How bad are schools?

[nightwind]

Schools

Well, one of the problems we have in this country, is that we try and educate everyone. In other countries, many would already be in a coal mine, factory, food services, etc.

Education while touted as a priority by politicians, the public, etc. is really not. It looks to me like most politicians, are big business people, lawyers, insurance folks, and others who can afford to be a politician. So it looks to me that we need to find some way to get educators, or those who "really" care about education to get into politics.

Classrooms today basically look the same as they did years ago, with rows of desk, etc. Perhaps a revamping of the process needs to take place. Emphasis, needs to shift from learning trivia to critical thinking, problem solving, etc. This is going to take money. I think a specific "education" tax would be very worthwhile. But the problem here is that most Americans it seems don't want to pay any kind of tax, no matter what it's for. But everyone needs to pay, and not just property owners.

Now there seems to be enough teachers, but they drop out of the profession, because of low pay, lack of respect, lack of administrative support, no benefits, etc. It seems as if instead of offering good salaries and benefits that will draw people into the teaching profession, that states are just lowering the qualifications for being a teacher. It looks to me that they are just looking for warm bodies to stick in the classroom. We need to do something to lure the best teachers into the classroom, and those that are out, try and get them back.

And there needs to be something done to get parents involved in the educational process, and get them to support education. I don't know how you could do this, but there would have to be a way.

It seems that the Bush plan, "No Child Left Behind", is nothing more than a big joke. There is no money available to implement innovative programs. Computers in most schools, are old run down, no modern software, etc. In fact there is no money available just to run a basic "no technology" type of education. It seems that there are millions put into "testing" the kids, revising tests, etc., which to me seems to be a pretty useless joke.

Now the problem with discipline. There need to be some very tough measures implemented for those students who choose not to learn. Maybe there needs to be some kind of alternative eduction programs, that will just teach the basic skills that would apply to the occupation those students are to follow. The problem of course here is money, and it is going to take it.

It seems to me that it is just going to take some arranging of priorities, and some gutsy decisions by the politicians, and some innovative programs, to turn schools around. Some say that throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it, well witholding money isn't either.

I certainly can see why there is a teacher shortage. And I don't blame the teachers one bit, as I can only imagine the workloads that they have, and the disrespect they have to put up with from both students, and parents. I would not encourage any young person to go into teaching with the way that it is now.

Until politicians get off of their duffs, and the public does not come forward with the money needed, etc., education will not improve, and there will always be a teacher shortage.

 

[Zero]

Public Schools usually have better sports teams.! Unless a private school goes out an recruits. Which is another advantage they have over public schools.

Private schools can surpass publics because they do not have the same restrictions.

The main restriction being the fact that private schools only accept the students they want. Comparing public and private schools is apples and oranges. This is also why the school voucher idea is a joke. Making every school 'private' either means some kids don't get any education at all, or we just rename the same situation.

Imagine comparing Harvard to...Podunk Community College? The kids at Harvard do better than the ones at PCC. Is the solution to divert money from PCC , and give the students $3000 and try to send them to Harvard? First of, $3000 isn't going to pay for a month of school. Secondly, most of those kids won't get accepted to Harvard anyways. Third, now PCC is short on cash, and the students there are 'left behind' with a poorer education. Now, imagine running the school system like that, and tell me vouchers are a good plan.

 

[Grammatron]

The main restriction being the fact that private schools only accept the students they want.*snip*

Yes, the evil private school only accepts students who want to learn. As opposed to what, forcing students who don't want to be in school into a class where they can disrupt others? I think it'll be a good idea to let those who don't want to be in school not be there. It'll bring some meaning back to having a High School Diploma.

 

[The Fool]

Yes, the evil private school only accepts students who want to learn. As opposed to what, forcing students who don't want to be in school into a class where they can disrupt others? I think it'll be a good idea to let those who don't want to be in school not be there. It'll bring some meaning back to having a High School Diploma.

Brilliant Idea!! Just one minor point, do the children have to ask thier parents first before they choose to stop going to school? Can parents decide to remove thier children under your plan? I think everyone should have the oportunity to pass thier ignorance onto thier children....

 

[Zero]

Yes, the evil private school only accepts students who want to learn. As opposed to what, forcing students who don't want to be in school into a class where they can disrupt others? I think it'll be a good idea to let those who don't want to be in school not be there. It'll bring some meaning back to having a High School Diploma.

Ummm..did you actually read my post? Can you read? Or do you just spew spin automatically?
Private schools generally accept students that would be in the advanced placement courses in a public school. 'Wanting to learn' has nothing to do with it, and neither does being 'disruptive'. A hard-working 'B' student isn't going to make the cut at an exclusive school, while a student like I was could(naturally gifted, a bit lazy).

Weeding out all but the top 1% of students doesn't mean that the education at a private school is inherently better, since those students will excel anywhere.

 

[Zero]

Oh, and I never said private schools are 'evil'...but they have nothing to do with public school reform, unless you think that poor people and those below the top 5% simply shouldn't be educated.

 

[Grammatron]

Brilliant Idea!! Just one minor point, do the children have to ask thier parents first before they choose to stop going to school? Can parents decide to remove thier children under your plan? I think everyone should have the oportunity to pass thier ignorance onto thier children....

You misunderstood me. I meant that certain children keep being troublemakers -- get into fights, disrupt lectures in class, etc. -- and schools, at least in the US, are forced to keep those children because it's illegal for kids not to be in school.

 

[Grammatron]

Ummm..did you actually read my post? Can you read? Or do you just spew spin automatically?
Private schools generally accept students that would be in the advanced placement courses in a public school. 'Wanting to learn' has nothing to do with it, and neither does being 'disruptive'. A hard-working 'B' student isn't going to make the cut at an exclusive school, while a student like I was could(naturally gifted, a bit lazy).

Weeding out all but the top 1% of students doesn't mean that the education at a private school is inherently better, since those students will excel anywhere.

Private schools does not mean exclusive schools; in fact they generally have the same curriculum as public schools. I would assume a hard-working 'B' student -- whatever the heck that is -- would fit in fine in a private school.

 

[Zero]

You misunderstood me. I meant that certain children keep being troublemakers -- get into fights, disrupt lectures in class, etc. -- and schools, at least in the US, are forced to keep those children because it's illegal for kids not to be in school.

Grrrrr....4AM....must kill and kill again...


Personally, I just worry about the whole 'slippery slope' thing. Once we say it is better to kick kids out left and right(which we do now to a limited degree, I'm sure) what's next? Get rid of hard-to-teach kids? I dunno, seems like you have to be careful about that sort of thing.

 

[Grammatron]

Oh, and I never said private schools are 'evil'...but they have nothing to do with public school reform, unless you think that poor people and those below the top 5% simply shouldn't be educated.

You did mention voucher program, or do you think it doesn't apply to poor?

 

[Zero]

Private schools does not mean exclusive schools; in fact they generally have the same curriculum as public schools. I would assume a hard-working 'B' student -- whatever the heck that is -- would fit in fine in a private school.

Plus, of course, there is the issue that there simply isn't enough room in private schools for everyone. Public schools mostly work, they just need a little tweaking, you know? A little less football, a little more education, for instance.

 

[The Fool]

You misunderstood me.


fair enough

I meant that certain children keep being troublemakers -- get into fights, disrupt lectures in class, etc. -- and schools, at least in the US, are forced to keep those children because it's illegal for kids not to be in school.
Thats right Its illegal, The alternative if they are uncontrollable is some form of detention in an institution. I don't doubt there are plenty that should be dealt with using extreme measures. Education of children is about them learning about life and society too. Society contains problem people and I think that everything possible should be done to avoid segregating the "normal" from those we brand "problem".

 

[Zero]

You did mention voucher program, or do you think it doesn't apply to poor?

It doesn't help poor kids. It hurts them. Private schools cost more than any voucher I have heard proposed, which means that the public schools lose the middle class kids, and there is even less money to teach the poor kids. And, once more, there is no room for all these kids.

 

[Grammatron]

Plus, of course, there is the issue that there simply isn't enough room in private schools for everyone. Public schools mostly work, they just need a little tweaking, you know? A little less football, a little more education, for instance.

What's wrong with football or other sports? IMO it's not different than having a music program; you are spending money on equipment and space that only a select group of people will use.

 

[Grammatron]

It doesn't help poor kids. It hurts them. Private schools cost more than any voucher I have heard proposed, which means that the public schools lose the middle class kids, and there is even less money to teach the poor kids. And, once more, there is no room for all these kids.

The reason for this is basic economics. A cheap private school can't succeed because it would be competing against the government and there you just can't win because like you said, poor people can't afford private schools and would probably rather save that money for their child's college education or some such. If you switch to vouchers, suddenly there's no more competition with government and you will see small private schools with low costs show up. They most likely will concentrate on very specific areas of educations because they would only be able to support a small curriculum they would need something to attract their customers. For instance there could be a math school, English school, physic school, etc.

 

[Zero]

What's wrong with football or other sports? IMO it's not different than having a music program; you are spending money on equipment and space that only a select group of people will use.

Nah, football is for losers. Actually, my point is that schools should balance sports with education, some of them lean too heavily towards things like new team and band uniforms, and other 'school spirit' type things. More importantly, when I was in school there were like 30+ coaches on the staff, most of whom also did a very bad job teaching to justify their jobs. School sports should be for fun and character-building, but winning games shouldn't matter, compared to maybe hiring some actual effective teachers.

 

[Zero]

The reason for this is basic economics. A cheap private school can't succeed because it would be competing against the government and there you just can't win because like you said, poor people can't afford private schools and would probably rather save that money for their child's college education or some such. If you switch to vouchers, suddenly there's no more competition with government and you will see small private schools with low costs show up. They most likely will concentrate on very specific areas of educations because they would only be able to support a small curriculum they would need something to attract their customers. For instance there could be a math school, English school, physic school, etc.

Sounds nice, I honestly don't see it working. What I DO see is a bunch of lousy schools opening up(look at the charter school debacle in Texas, fer instance)
Really, public schools are the best option, we already know they work, so what's the problem? There are some great public schools that have tweaked teh system and had excellent results. Instead of wasting money on a voucher program that is doomed to fail, why not just invest in the programs we know work?

 

[Grammatron]

Nah, football is for losers. Actually, my point is that schools should balance sports with education, some of them lean too heavily towards things like new team and band uniforms, and other 'school spirit' type things. More importantly, when I was in school there were like 30+ coaches on the staff, most of whom also did a very bad job teaching to justify their jobs. School sports should be for fun and character-building, but winning games shouldn't matter, compared to maybe hiring some actual effective teachers.

Come on man, of course winning games matter. True you will have a good time playing a game, but there's no greater satisfaction like winning except losing and then beating those you lost to. We had a small sports program in my school and did not 30+ coaches, so maybe there could be excessive spending but if schools were private you could just pick up and go to a school that better suited your intellectual or athletic needs

 

[Grammatron]

Sounds nice, I honestly don't see it working. What I DO see is a bunch of lousy schools opening up(look at the charter school debacle in Texas, fer instance)
Really, public schools are the best option, we already know they work, so what's the problem? There are some great public schools that have tweaked teh system and had excellent results. Instead of wasting money on a voucher program that is doomed to fail, why not just invest in the programs we know work?

I'll compromise if you'll agree to get rid of teacher unions.

 

[Zero]

Come on man, of course winning games matter. True you will have a good time playing a game, but there's no greater satisfaction like winning except losing and then beating those you lost to. We had a small sports program in my school and did not 30+ coaches, so maybe there could be excessive spending but if schools were private you could just pick up and go to a school that better suited your intellectual or athletic needs

I absolutely do not support the idea of an 'athletic school', and I was a 3-sport high school athlete. Further, you could do all these things with existing public schools....



I am always confused when I hear great(or even just ok) ideas about education, followed by the idea that it would only work in a private school. Where does that come from, besides from a misguided distrust in all government programs?