Do public schools kill creativity?Follow

No, to clarify we are talking about practical education. You are talking about a nanny state where we drop kids off for 6-12 hours a day and let the G teach them everything from the three "r"s to how to be a functioning member of society. You ask your question like it is the only logical conclusion to the question of why is America turning out retards by the graduating class-load. The problem is that if your question dealt with a school in the real world you'd already know the answer.

I will deal with this now since it is fundamental to your lack of understanding. Setting standards of education and training for teachers is a joke. Training a teacher doesn't create any new or improved quality in them. It simply gives them more mediocre ideas spawned by the system of which they are already a rusty cog.

Throwing more money at it is something no intelligent person could ever look you in the eye and suggest would work. You would have to overfund on such a grand scale that every other budget line item in a given municipality would shrink by half, and they'd still scream for more money. Giving a system that can't figure out how to manage a budget more money only makes for a more sensational mess when it comes time to do the clean up.

Curriculum is revised all the time. States and school districts spend millions of dollars on them and they invariably boil down to more of the same: teaching to a test. Abolish the tests? Then how do you measure their performance? Why measure their performance? See above. How is the Bob damned money being spent? Who cares! Give them more so they can do a better job teaching to the new test curriculum and it won't matter.

Your ideas are far from practical, and they are most certainly not realistic ways to improve the educational system, on any level.

You miss the point on so many levels its not really even worth continuing the conversation with you. You hold to the ideal that the state has to make it right. You cling to the empty hope that a system that must be geared to the lowest common denominator can effectively educate the millions of children it has to deal with, and you excuse by doing so millions more adults from their responsibility as parents to themselves, their children and their communities. You are a perfect example of a poorly educated America losing sight of the bigger picture and getting bogged down in the rhetoric of the nightly news. Congratulations for being a poster child for ignorance.

What would I do, specifically? I have never been, am not now and do not see myself becoming in the future opposed to sacrificing a generation of people to the tough lesson that must be taught.

Abolish the public school system in America. Along with it the teacher's unions, the school boards, the Department of Education. Immediately reduce the amount of taxes taken from the population at all levels by the exact amount of the budgets of municipal organizations associated with education, but from where it is taken. Property taxes, federal and state income taxes at a rate proportional to that payed in to the system. Give any family with a school aged child a tax credit (not a rebate, not a refund, a credit) for any dollar they spend on a private educational program they enroll their child in, through undergraduate degrees.

Private programs would not be required to keep a non-performing student. They would not be required to keep discipline problems. They would not be required to accept students who were thrown out of another program. They would be private, for profit, results oriented programs. Business will be incentivized to get involved to ensure their future labor pool.

But most of all, parents will be directly responsible for their child's success or failure. Parents would be required to get very f'ucking involved or face the fact that little Johnny or Rondel will be relegated to the rank of garbage boy at Burger King as a career. Would it fail a few million kids a year the first year or 10? Absolutely. But it would lay the groundwork and create the environment for positive change.

Proof that you are not equipped for the discussion, you vacuous and insipid c'unt. You didn't. I did. You spoke of the system that I said must be geared to the lowest common denominator. Seems to me you'd strive for my sixth grade reading level right about now.

EDIT: Because its yet another example...

I am not arguing for private schools. I said educational programs. Apprenticeships, internships, lecture programs, any manner of things that aren't schools, where kids would interact with other people. The piece you so conveniently left out of your quoting of my work is as follows:


Edited, Jun 20th 2007 12:43am by MoebiusLord

Yeah. It really does. You try meeting the requirements of federal anti-discrimination laws as interpreted by the courts and have it not pander.

Um, if parents are directly responsible for their child's staying in a program that required a base level of knowledge they'd pretty much have to force the kid to read a book, do the work, learn their sh;t. And yes, I know for a fact competent people can pick up the necessary skills, knowledge and expertise to become successful lawyers, chemists, etc., from apprenticeships. I did, however, include colleges in my original plan, and graduate degrees are something else entirely, for which the kid is on his or her own.

again, learn to read, n00b. I believe I said pretty much that in a nutshell.

Absolutely. No problem with it at all. Personal responsibility is key in my book. You don't want it, you don't get it. EoFL.

Nope and nope. Then see above.

BK is fine for people not willing to learn to do jobs a billion Chinese or a billion Indians are willing to do for dirt cheap.

I called for revamping education, he called for disbanding public schools.

There is more to learning than sitting in a classroom. But you are going to learn more in a classroom than in an apprenticeship/internship. The kids that go to trade schools or get on job training are the ones that don't want to learn. Those that do usually stay in the school system, be it public or private.

Proof positive you don't know what the f'uck you're talking about.

See above. I'm living proof, as are many other successful people, that the educational system is completely superfluous.

How is an 8-year-old kid going to decide what apprenticeship he wants to take on? What happens if he changes his mind? There's a reason schools don't generally force specialization until college. Also part of the whole "well-rounded" comment that was brought up earlier.


I also don't understand how you want education to be the responsibilty of the parents, but then are willing to cast off children with poor parents with the comment "personal responsibilty is key." There seems to be a disconnect there.


But then, I don't really expect a tempered response; your idealistic solution seems about as unrealistic to me as socialistic ideals must seem to conservatives.

This thread depresses me, it's the first ime i've read an entire Gbaji post and agreed with EVERYTHING he wrote.

This breaks one of the cornerstones of my religion and i feel unclean now, damn your eyes robotfuel!

Most kids by the age of 12 know what they are interested in, or more pointedly what they are NOT interested in. More importantly TEACHERS know.

I know when i was at school that alot of the kids who where failing maths where more than capable of the same calculations in woodworking, it's about a Vocational style of teaching being better than a classroom for a certain type of child.

A blanket approach leaves entire sections of otherwise perfectly capable children so far behind it takes them years of thier adult life to catch back up again.

Most of what is known as "tradesmen" in the UK the plumbers, builders, decorators etc are totally disadvantaged by the pure classroom education and it takes them years to then gain thier skills after leaving school followed by even more years gaining the required experiance to be sucsessful.

If those kids where allowed at 11-12 to turn to a vocational education they could be gaining expericance where kids now are just starting to learn.

It's a proven fact that kids are more capable of learning than adults so the younger you are teaching real skills the better.

You're obviously a product.

Well I'll tell you what you're not missing, Mr. Dorobobobo, Trisomy 21.

[quote][/quote]

:)

The abolishment of the school system is something I've wanted since I was in it.

For reasons already stated in great length by others on this thread.

From my personal experience I can honestly say that an apprentice type enviorment worked out best for me. I've done both. I went to a technical college for a Digital Design degree but ended up getting a job in the networking side of computers and internet when I got home.

At the technical college it took a year wading through all the ******** before I got to the meat of what I wanted to learn. And then it was limited to the teachers ability to convey a work type enviornment without actually being in one. Maybe there are other schools that can accurately portray the stress of a real time work situation but I've never been in one.

I came back home, got a job on the IT side of things green as hell and in six months surpassed my friend who had taken the IT course where I went. Had it not been for the asian I apprenticed under and the stress of ******* up and losing my job I'd have never gotten as far as I am now.

It needs to be crystal that their is a difference between job training and education.

Apprenticeships and internships will give you job training. You can go into an apprenticeship/internship at an early age and learn that job well. They've been doing since long before the middle ages.

The problem is that people who take this kind of vocational training lack a real fundamental education. You need more to succeed in life. You need to be able to apply math to a variety of situations so that you don't ***** yourself over with finances. You need to understand more about government so we avoid the current problems and people in office that many complain about. You need to be able to do another job if the market for the one and only thing you've ever been trained to do flops out for you.

There are very few kids that benefit more from 4 years of apprenticeship than from 3 years of school and one year of apprenticeship.

Not really. If you want I can find you statistical data showing the percentage of college students who change their majors. It's well above 50%.

Most kids at age 12 know jobs such as "lawyer, doctor, architect, ceo, banker." They don't have any idea about "radiologist, product manager, marketing specialist, gynecologist."



Removing schooling and putting 10 year olds into apprenticeships learning how to make photocopies or be a machinist would bring a first world country into the modern dark ages. Kids would barely know how to read or write, unless it was a part of their given field, they could not do math beyond basic algebra, unless it was part of their field.

Apprenticeships offer people who are not suited for school another option. They do not offer a real education.

At the age of 12, I wanted to be Moebius.


And look how things turned out