Education, Today vs. Then...

[JettaKnight]

I have a somewhat simplistic but seemingly effective way to solve many these issues. I suggest that much time can be saved if the teacher is assigned a class of students and rather than moving the students to another teacher each year, move them all together. The time a teacher is paid while the students are on "summer break" can be utilized for the "continuing education" teachers are required to participate in so that they may be prepared to move to the next level. No teacher will acquire "tenure" until they have graduated a class of students. This will be a non starter for the unions without question however. I realize this only solve SOME of the issues, others must be addressed much differently, legislatively.

Your plan is novel and has some merit. But, it's like asking an engineer to quit focusing on building the landing gear an instead build the whole airplane.

• Teachers right now customize their classrooms, curriculum, instruction style, classroom management, etc. around working with students at a particular stage in development.
• It takes more than a summer to prepare and new grade level and excel in teaching it. There's a big difference in knowing the subject matter and being able to teach it effectively.
• Many teachers in upper grades specialize in one subject and, in effect, become experts. There's no way a French teacher should teach chemistry.
• Giving students different teachers as they grow can cut both ways. There's a period where the new student and teacher much form a working relationship and time is lost there. But, giving student the opportunity to interact with many adults actually strengthens them by allowing them the opportunity to experience many different relationships and interactions.

And like someone else said, there no tenure in K-12. There's a seniority system written into contracts, but even that is now coming under fire as an impediment.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Why? Oh, I know, it's just plumb unfair that some kids have crappy parents. And it's an unproven argument that society would somehow become a gathering of drooling idiots without the government to step in and protect us from ourselves. But aside from that, why? Societies have operated quite well without universal, compulsory education for all children, and there has been no lack of discovery/achievement in any field for this lack.

I have yet to hear a compelling reason to justify the existence of government schools. I feel for kids whose parents suck so royally that they (the parents) don't care if their children receive an education, any education, but there are a lot of parental choices I oppose. Should I impose governmental institutions or laws to "fix" them? Someone else's children aren't my responsibility. It's my prerogative to spend my resources on them or not. It is not the place of the government to decide that for me.

I understand the arguments for government education. I just find that they fail to pass the litmus test of acceptability. Imagine if I suggested that all children should have a religious (Christian, of course) education to provide a firm foundation for their moral compass, and then confiscated some of your wealth to do it. If parents instilled in their children a proper moral compass in the first place, it wouldn't be needed, right?





Fear not. I'll lay money on homeschoolers over government ed students any day of the week. Students who excel in government schools do so in spite of not because of them.



They could do way better. And "decent" is NOT a word I would use to describe the success rate of government education.

The fact that we have actually achieved what we originally set out to do is a pretty compelling reason for the continued existence of public education in my eyes.

When you view education from a wider perspective, the countries with the best educational performances result from public school systems.

Access to public education directly correlates with greatly increased rates of literacy, and numerous other core educational metrics.

If you consider it your responsibility or not - public education has in many ways had a positive impact on your life. You may not send your children to public schools, but the widespread distribution of information that has come to pass as a result of an increase in the frequency of literacy alone has improved the human condition.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The fact that they have actually achieved what they originally set out to do is a pretty compelling reason for their continued existence in my eyes.

When you view education from a wider perspective, the countries with the best educational performances result from public school systems.

Access to public education directly correlates with greatly increased rates of literacy, and numerous other core educational metrics.

So then you feel the public school system should continue with their social and political agenda? Twisting historical fact for the advancement of a set of values and beliefs that may or may not mesh well with those of any given family?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So then you feel the public school system should continue with their social and political agenda? Twisting historical fact for the advancement of a set of values and beliefs that may or may not mesh well with those of any given family?

I believe the public school system should continue to teach the core fundamentals of education.

 

[giovani]

So then you feel the public school system should continue with their social and political agenda? Twisting historical fact for the advancement of a set of values and beliefs that may or may not mesh well with those of any given family?

Historical "fact" is always twisted it is usualy one sided , told by the winner.

 

[88GT]

Historical "fact" is always twisted it is usualy one sided , told by the winner.

Which makes it all the more important not to let the government be the arbiter and disseminator of that history.

 

[88GT]

The fact that we have actually achieved what we originally set out to do is a pretty compelling reason for the continued existence of public education in my eyes.

When you view education from a wider perspective, the countries with the best educational performances result from public school systems.

Access to public education directly correlates with greatly increased rates of literacy, and numerous other core educational metrics.

If you consider it your responsibility or not - public education has in many ways had a positive impact on your life. You may not send your children to public schools, but the widespread distribution of information that has come to pass as a result of an increase in the frequency of literacy alone has improved the human condition.

I have one question for you: how is this any different than paying for someone else's medical care? Substitute medical care for government education and then tell me why one is acceptable an acceptable reason to rob from the people and the other is not.

I take issue with your logic that my life has been positively impacted. You don't know what it would have looked like without it.

But hey, it's easy to justify anything when you adopt an "ends justify the means" approach.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I have one question for you: how is this any different than paying for someone else's medical care? Substitute medical care for government education and then tell me why one is acceptable an acceptable reason to rob from the people and the other is not.

I take issue with your logic that my life has been positively impacted. You don't know what it would have looked like without it.

But hey, it's easy to justify anything when you adopt an "ends justify the means" approach.

I can make the case that an increased frequency of literacy among a population leads to technological advancement, and a better overall quality of life. It is actually a fairly easy point to make - and if you believe the point to be untrue, then I would ask you:

Why teach reading and writing at all?

The answer to the above question, and the reasons that we value the core fundamentals of education, explains the why. The how is explained by comparing the civilizations that have made it a priority to grant their citizenry access to the core fundamentals of education.

As a result of implementing a public education system, we have improved upon the core educational metrics we set out to. Comparing countries with a formal public education system to areas of the world that lack them contrasts the results of both approaches. The areas of the world that have not created a public education system - or where public education is not widespread - remain third world societies, and have proved to lack the great strides in technological advancements and innovations that our society benefits from.

Can you make the case that paying for someone's health care has similar positive impacts on our society? Without that important distinction, your analogy does not hold true.

Investing in public education is not as simple as investing in an individual - it is an investment in the capabilities of our society as a whole - and even if you dislike the notion, you benefit from the resulting innovation and technology.

My approach is that investing in the core fundamentals of education have historically yielded major positive results. That being the case, it would be foolish to not continue to invest in education - since we would be selling ourselves short as a society. If you would like to equate that to simply "the ends justify the means", then that is fine - because when it come to education, our return is greater than our investment.

 

[88GT]

I can make the case that an increased frequency of literacy among a population leads to technological advancement, and a better overall quality of life. It is actually a fairly easy point to make - and if you believe the point to be untrue, then I would ask you:

Why teach reading and writing at all?

The answer to the above question, and the reasons that we value the core fundamentals of education, explains the why. The how is explained by comparing the civilizations that have made it a priority to grant their citizenry access to the core fundamentals of education.

As a result of implementing a public education system, we have improved upon the core educational metrics we set out to. Comparing countries with a formal public education system to areas of the world that lack them contrasts the results of both approaches. The areas of the world that have not created a public education system - or where public education is not widespread - remain third world societies, and have proved to lack the great strides in technological advancements and innovations that our society benefits from.

Because there was no technological/scientific innovation prior to government education?

We've made about a 20 percentage points jump in literacy at what cost? (We had about an 80% literacy rate post-Civil War; it's now nearly 100%.) And for what purpose? Those who want to will find a way. I could make the argument that spending resources to teach literacy to all is a waste. Let those that want it, get it. End compulsory education and I will stop harping about having to pay for everybody else. Otherwise, end government monopoly of education and make those who wish to participate in it, do so at whatever cost is charged and let the rest of us go our merry way with our own educational choices on our own dime.

Can you make the case that paying for someone's health care has similar positive impacts on our society? Without that important distinction, your analogy does not hold true.

Not without jumping through the same hoops you've passed through to make the claim that government education has resulted in an improved society. But that doesn't weaken my argument. It weakens yours.

It does because I don't recall government being in the business of making life universally better for everybody by intrusive regulation and control. To say nothing of the fact that I disagree with the claim that compulsory government education has had any impact on society other than increasing control and raised literacy rates, which on their own mean nothing. I reject your claim that a perceived and unproven improvement in society is sufficient to continue the boondoggle of tax-payer funded compulsory education administered, controlled, and manipulated by the government.

Investing in public education is not as simple as investing in an individual - it is an investment in the capabilities of our society as a whole - and even if you dislike the notion, you benefit from the resulting innovation and technology.

Prove it. Show me how my life would be infinitely less positive without compulsory government education. Your entire premises hinges on the assumption that without it, the advancements and innovations of today would not have happened. It is an opinion without evidence, illogically deducted from your other premise that literacy and 3rd grade math skills are sufficient in themselves to create a thriving society with said advancement and innovation.

And since when did society become the unit of concern in this country? It would be better for everybody if we all had unfettered access to medical care in this country regardless of our personal ability to pay for it. And yet I have this sneaking suspicion that you oppose the socialized model of health care we are moving toward. What's the difference?

My approach is that investing in the core fundamentals of education have historically yielded major positive results. That being the case, it would be foolish to not continue to invest in education - since we would be selling ourselves short as a society. If you would like to equate that to simply "the ends justify the means", then that is fine - because when it come to education, our return is greater than our investment.

How in the world does an ever-dumber electorate with an ever-increasing reliance on government come at all close to being worth the investment, let alone surpassing it.


I think an honest discussion of what qualifies as literate should be part of this conversation as well. Reading the menu at McDonald's is literate. But it's not the same level of literacy that allows one to read Madame Bovary, War and Peace, The Descent of Man.

Hell, take INGO. Presumably every one who posts/lurks here is literate by minimum state/federal standards. But you can't tell me it has escaped your notice that some haven't the foggiest clue how to punctuate, spell, or form coherent sentences. The formation of a logical argument escapes half. And the ability to tell the difference between "People should have the right to be asshats" and "People should be asshats" is achievable by even less.

If that's the end result of compulsory government education, we have a problem. Your children, your responsibility. Society will be what it will be, but it will free. And that's far better than slaves living in the Taj Mahal, don't you think?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Society became a concern when we formed one. Like it or not, we live in a society.

You claim that I have no evidence to back up the "assumption" that education has improved our quality of life - but you completely ignore the areas of the world that did not implement similar forms of education.

In what areas of the world has innovation flourished? What form of education do they utilize? Do they utilize public formal education, or an "everyone is on their own" brand of education?

In all of the world, show me this awesome magical unicorn snowflake of a land where public education has not been implemented, but innovation is anywhere near as frequent as the areas where a public school system exists.

Your claim lies in the basis that it could have happened - but areas of the world exist where it could have happened - and historically, it never does happen. You argue as if it is a negative that we cannot observe.... but while we cannot take into account every variable, this is not completely true, because there are areas of the world that have taken that approach - and they are significantly behind the innovation and quality of life of first world countries.

The improvement in the quality of life in our society is the huge difference between this, and your idea that single payer health care is somehow the same thing. Again, if you can make the case that it benefits society as a whole, then I will call them similar - until then, it is a straw man.

I find it ironic that we are debating the "assumption" of increased communications and quality of life yielded by the public sector.... over a series of tubes that came into existence as a result of the public sector....

 

[ThrottleJockey]

88gt, since you brought up mcdonalds....have you noticed the menus have changed from words to pictures?

 

[GBuck]

88gt, since you brought up mcdonalds....have you noticed the menus have changed from words to pictures?

It's called marketing. Anyone in marketing will tell you that putting a picture of a juicy Steak, Egg and Cheese Bagel will sell more than block lettering. (yes, I am eating one as I type)

 

[buford t justice]

With America fast becoming a bilingual country "Engish and Spanish" I think we will see much more pictoral signage.

look at the controls of your car or truck, they no longer have any word descriptions so that they can be shipped around the world without modification

 

[JettaKnight]

look at the controls of your car or truck, they no longer have any word descriptions so that they can be shipped around the world without modification

Nope - wrong.

The symbols are defined by NHTSA; they don't necessarily comply with the symbols used in other countries.

Why use symbols instead of words? Because the brain can decode and comprehend symbols faster and easier than words.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Nope - wrong.

The symbols are defined by NHTSA; they don't necessarily comply with the symbols used in other countries.

Why use symbols instead of words? Because the brain can decode and comprehend symbols faster and easier than words.

Actually, if this were true, there would be uniformity between manufacturers. There isn't.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

It's called marketing. Anyone in marketing will tell you that putting a picture of a juicy Steak, Egg and Cheese Bagel will sell more than block lettering. (yes, I am eating one as I type)

Also not true. If an individual goes to mcdonalds for a cheeseburger and a large fry, but only sees pictures of other items with no text giving the avail. of a burger and large fry and the prices for each, they will leave. I even stick around long enough to tell them why I'm leaving.

 

[GBuck]

You leave because you don't see a picture? Now were getting to the root of the problem. You feel the education system failed you. If you need to have a picture to ordered an item you are in the minority. The pictures are for advertising, nothing else.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

You leave because you don't see a picture? Now were getting to the root of the problem. You feel the education system failed you. If you need to have a picture to ordered an item you are in the minority. The pictures are for advertising, nothing else.

You really are only 25 huh? Public school, leo.....READ what I wrote VERY SLOWLY.

Also not true. If an individual goes to mcdonalds for a cheeseburger and a large fry, but only sees pictures of other items with no text giving the avail. of a burger and large fry and the prices for each, they will leave. I even stick around long enough to tell them why I'm leaving.

There, I made the important part red for your dumb ass so it doesn't escape you this time. Now I'll say it again for the ignorant and reading disabled.
IF THERE ARE ONLY PICTURES OF THE HEADLINE ITEMS, AND NO TEXT TELLING ME THAT WHAT I WANT IS EVEN AVAILABLE....You see, that board is what we in the real world refer to as a menu, heck it's even called a MENU BOARD, it is a list of the items available. When the text is replaced by pictures and only SOME of the items available appear, it is no longer a menu and becomes little more than a billboard containing ADVERTSEMENTS. I've already decided to eat there, now stop insulting my intelligence and show me the menu. It's like when you go to a c-store and they presume you are too stupid to know what you want, example:
I would like ONE pack of marlboro reds in a box please....
ARE YOU SURE YOU DON"T WANT TO BUY TWO SO YOU CAN SAVE A DOLLAR?
No, I asked for ONE PACK PLEASE.
Okay, would you like to buy three candy bars for $5 on sale?
NO, I SAW THE SIGN AND WALKED PAST IT BECAUSE I AM HERE FOR CIGARETTES.......

THE SUGGESTIVE SELLING TACTICS WORK WELL ON THE IGNORANT AND UNCERTAIN, BUT THAT IS NOT ME. I bet you fall for it every time don't you dumbass? Your post is a PRIME example of the point I'm making with this thread. The total breakdown and failure of our public school system. It seems that it happened about 15 years or less after I left school.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

It's called marketing. Anyone in marketing will tell you that putting a picture of a juicy Steak, Egg and Cheese Bagel will sell more than block lettering. (yes, I am eating one as I type)

I'll even bet you actually think it is steak too right? I mean that's what it says right? GET A GRIP.

 

[GBuck]

So again, you leave a McDonald's because there isn't text saying thy have hamburgers? Ok. Enjoy your banning.