In another thread, the topic of up education as an important issue regarding selection of a presidential candidate was brought up, and I thought that it would make for good discussion.
For me, I agree that education is important, but I feel that government, especially at the national level should not be involved.
One of my biggest complaints regarding the Federal Government is waste. As it relates to this topic, the waste is the bureaucracy that is the Department of Education. What exactly does this department do and what has it accomplished? A sizable portion of the budget goes to this agency, yet it produces nothing for us as citizens.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">As I posted in the other thread, here are just a few notable accomplishments by people educated prior to the establishment of DOE. This is just a small sample from the 1950's era up to when the DOE was signed into law (1979).
- Developed the first computer
- Designed and built the first ultra-high altitude reconnaissance aircraft (U-2 spy plane)
- Designed and built the first stealth aircraft
- Put man on the moon
- Invented and developed the C programming language (runs most everything)
- Invented and developed the personal computer
- Invented and developed the internet
<p style="margin:0px;">This is just a sample of accomplishments done prior to the DOE. What has the establishment and billions of dollars poured into the DOE given us? What does it do for us today?
Oh baby your singing my song lol
Quote:Oh baby your singing my song lol
Sorry bro. :unsure: You might try the gay marriage thread. :thumbsup:
All seriousness to fix education start with scraping the DOE give parents a choice and then keep education as local as possible.
Standardized test are the inevitable end result of a large nationalized system.
Secondly id support ending traditional high school at 16 or the sophomore year. 10 years is long enough to teach math science history and grammar. After graduation students have an option to enter apprenticeships and learn a craft before they're legal adults and on their own. Or if they're smart enough they can get a start on a college education.
I've always thought by 16 you know which kids are going to college and which ones are going into the workforce.
I'd say the government should, for the most part, stay out of what's being taught. Leave it up to the teachers. There should be requirements though: Everyone should take so many math classes, English classes, Science classes, and History Classes (including a class on Government). But I do think public education should be tax-payer funded. I believe that education is a right. I know there are those who disagree.
I'd say that our achievements have died down some in part because of the end of the Cold War. Though I would say that the personal computer has far advanced what it was back in the 1980's. Which is a good part of the reason that computers are so widespread. And of course innovations made on Web Browsers by people like Marc Andreesen. The internet itself has advanced as well.
But Achievements should not be our only goal. I think equipping our future generation to tackle the challenges of tomorrow, even if we don't see any new achievements is incredibly important.
I don't have a problem with public education in theory it's the application and how horrible it fails that makes me think there's a better way.
I think if we're going to stick with public education I like school vouchers give parents a choice and as more parents steer away from bad schools those schools would eventually close and be replaced.
Quote:All seriousness to fix education start with scraping the DOE give parents a choice and then keep education as local as possible.
Standardized test are the inevitable end result of a large nationalized system.
Secondly id support ending traditional high school at 16 or the sophomore year. 10 years is long enough to teach math science history and grammar. After graduation students have an option to enter apprenticeships and learn a craft before they're legal adults and on their own. Or if they're smart enough they can get a start on a college education.
I've always thought by 16 you know which kids are going to college and which ones are going into the workforce.
Interesting perspective.
I don't agree with ending primary education in the sophomore year of high school. I know for me, I not only learned more "school work" stuff in my junior and senior years, but also learned more about life in general. At that time, I got my first "real" job where I had to learn responsibility, learn how to actually "do" something and I started interacting with "adults" (people that were gasp! already in their 20's)!
Quote:All seriousness to fix education start with scraping the DOE give parents a choice and then keep education as local as possible.
Standardized test are the inevitable end result of a large nationalized system.
Secondly id support ending traditional high school at 16 or the sophomore year. 10 years is long enough to teach math science history and grammar. After graduation students have an option to enter apprenticeships and learn a craft before they're legal adults and on their own. Or if they're smart enough they can get a start on a college education.
I've always thought by 16 you know which kids are going to college and which ones are going into the workforce.
I couldn't disagree more.
For one thing, many sophomores (year 10) are 15 years old. Which means that they aren't even able to drive yet at that point in most states.
My wife is a teacher, and she sees many students who struggle. In part because of their parents disregard for their education. Some of the kids who you'd think wouldn't go to college, end up going off to college because of good teachers at the later years. We have plenty of people who go to school for 12 years, and don't learn enough grammar, history, etc... as it is.
16 is not a good age to start college. I don't think 16 year olds have the maturity to understand the importance. Some 20 year old's don't even have the maturity to understand the importance. Kids need to have time to develop their minds. Especially before they go into a program that's likely going to put them in debt for the next 15+ years. We don't need our college graduates to get younger. Lowering the number of years in primary school will only do more damage than good.
Quote:I don't have a problem with public education in theory it's the application and how horrible it fails that makes me think there's a better way.
I think if we're going to stick with public education I like school vouchers give parents a choice and as more parents steer away from bad schools those schools would eventually close and be replaced.
I don't like the idea of school vouchers. Bad schools need to become good schools. It's easy to say 'parents should be given a choice.' It makes sense in theory. But that's before you actually know how some parents are. My wife has had to deal with over the years some of the worst parents. Parents who were holocaust deniers. Parents who didn't like how she taught someone favorably, or someone unfavorably (when she was trying to teach a balanced approach). Giving parents choice sounds like a good idea. Until you realize that it gives them control over the teaching staff. You know, the people trained to actually teach our children. You'd have schools split by political ideology more than anything else.
Quote:I'd say the government should, for the most part, stay out of what's being taught. Leave it up to the teachers. There should be requirements though: Everyone should take so many math classes, English classes, Science classes, and History Classes (including a class on Government). But I do think public education should be tax-payer funded. I believe that education is a right. I know there are those who disagree.
I'd say that our achievements have died down some in part because of the end of the Cold War. Though I would say that the personal computer has far advanced what it was back in the 1980's. Which is a good part of the reason that computers are so widespread. And of course innovations made on Web Browsers by people like Marc Andreesen. The internet itself has advanced as well.
But Achievements should not be our only goal. I think equipping our future generation to tackle the challenges of tomorrow, even if we don't see any new achievements is incredibly important.
Addressing the bold part. I would say that education should be available to all people, but to label it as a "right" is a bit much.
What I mean by that, there should be a cap or a limit as to how much education is a "right". If you make a blanket statement that education is a "right", then that means that higher education (college) should be free to anyone. I disagree with that. By the time a child finishes High School, they should be equipped enough to be able to
earn a higher education should they desire it.
I'll use myself as an example. When I finished High School, I had a few options. I could go to college and take on some debt to pay for it. I could get into an apprenticeship program and find my way into a blue collar type job (electrician as an example). Or I could go into the military.
I chose the military as my means to get a higher education. I spent a bit over 9 years in the military and got a good education not only where it comes to "book smarts", but also experience. The experience was not only related to my current field, but I also learned a lot about life and working with/dealing with people from all walks of life.
My point is, education should only be a "right" (and I hate using that term) when it comes to basic education. By the time one completes High School, they should be able to choose which path they desire to take.
Quote:Interesting perspective.
I don't agree with ending primary education in the sophomore year of high school. I know for me, I not only learned more "school work" stuff in my junior and senior years, but also learned more about life in general. At that time, I got my first "real" job where I had to learn responsibility, learn how to actually "do" something and I started interacting with "adults" (people that were gasp! already in their 20's)!
If done properly there's no reason you can't learn what they teach by 16. What a waste school was. It would be nice for people to get study things gear toward their interest and not this terrible system in which you study everything everyone else is.
Quote:I couldn't disagree more.
For one thing, many sophomores (year 10) are 15 years old. Which means that they aren't even able to drive yet at that point in most states.
My wife is a teacher, and she sees many students who struggle. In part because of their parents disregard for their education. Some of the kids who you'd think wouldn't go to college, end up going off to college because of good teachers at the later years. We have plenty of people who go to school for 12 years, and don't learn enough grammar, history, etc... as it is.
16 is not a good age to start college. I don't think 16 year olds have the maturity to understand the importance. Some 20 year old's don't even have the maturity to understand the importance. Kids need to have time to develop their minds. Especially before they go into a program that's likely going to put them in debt for the next 15+ years. We don't need our college graduates to get younger. Lowering the number of years in primary school will only do more damage than good.
I don't like the idea of school vouchers. Bad schools need to become good schools. It's easy to say 'parents should be given a choice.' It makes sense in theory. But that's before you actually know how some parents are. My wife has had to deal with over the years some of the worst parents. Parents who were holocaust deniers. Parents who didn't like how she taught someone favorably, or someone unfavorably (when she was trying to teach a balanced approach). Giving parents choice sounds like a good idea. Until you realize that it gives them control over the teaching staff. You know, the people trained to actually teach our children. You'd have schools split by political ideology more than anything else.
People not learning enough in 12 years is more of an indictment on our educational system then anything else.
Quote:I couldn't disagree more.
For one thing, many sophomores (year 10) are 15 years old. Which means that they aren't even able to drive yet at that point in most states.
My wife is a teacher, and she sees many students who struggle. In part because of their parents disregard for their education. Some of the kids who you'd think wouldn't go to college, end up going off to college because of good teachers at the later years. We have plenty of people who go to school for 12 years, and don't learn enough grammar, history, etc... as it is.
16 is not a good age to start college. I don't think 16 year olds have the maturity to understand the importance. Some 20 year old's don't even have the maturity to understand the importance. Kids need to have time to develop their minds. Especially before they go into a program that's likely going to put them in debt for the next 15+ years. We don't need our college graduates to get younger. Lowering the number of years in primary school will only do more damage than good.
I don't like the idea of school vouchers. Bad schools need to become good schools. It's easy to say 'parents should be given a choice.' It makes sense in theory. But that's before you actually know how some parents are. My wife has had to deal with over the years some of the worst parents. Parents who were holocaust deniers. Parents who didn't like how she taught someone favorably, or someone unfavorably (when she was trying to teach a balanced approach). Giving parents choice sounds like a good idea. Until you realize that it gives them control over the teaching staff. You know, the people trained to actually teach our children. You'd have schools split by political ideology more than anything else.
Let me preface this all by saying I'm not and education expert I'm speaking strictly from my experience in public education and the difference I've seen sending my kids to private school and just reading different opinions on what to do with education.
I wish I could remember where I first heard or read about the idea of ending high school earlier before kids reach legal adulthood, the example was 16 or the Sophmore year of traditional high school, but I can't so I'll fill in the blanks best I can.
Anyways the argument or the idea was to revamp the entire education system from the bottom up. Kids started younger I think it was 4 and they "finished" basic education by 16 (so that's still 12 years in basic education). They had studies and such saying kids could handle basically doing everything 2 years earlier ( this is where I'm not an expert going off what I read). But the key point was giving Pre-Adults (16-18) a buffer zone to either learn a trade or get a start on post basic education. The first 2 years of college would essentially take place at community colleges, these schools are close to home very basics are established and most of the time students don't even declare a degree in community colleges. The kids that don't opt to continue education still have the equivalent of a high school diploma but now their young enough to enter apprenticeships ( it's a big deal we don't have kids going into apprenticeships these days, a big reason why there's a lack of skilled labor and a huge dependency on unskilled labor) and since their still not legal adults they don't have the pressure of trying to financially support themselves while learning a trade.
This would accomplish so much in the skilled labor area, we would have more carpenters, brick masons, mechanics, plumbers, hvac techs, ad so on. Fields that can give decent wages they can support families on once they've gained experience. These fields are vital to society but take time to learn and often the entry level pay is next to nothing.
Eric, I haven't read every post in this thread, but if I recall correctly, you home school your kids. I know a couple who home school their kids and the results are horrible. The children are reading at a level far below their grade, their math skills the same. The mother, who is supposed to be teaching them, just gives them the class materials and provides very little instruction. She watches TV and sleeps. They are basically learning on their own. Do you not support any intervention by local school or child services officials on the children's behalf?
In my view, what is happening in that home is a form of child abuse. I find it hard to believe these parents are better suited to determine what's best for their children than public officials.
Keeping kids in school longer ie from 730 am to 5 pm and a shorter summer break to 1 month (July), or eliminating summer breaks all together is a start.
Quote:Keeping kids in school longer ie from 730 am to 5 pm and a shorter summer break to 1 month (July), or eliminating summer breaks all together is a start.
Teachers would riot if they had to work from 7:30 - 5:00 PM. That's a 9 and a half hour work day, not to mention the grading they have to do afterwards, as well as having office hours. It'd also kill high school sport programs as well.
Quote:Eric, I haven't read every post in this thread, but if I recall correctly, you home school your kids. I know a couple who home school their kids and the results are horrible. The children are reading at a level far below their grade, their math skills the same. The mother, who is supposed to be teaching them, just gives them the class materials and provides very little instruction. She watches TV and sleeps. They are basically learning on their own. Do you not support any intervention by local school or child services officials on the children's behalf?
In my view, what is happening in that home is a form of child abuse. I find it hard to believe these parents are better suited to determine what's best for their children than public officials.
We've talked about homeschooling but right now my oldest 2 (7 year old and 4 year old) are in a church school. I'm not sure how homeschooling works in every state but I know in Florida if a kid is home schooled they have to take a test I think at the end of every year (might be every other year) to prove their not behind their peers in public or private school.
If a kids being home schooled I do think we have a responsibility to verify that child is being educated weather that's by a test or an evaluation I don't know but yes there needs to be some kind of verification in the case of homeschooling.
Do they not have any kind of testing to verify the kids are being taught in Tennessee?
Quote:Keeping kids in school longer ie from 730 am to 5 pm and a shorter summer break to 1 month (July), or eliminating summer breaks all together is a start.
I'm pretty sure they've done studies proving kids don't have the attention span for that long of a period. Time is not the problem in our education system IMO. It's the management of the time we have our kids in school.
Quote:Teachers would riot if they had to work from 7:30 - 5:00 PM. That's a 9 and a half hour work day, not to mention the grading they have to do afterwards, as well as having office hours. It'd also kill high school sport programs as well.
There's no reason to keep kids longer. The school system does not teach efficiently.
Quote:I'm pretty sure they've done studies proving kids don't have the attention span for that long of a period. Time is not the problem in our education system IMO. It's the management of the time we have our kids in school.
Bingo.
Quote:We've talked about homeschooling but right now my oldest 2 (7 year old and 4 year old) are in a church school. I'm not sure how homeschooling works in every state but I know in Florida if a kid is home schooled they have to take a test I think at the end of every year (might be every other year) to prove their not behind their peers in public or private school.
If a kids being home schooled I do think we have a responsibility to verify that child is being educated weather that's by a test or an evaluation I don't know but yes there needs to be some kind of verification in the case of homeschooling.
Do they not have any kind of testing to verify the kids are being taught in Tennessee?
They do, and I have no idea how this family manages to keep flying under the radar. Their 12 year old daughter gave me a birthday card last year, and the handwriting and spelling could have been done by a first grader. I felt so sorry for that child.