school
Ron Paul brings up a good point, here. After watching John Stossel's Stupid in America, I'm convinced the teacher's unions have a very large role in the decline of educational quality. Right now, most parents do not have a choice where they can send their kids to school. Here in Michigan, the former Republican governor passed a Schools of Choice act. For the first time, parents got to choose where their kids went to school.
It affected my family personally because my brother who had autism was not getting the help he needed in our current district. The local administration was unable and unwilling to help people with disabilities. Thanks to Schools of Choice, he was able to go the much better neighboring district, and there he thrived. He went from having major social and speech disabilities to being on the football and wrestling teams in high school and graduating with a 3.7 GPA. He's now going to university and is half-way done with his bachelor's degree in accounting. No one guesses that he has any disability, much less autism, when they meet him now. All of that is thanks to competition and School of Choice laws. If that didn't happen, then he wouldn't have been able to get through high school, and he would probably have to live on government assistance for the rest of his life.
When schools have to start competing with each other, they're going to get better, period. They'll either get better or close. The biggest myth in America is that schools need more money. We've tried giving them money, they didn't keep their end of the bargain. I remember on that TV special they showed a school in Kansas that got something like a billion dollars. They spent it on an olympic-sized swimming pool. I'd be furious if I was a parent there. Our kids need computers, books, school supplies, not a damned swimming pool. How is a swimming pool going to teach them math, grammar, or science?
It affected my family personally because my brother who had autism was not getting the help he needed in our current district. The local administration was unable and unwilling to help people with disabilities. Thanks to Schools of Choice, he was able to go the much better neighboring district, and there he thrived. He went from having major social and speech disabilities to being on the football and wrestling teams in high school and graduating with a 3.7 GPA. He's now going to university and is half-way done with his bachelor's degree in accounting. No one guesses that he has any disability, much less autism, when they meet him now. All of that is thanks to competition and School of Choice laws. If that didn't happen, then he wouldn't have been able to get through high school, and he would probably have to live on government assistance for the rest of his life.
When schools have to start competing with each other, they're going to get better, period. They'll either get better or close. The biggest myth in America is that schools need more money. We've tried giving them money, they didn't keep their end of the bargain. I remember on that TV special they showed a school in Kansas that got something like a billion dollars. They spent it on an olympic-sized swimming pool. I'd be furious if I was a parent there. Our kids need computers, books, school supplies, not a damned swimming pool. How is a swimming pool going to teach them math, grammar, or science?
Here is the thing that I think is the key, though. Everyone shouldn't need to abandon the public school system in favor of private schools and homeschooling. The opportunity for a quality education should be open for EVERYONE, in EVERY state, regardless of income. This goes double for those with special needs, like autism and various learning disabilities. It should be a right, that when you send your child to public school, they get an education that can carry them on to college. If they can't get the education they need in public school, then they deserve to be able to get that education elsewhere. Up to that point, I agree that choice is good. But choice is not the solution, but merely a piece of the puzzle. When competition means privatization, I hear abandonment or worse.
Money is very important to school systems, but I'm not one who believes that we need to spend MORE of it. I think we can spend the same and get more. I believe the same about health care. We can spend the same and get more. It is all about clearing up inefficiencies in the planning, governing, funding, etc.
And unlike Ron Paul, I believe that the federal government funding of education isn't even debatable. Schools need more funds than they can raise locally through state taxes. I don't think the Founding Fathers were prophets, I just think they were bright men who did a reasonable job starting us out. Some areas of the United States are just plain unable to fix their education systems, recorded clearly through the historical ranking of state education. This is usually because the cycle of poverty in those areas have left them deficient, with some areas populated with people too poor to fund their own schools. Nothing in Ron Paul's plan for education does he address the need to help historically struggling states. Because he seems to never think it is the Federal Government's job to get involved in anything, and either does not understand the nature of poverty or does not think it is important to address.
Oddly, Michigan dropped 12 places in the "smartest state" rankings from the 2005-6 ranks to 2006-7... the biggest decline of the period. I don't know what that means, I just noticed it... but there are 21 factors that determine the rankings.
Money is very important to school systems, but I'm not one who believes that we need to spend MORE of it. I think we can spend the same and get more. I believe the same about health care. We can spend the same and get more. It is all about clearing up inefficiencies in the planning, governing, funding, etc.
And unlike Ron Paul, I believe that the federal government funding of education isn't even debatable. Schools need more funds than they can raise locally through state taxes. I don't think the Founding Fathers were prophets, I just think they were bright men who did a reasonable job starting us out. Some areas of the United States are just plain unable to fix their education systems, recorded clearly through the historical ranking of state education. This is usually because the cycle of poverty in those areas have left them deficient, with some areas populated with people too poor to fund their own schools. Nothing in Ron Paul's plan for education does he address the need to help historically struggling states. Because he seems to never think it is the Federal Government's job to get involved in anything, and either does not understand the nature of poverty or does not think it is important to address.
Oddly, Michigan dropped 12 places in the "smartest state" rankings from the 2005-6 ranks to 2006-7... the biggest decline of the period. I don't know what that means, I just noticed it... but there are 21 factors that determine the rankings.
Competition doesn't necessarily mean privatization. I believe in a dual-tiered system. We have the post office, for example. The post office is provided via our federal tax dollars. Everyone can use the post office to send a package and the rates are fairly low. However, there are other, private companies that compete with the post office: DHL, UPS, FedEx, etc.
The problem is not that we don't have competition between private and public schools, we do, BUT, because of how many states handle their education systems, if a family is stuck in a poorly-performing district, there's no way out. I'm not talking about abandoning the public schools from private schools, I just believe parents should be able to choose which public school their kids go to. Now, obviously this is far less practical in rural areas, so competition alone isn't going to solve the problem, but it definitely will provide incentive for urban and suburban schools to improve or else lose "customers." That approach obviously has it's problems as well, though. How do you measure a school's performance? Tests? An unscrupulous teacher could just give the kids the answers if it's done that way.
I think what really needs to be done is to look at the educational systems of the highest-rated countries and explore how their methods could be deployed in this country.
The problem is not that we don't have competition between private and public schools, we do, BUT, because of how many states handle their education systems, if a family is stuck in a poorly-performing district, there's no way out. I'm not talking about abandoning the public schools from private schools, I just believe parents should be able to choose which public school their kids go to. Now, obviously this is far less practical in rural areas, so competition alone isn't going to solve the problem, but it definitely will provide incentive for urban and suburban schools to improve or else lose "customers." That approach obviously has it's problems as well, though. How do you measure a school's performance? Tests? An unscrupulous teacher could just give the kids the answers if it's done that way.
I think what really needs to be done is to look at the educational systems of the highest-rated countries and explore how their methods could be deployed in this country.
I don't see how choice of public schools is a solution, though. I can agree that if a child's needs can't be met by at certain school, that they should have the same financial (as in free or affordable) option of going to another school that does.... BUT....
Even urban schools have little to worry about in terms of "losing customers". For one, less students means less expenses for the schools... less food expenses, less text book costs, less supplies needed. Losing students just means cutting back on expenses. That is just the beginning, though. More important is the population density. I imagine in places like the New Jersey or the entire Greater New York area, they don't exactly have a problem filling up their classrooms. Population density typically correlates with class size... limited schools + lots of children = large class sizes. If an area is plagued with large class sizes it is not out of choice but most likely necessity.
And in rural areas, it is obviously about transportation. There are typically not more schools than needed, dictated by population density. The distance between them is great enough that the time would make choice a luxury. After all, there is not really anything stopping a parent from enrolling their student in a school with smaller class sizes except time and distance.
Suburban areas are the ones that need the least help. They typically contain well off, single family homes... people that work in cities and live outside of them. They therefore make a lot of money and don't have a large population, while being influential enough to effect policy and draw funding. Basically, they enjoy the best of everything.
In order to solve a problem like education, it is definitely going to take a lot of innovation... and cooperation between the various levels of governing to effectively plan and distribute funds to their education systems.
I don't think the most important thing is measuring a school's performance, at least not yet. The most important thing is starting to create a culture that respects education. The education system can only educate people to the extent to which they see that education as valid.
In terms of poverty, the education problem starts early. A wealthy family has the money to educate their kids from day one, send their kids to nice preschools, and give them the head start they need. These parents are typically well-educated themselves compared to poor households, so they pass on healthy habits and attitudes towards school.
The poor don't have those things, and so start out behind other students in terms of reading, vocabulary, and math skills. This leads to branding and discrimination by teachers as the students are moved into remedial classes or lumped in with other students they consider less than stellar. The cycle continues as they lose faith in the system and in their ability to get a college degree. Not having a college degree wouldn't be as important if affordable training was universally available as well.
An important part of raising the quality of the entire education system is to first narrow the educational gaps between the rich and poor children through universal access to preschool. Basically, narrowing the gap between opportunities that currently exist for the rich and poor. The educational quality would benefit from not having to teach the basics until everyone in on the same page.
Regardless, in the end, it is necessary to track progress of school performance. But, I think it would be nice to also periodically test teachers through observations, interviews, and written exams, just to keep them on their toes, and as a way to supplement the way we assess a schools performance.
Even urban schools have little to worry about in terms of "losing customers". For one, less students means less expenses for the schools... less food expenses, less text book costs, less supplies needed. Losing students just means cutting back on expenses. That is just the beginning, though. More important is the population density. I imagine in places like the New Jersey or the entire Greater New York area, they don't exactly have a problem filling up their classrooms. Population density typically correlates with class size... limited schools + lots of children = large class sizes. If an area is plagued with large class sizes it is not out of choice but most likely necessity.
And in rural areas, it is obviously about transportation. There are typically not more schools than needed, dictated by population density. The distance between them is great enough that the time would make choice a luxury. After all, there is not really anything stopping a parent from enrolling their student in a school with smaller class sizes except time and distance.
Suburban areas are the ones that need the least help. They typically contain well off, single family homes... people that work in cities and live outside of them. They therefore make a lot of money and don't have a large population, while being influential enough to effect policy and draw funding. Basically, they enjoy the best of everything.
In order to solve a problem like education, it is definitely going to take a lot of innovation... and cooperation between the various levels of governing to effectively plan and distribute funds to their education systems.
I don't think the most important thing is measuring a school's performance, at least not yet. The most important thing is starting to create a culture that respects education. The education system can only educate people to the extent to which they see that education as valid.
In terms of poverty, the education problem starts early. A wealthy family has the money to educate their kids from day one, send their kids to nice preschools, and give them the head start they need. These parents are typically well-educated themselves compared to poor households, so they pass on healthy habits and attitudes towards school.
The poor don't have those things, and so start out behind other students in terms of reading, vocabulary, and math skills. This leads to branding and discrimination by teachers as the students are moved into remedial classes or lumped in with other students they consider less than stellar. The cycle continues as they lose faith in the system and in their ability to get a college degree. Not having a college degree wouldn't be as important if affordable training was universally available as well.
An important part of raising the quality of the entire education system is to first narrow the educational gaps between the rich and poor children through universal access to preschool. Basically, narrowing the gap between opportunities that currently exist for the rich and poor. The educational quality would benefit from not having to teach the basics until everyone in on the same page.
Regardless, in the end, it is necessary to track progress of school performance. But, I think it would be nice to also periodically test teachers through observations, interviews, and written exams, just to keep them on their toes, and as a way to supplement the way we assess a schools performance.
"The most important thing is starting to create a culture that respects education. The education system can only educate people to the extent to which they see that education as valid."
You're absolutely right. I fear that our culture is considering getting an education less and less important. This is an extremely dangerous attitude, considering that high-paying manufacturing jobs that don't require a decent education are drying up fast. Part of the problem is racial attitudes. In the inner cities, many black students think that studying hard and achieving in school take away their racial identity or their "street cred." The students that do make an effort get ridiculed, called "Oreos" or worse. My aunt was a substitute teacher in Detroit and she said to a black student, being accused of being "white" in any way was one of the most shameful things you could be accused of. Obviously that's not the whole problem, and it doesn't happen everywhere, but it's still quite alarming of the racial situation in this country. We even see it in popular culture. White guys are awkward, nerdy, can't dance, and have small penises. Black guys are smooth, popular, great dancers, and are all hung like horses. We're told that all white women lust for a black man, whether they want to admit it or not (oh, and they're all at least bi-curious while we're at it!).
Again, apathy for education is definitely not limited to one ethnic group, we see it across the board. We have to start telling the kids entering school now that there's no chance they'll be able to to live and support a family off of a manual labor job for 30 years and then retire. It's NOT going to happen. That dream died when their grandparents were growing up. Our economy is shifting to the more mature knowledge-based economies of Europe. If kids don't get on the train to the future now, they're going to be stuck being sporadically-employed welders for the rest of their lives.
You're absolutely right. I fear that our culture is considering getting an education less and less important. This is an extremely dangerous attitude, considering that high-paying manufacturing jobs that don't require a decent education are drying up fast. Part of the problem is racial attitudes. In the inner cities, many black students think that studying hard and achieving in school take away their racial identity or their "street cred." The students that do make an effort get ridiculed, called "Oreos" or worse. My aunt was a substitute teacher in Detroit and she said to a black student, being accused of being "white" in any way was one of the most shameful things you could be accused of. Obviously that's not the whole problem, and it doesn't happen everywhere, but it's still quite alarming of the racial situation in this country. We even see it in popular culture. White guys are awkward, nerdy, can't dance, and have small penises. Black guys are smooth, popular, great dancers, and are all hung like horses. We're told that all white women lust for a black man, whether they want to admit it or not (oh, and they're all at least bi-curious while we're at it!).
Again, apathy for education is definitely not limited to one ethnic group, we see it across the board. We have to start telling the kids entering school now that there's no chance they'll be able to to live and support a family off of a manual labor job for 30 years and then retire. It's NOT going to happen. That dream died when their grandparents were growing up. Our economy is shifting to the more mature knowledge-based economies of Europe. If kids don't get on the train to the future now, they're going to be stuck being sporadically-employed welders for the rest of their lives.
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Actually, a survey instead.: - "It cuts into my shopping time, y'all"
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
