandate what we teach and how.

Personally, I was homeschooled, so I don't exactly have a whole lot of experience in the public education arena, but I think a lot of the problems could be solved by localizing the schools.

[JerryLove]

Ok, so for the most part, the No Child Left Behind Act has flopped. However, I do agree with the theory that public education needs a complete overhaul, but perhaps using different methods than standardized tests scores

In a martial arts discussion, someone once asked me what I do to prepare for a test or competition.

I said "nothing. If I did something different to prepare we wouldn't really be testing what I normally do".

The same problem exists here. The tests aren't used to determine progress and find area for improvement... they are used to determine pass or fail. So now we are teaching to the test, which really invalidates the test itself as anything but a measure of how well we prepped for the test.

Is it true that in the US tax dollars from one area get put into the schools in that area leading to rich areas having better schools and more funding than poorer areas?

No.

It would be one thing for a group of people who live near-by to organize a public school. It's another for the federal government, who doesn't have the constitutional power to do so, to mandate what we teach and how.

Firstly: I agree that it's beyond the powers granted to the fed.

I don't agree that it should be. Local school systems are even more rife with corruption, and have far less oversight, than the federal or state-level systems. They lack resources and expertise.

Personally, I was homeschooled, so I don't exactly have a whole lot of experience in the public education arena, but I think a lot of the problems could be solved by localizing the schools.

I think more power needs to be put in the hands of individual teachers and principals... particularly in terms of how to best allocate resources within the school. I disagree with removing state-level oversight.

[Katze]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Firstly: I agree that it's beyond the powers granted to the fed.

I don't agree that it should be. Local school systems are even more rife with corruption, and have far less oversight, than the federal or state-level systems. They lack resources and expertise.

I think more power needs to be put in the hands of individual teachers and principals... particularly in terms of how to best allocate resources within the school. I disagree with removing state-level oversight.

The federal government was created to unite the 13 colonies against the British, and then to manage interstate issues. (we can get into constitutional history in another thread) Nowhere does the FEDERAL constitution talk about education.

Note, I never said anything about removing state oversight. Localizing the schools from the the supervision of the federal government to the states would be fine with me. But still, the difficulty remains here: The more oversight you have, the most it costs for that oversight, and the fewer of our tax dollars actually go to education. In New York, they spend more than $10,000 per student per year, and I guarantee you that that money isn't all textbooks and teacher's salaries. If we can re-vamp the system so that more of that money actually goes to the CLASSROOM I think we would have made a good first-step.

[Nate]

The problem with public education in America is parents in America.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Katze

The federal government was created to unite the 13 colonies against the British, and then to manage interstate issues. (we can get into constitutional history in another thread) Nowhere does the FEDERAL constitution talk about education.

I'm aware. That's why I agreed with you that it was beyond the given powers of the fed.

Note, I never said anything about removing state oversight. Localizing the schools from the the supervision of the federal government to the states would be fine with me.

We have states with populations far exceeding that of the entire US at the time of the US. I don't think that "state supervision" had anything to do with localization... it has to do with the idea that states are soverign.

But still, the difficulty remains here: The more oversight you have, the most it costs for that oversight, and the fewer of our tax dollars actually go to education.

And having to have 5 or so elected, paid schoolboard members, plus an administrator, plus a support staff, plus seperate administration, management, and HR for each district is more efficient than centralized?

In New York, they spend more than $10,000 per student per year, and I guarantee you that that money isn't all textbooks and teacher's salaries. If we can re-vamp the system so that more of that money actually goes to the CLASSROOM I think we would have made a good first-step.

So why do colleges cost more than $30,000 per year when they have less regulation? But again I agree. We need to try to trim as much as possible from money that doesn't go to the students and their direct needs.

[+SEAL+]

I like the idea of localizing education, simply because that's one less thing that federal politicians can use to fit their agendas. It also allows different areas to tailor educational topics and standards to a greater degree, with an oversight that the federal government can't have. It's all about subsidiarity. Never delegate to the higher powers what the lower powers are capable of doing.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by OneHope

Is it true that in the US tax dollars from one area get put into the schools in that area leading to rich areas having better schools and more funding than poorer areas?

That's a complicated question. US tax dollars are allocated heavily toward poorer schools. However, parent organizations (PTOs, etc.) in richer school districts can raise a whole lot of money, and rich school districts in rich towns can get local money that wouldn't be available to poor schools in poor towns (“bond issue”). Also, the good teachers tend to want to teach at the richer schools because the children are better-disciplined and have better-educated parents.

Originally Posted by JayCarrfan

As an education major, I'm convinced that roughly 90% of what I am being taught it completely useless in the field.

My wife and sister are teachers. Education is actually one of those fields where things are really program-dependent; whereas business classes are generally useless for future businesspersons, well-designed programs are actually decent for teachers (though bad programs – usually featured at “better” schools, oddly enough – are just terrible).

Originally Posted by JerryLove

In a martial arts discussion, someone once asked me what I do to prepare for a test or competition.

I said "nothing. If I did something different to prepare we wouldn't really be testing what I normally do".

The same problem exists here. The tests aren't used to determine progress and find area for improvement... they are used to determine pass or fail. So now we are teaching to the test, which really invalidates the test itself as anything but a measure of how well we prepped for the test.

My mother (a teacher) asked one of her co-workers how she got such good test results for her children. She said she had a simple, 12-step program that taught them how to pick the right answers without having a clue what the answer is about. For instance, the longest answer is usually the right one.

But I think the real problem with standardized testing is at the level of the philosophy of education. Any education serves the interests of its political and economic sponsors (i.e., the State), and so the purposes of standardized testing are political as opposed to truly educational. For that matter, in my spare time I prepare students for standardized college exams – SAT, GRE, etc. – and while they’re not State-sponsored they are clearly designed to promote some very specific thought patterns that serve State goals. E.g., imagination is suppressed.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think more power needs to be put in the hands of individual teachers and principals... particularly in terms of how to best allocate resources within the school. I disagree with removing state-level oversight.

One of the most important needs is on the personnel level. Teachers need to be left alone by useless, self-serving bureaucrats, yes, but bad teachers need to be fired. There is such a dearth of teachers – in part because it doesn’t pay enough, and in part because new teachers burn out within a couple of years due to the overbearing incompetence of State oversight – that just about anybody who is willing (and anybody who can speak Spanish) can teach and not get fired. The only way to get fired is to do something politically incorrect; being a horrible teacher won’t do anything to you. Of course, to fix this would require that we look at things qualitatively (which teacher is better), while the State looks at things quantitatively (which teacher’s students have better numbers), so I don’t even know if this is feasible.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

whereas business classes are generally useless for future businesspersons,

where do you get an idea like that, or am I just not understanding you?

My mother (a teacher) asked one of her co-workers how she got such good test results for her children. She said she had a simple, 12-step program that taught them how to pick the right answers without having a clue what the answer is about. For instance, the longest answer is usually the right one.

which is why I think all tests should be short answer.

One of the most important needs is on the personnel level. Teachers need to be left alone by useless, self-serving bureaucrats, yes, but bad teachers need to be fired. There is such a dearth of teachers – in part because it doesn’t pay enough, and in part because new teachers burn out within a couple of years due to the overbearing incompetence of State oversight – that just about anybody who is willing (and anybody who can speak Spanish) can teach and not get fired. The only way to get fired is to do something politically incorrect; being a horrible teacher won’t do anything to you. Of course, to fix this would require that we look at things qualitatively (which teacher is better), while the State looks at things quantitatively (which teacher’s students have better numbers), so I don’t even know if this is feasible.

i hate tenure, just because you've been there for a long time should not allow poor job performance. If I had been in my current job for 10 years and then I start to slack off and not produce the results I'm expected to produce, I will be fired. If a teacher's students are not being educated properly, the teacher should be fired, regardless of how long they have been there.

[JerryLove]

I like the idea of localizing education, simply because that's one less thing that federal politicians can use to fit their agendas.

instead it fits local agendas. Do you think local politics aren't political.

Of course, it's far easier for local agendas to slip under the radar... there are less people looking.

Also, there's less equality in education if schools are locally funded and administered.

Finally, there's more overhead.

It also allows different areas to tailor educational topics and standards to a greater degree, with an oversight that the federal government can't have. It's all about subsidiarity. Never delegate to the higher powers what the lower powers are capable of doing.

But I would argue that they are not as capable of beng efficient nor standard.

Further, I would assert that "State" is a pretty arbitrary cutoff in the dscussion of wherer the lmit "should" fall (obviously, I agree that the constitution doens't give it to the fed).

Also, the good teachers tend to want to teach at the richer schools because the children are better-disciplined and have better-educated parents.

IME the best teachers go either to the wealthiest schools or poorest ones, and the middle-class tends to missout... though I don't think enough go to the poorest ones to really make up for the need. Plus there's a generral shortage.

One of the most important needs is on the personnel level. Teachers need to be left alone by useless, self-serving bureaucrats, yes, but bad teachers need to be fired. There is such a dearth of teachers – in part because it doesn’t pay enough, and in part because new teachers burn out within a couple of years due to the overbearing incompetence of State oversight – that just about anybody who is willing (and anybody who can speak Spanish) can teach and not get fired.

There's just as much buerocratic incompotince at the school-bard level as at the state level... and that's assuming you have a good principal.

Then there's the too-long work day, indifferent parents, other teachers who damage your good work with a student, standardized testing, etc.

i hate tenure, just because you've been there for a long time should not allow poor job performance.

I won't go as far as "hate".

I think that there's an advantage at the university level, which allows professors to challenge the system. I don't think elementary teachers have that need.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Bryan

where do you get an idea like that, or am I just not understanding you?

It depends on the kind of business degree you're getting, definitely. For instance, if you're going to work in finance or investments then your degree is going to be pretty useful. But if you're getting an MBA there's at least a 70% chance that the MBA title is going to be ten times as useful to you as what you learned in the classes.

Originally Posted by Bryan

which is why I think all tests should be short answer.

Even if this were to work in theory, the cost of executing a test like this would be so high that it would be better to just pay good teachers and have them test their own students.

Originally Posted by Bryan

i hate tenure, just because you've been there for a long time should not allow poor job performance. If I had been in my current job for 10 years and then I start to slack off and not produce the results I'm expected to produce, I will be fired. If a teacher's students are not being educated properly, the teacher should be fired, regardless of how long they have been there.

Usually it's just because it's hard to fire a government employee. I'm a bit easier on professors and tenure because there are plenty of hoops to jump through to get tenure, so you've got to be producing what the university wants if you get to a tenured spot in the first place. And since most people who are professors could make more money in other fields, they're usually self-motivated, so if they're actually capable of being good then they're likely to be good.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

There's just as much buerocratic incompotince at the school-bard level as at the state level... and that's assuming you have a good principal.

Yeah, definitely, I was including principals and superintendents among the generally-incompetent bureaucrats.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

What's wrong with public education is that it is free. If parents had to pay for education they would make darned sure that their kids were learning. We have 20 yr olds at the high school who are just there because the parents don't want to deal with them and school is free babysitting. These kids do nothing but cause trouble and you can only "time them out" so many times and then you just have to let them sit there and sleep or whatever they want to do. The public schools are full of trouble makers that you can do little about. It's a shame that the students who are really they because they want to learn have so little opportunity to do so because so much of a class period is wasted by disruptive brats getting their "free" education.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

What's wrong with public education is that it is free. If parents had to pay for education they would make darned sure that their kids were learning. We have 20 yr olds at the high school who are just there because the parents don't want to deal with them and school is free babysitting. These kids do nothing but cause trouble and you can only "time them out" so many times and then you just have to let them sit there and sleep or whatever they want to do. The public schools are full of trouble makers that you can do little about. It's a shame that the students who are really they because they want to learn have so little opportunity to do so because so much of a class period is wasted by disruptive brats getting their "free" education.

whether parents realize it or not, they are paying for education, and given the state of some private schools, I'm not certain that tuition based education is that much better than public education.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

What's wrong with public education is that it is free. If parents had to pay for education they would make darned sure that their kids were learning. We have 20 yr olds at the high school who are just there because the parents don't want to deal with them and school is free babysitting. These kids do nothing but cause trouble and you can only "time them out" so many times and then you just have to let them sit there and sleep or whatever they want to do. The public schools are full of trouble makers that you can do little about. It's a shame that the students who are really they because they want to learn have so little opportunity to do so because so much of a class period is wasted by disruptive brats getting their "free" education.

Sir Mark Thatcher was the product of the finest schools in the UK, and he turned out to be a completely nefarious character, who, with his ne'er-do-well private school chums got into a load of trouble by trying to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea. Among those friends was Tony Mann, who co-founded the even less ethical Sandline International PMC with Tim Spicer. Sandline's operations were heavily financed by Rakesh Saxena, who was also a product of elite schools, as were Adnan Khashoggi and Amador Pastrana - the co-owners of the General Commerce Bank, which served specifically to finance their illicit deals (including the purchase of weapons that Spicer smuggled into Sierra Leone, in violation of a UN sanction) and money-laundering schemes. Upon Sandline's closure over its scandalous activities in Papua New Guinea and Sierra Leone, Spicer went on to form Aegis Defence Services with more products of Britain's best schools, Baron Peter Inge, Sir Roger Neil Wheeler and Sir John Birch. Aegis was the first PMC that was kicked out of Iraq for the habitual misconduct of its employees. Those ten or so men have caused a lot more trouble in the world than the deadbeat John Bender types who just sleep in class. Paying for education doesn't weed out trouble makers by any stretch of the imagination.