If you honestly think teachers are nothing more than babysitters, then you should blame parents, not teachers, for relying on schools rather than homeschooling or other "private" education.
This whole privatized education theory is ridiculous. It would not work in any conceivable way except to make 99% of Americans retarded. If you want a private education for your child you can already get one. Federal and state funding as opposed to private funding are not significant variables affecting the outcome of a child's education. Almost every parent out there is still going to be sending kids to a SCHOOL where they will be taught by a TEACHER.
If your concern is what the school's curriculum is, i.e., what the school is teaching, then write a fuggin letter. Even most teachers agree that there are plenty of relatively worthless classes in the curriculum, even though they disagree about what they are. Most teachers would like for there to be more classes of varying fields with fewer students in each. Newsflash: almost everyone who is qualified to be a teacher and wants to be a teacher is already employed as a teacher. You can't squeeze water from a stone. A lot of states already allow people who aren't qualified to teach to teach under alternative contracts, including vocational programs, simply because they can't fill the positions otherwise.
But this idea of dissolving the publicly funded schools is ridiculously short-sighted and fortunately, no one in a position to make such a decision is dumb enough to go through with it. Where the money comes from makes very little difference. Hell, it wasn't until fairly recently that it made ANY difference at all, when the states started to enforce state curriculum standards that dictate what teachers will teach in classes. You're more than welcome to disagree with the content of those (at least once you've actually looked at them; go to your state's dept. of education webpage and peruse the hundreds of pages). Even now, a fairly large number of subjects are not tested for, so short of administrative supervision there's no way to know if a teacher is actually teaching the way they should be. But clearly, the answer to this problem is less government involvement and fewer administrative positions.
Just who is going to make sure that these providers of private education are going to be any more qualified than those who are publicly funded? Who that can't already do it now? No one. You'll have the same teachers doing the same job under the same supervision.
I'm not even sure who I'm talking to. You know who you are, I guess.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Do public schools kill creativity?
Do public schools kill creativity?Follow
Quote:
If you honestly think teachers are nothing more than babysitters, then you should blame parents...
I have and do.
Quote:
Just who is going to make sure that these providers of private education are going to be any more qualified than those who are publicly funded? Who that can't already do it now? No one. You'll have the same teachers doing the same job under the same supervision.
With the important difference that they will then be in a results based setting where when a parent pulls a child, funding goes with it, as opposed to an entitlement setting where it matters not what a school does, it still gets the check. The teachers unions will also likely not have nearly as much power as they do today, which would be lovely.
Quote:
But this idea of dissolving the publicly funded schools is ridiculously short-sighted...
Actually, its anything but. The result is one measured over generations rather than a year or 5. Unfortunately no one in a position to make a decision thinks about anything other than how to get the already illiterate and poorly-equipped ghetto bunnies to vote for them again next election.
Kachi wrote:
If you honestly think teachers are nothing more than babysitters, then you should blame parents, not teachers, for relying on schools rather than homeschooling or other "private" education.
This whole privatized education theory is ridiculous. It would not work in any conceivable way except to make 99% of Americans retarded. If you want a private education for your child you can already get one. Federal and state funding as opposed to private funding are not significant variables affecting the outcome of a child's education. Almost every parent out there is still going to be sending kids to a SCHOOL where they will be taught by a TEACHER.
If your concern is what the school's curriculum is, i.e., what the school is teaching, then write a fuggin letter. Even most teachers agree that there are plenty of relatively worthless classes in the curriculum, even though they disagree about what they are. Most teachers would like for there to be more classes of varying fields with fewer students in each. Newsflash: almost everyone who is qualified to be a teacher and wants to be a teacher is already employed as a teacher. You can't squeeze water from a stone. A lot of states already allow people who aren't qualified to teach to teach under alternative contracts, including vocational programs, simply because they can't fill the positions otherwise.
But this idea of dissolving the publicly funded schools is ridiculously short-sighted and fortunately, no one in a position to make such a decision is dumb enough to go through with it. Where the money comes from makes very little difference. Hell, it wasn't until fairly recently that it made ANY difference at all, when the states started to enforce state curriculum standards that dictate what teachers will teach in classes. You're more than welcome to disagree with the content of those (at least once you've actually looked at them; go to your state's dept. of education webpage and peruse the hundreds of pages). Even now, a fairly large number of subjects are not tested for, so short of administrative supervision there's no way to know if a teacher is actually teaching the way they should be. But clearly, the answer to this problem is less government involvement and fewer administrative positions.
Just who is going to make sure that these providers of private education are going to be any more qualified than those who are publicly funded? Who that can't already do it now? No one. You'll have the same teachers doing the same job under the same supervision.
I'm not even sure who I'm talking to. You know who you are, I guess.
This whole privatized education theory is ridiculous. It would not work in any conceivable way except to make 99% of Americans retarded. If you want a private education for your child you can already get one. Federal and state funding as opposed to private funding are not significant variables affecting the outcome of a child's education. Almost every parent out there is still going to be sending kids to a SCHOOL where they will be taught by a TEACHER.
If your concern is what the school's curriculum is, i.e., what the school is teaching, then write a fuggin letter. Even most teachers agree that there are plenty of relatively worthless classes in the curriculum, even though they disagree about what they are. Most teachers would like for there to be more classes of varying fields with fewer students in each. Newsflash: almost everyone who is qualified to be a teacher and wants to be a teacher is already employed as a teacher. You can't squeeze water from a stone. A lot of states already allow people who aren't qualified to teach to teach under alternative contracts, including vocational programs, simply because they can't fill the positions otherwise.
But this idea of dissolving the publicly funded schools is ridiculously short-sighted and fortunately, no one in a position to make such a decision is dumb enough to go through with it. Where the money comes from makes very little difference. Hell, it wasn't until fairly recently that it made ANY difference at all, when the states started to enforce state curriculum standards that dictate what teachers will teach in classes. You're more than welcome to disagree with the content of those (at least once you've actually looked at them; go to your state's dept. of education webpage and peruse the hundreds of pages). Even now, a fairly large number of subjects are not tested for, so short of administrative supervision there's no way to know if a teacher is actually teaching the way they should be. But clearly, the answer to this problem is less government involvement and fewer administrative positions.
Just who is going to make sure that these providers of private education are going to be any more qualified than those who are publicly funded? Who that can't already do it now? No one. You'll have the same teachers doing the same job under the same supervision.
I'm not even sure who I'm talking to. You know who you are, I guess.
The thing is, what I'm hoping will happen is change the way americans view education. In almost all countries around the world except america your parents have to pay to send you to school, not college but places like high school, and people view it as a privelage. When people start viewing it as a privilege, and having to pay for it, then it will motivate the parents to look at what their children are doing at school and give a flying rats a*s about what is being taught.
Kachi wrote:
This whole privatized education theory is ridiculous. It would not work in any conceivable way except to make 99% of Americans retarded.
Quote:
But clearly, the answer to this problem is less government involvement and fewer administrative positions.
edit: fixed post
Edited, Jun 27th 2007 2:46pm by Lordofdogs
MoebiusLord the Irrelevant wrote:
Quote:
Just who is going to make sure that these providers of private education are going to be any more qualified than those who are publicly funded? Who that can't already do it now? No one. You'll have the same teachers doing the same job under the same supervision.
With the important difference that they will then be in a results based setting where when a parent pulls a child, funding goes with it, as opposed to an entitlement setting where it matters not what a school does, it still gets the check. The teachers unions will also likely not have nearly as much power as they do today, which would be lovely.
yes, i've spoken to people and, once a teacher gets hired by the state, its near impossible to get them fired. If its privatized then someone could fire a teacher for doing jack **** without having to go through all the bureaucracy of the government.
Ok. Color me confuzzled...
This whole privatized education theory is ridiculous.
... <three paragraphs on the subject> ...
But clearly, the answer to this problem is less government involvement and fewer administrative positions.
Um... Nice bookends for your argument there. ;)
Well. You'd have to set up an accreditation system. But that *could* be very very simple. In a fully privatized education system, you simply accredit based on where the students of any given school go after they graduate. Accreditation is granted, not by some huge government agency based on standards that may not apply, but based on collections of private organizations who the public believes represents the best future for their children.
Thus, if your school is a high-tech training focused school, you'd check out accreditations from high-tech employers, right? Afterall, what matters is whether or not the school is properly preparing the students for the job market. Something simple like "87% of our graduates obtained jobs with a member business of <accreditation X>" is sufficient for parents and students to judge whether a school is doing what it's supposed to do.
Businesses (and secondary education schools) can then independantly form into "accreditation groups". Basically structures that represent "success" in a field. So at a lower level (grade school equivalent), you might judge the quality of a school based on the number and types of other schools that consider it "accredited" (ie: they accept a significant percentage of applicants). Universities already do this to some degree. Businesses can do this at the high school and college level as well. Same idea as above.
The point is to provide true choices to parents and students. The point is to provide *real* accountability to the schools. The best measure of a schools quality is to measure its ability to send students on to "the next level" (whatever that may be). You don't need a huge government and massive testing proceedures to do that. Simple measurements of past success is sufficient. That in turn allows a free market process to occur, which ultimately will ensure a higher quality of education accross the board. After all, now schools are actively competing with eachother. Remember, under my plan, you'd have school vouchers paying for the majority of this, so every school gets the same amount of money per-student. Thus, any difference in success is a true meausre of the quality of the school itself (within its area of focus). This provides an incentive for schools to provide the best education they possibly can.
I'm not sure why anyone would think this wouldn't work. The biggest negative isn't the structure I'm proposing, but the pain involved in shifting over to this sort of education system. I think it's worth it in the long run though...
Edited, Jun 27th 2007 3:18pm by gbaji
Kachi wrote:
This whole privatized education theory is ridiculous.
... <three paragraphs on the subject> ...
But clearly, the answer to this problem is less government involvement and fewer administrative positions.
Um... Nice bookends for your argument there. ;)
Quote:
Just who is going to make sure that these providers of private education are going to be any more qualified than those who are publicly funded? Who that can't already do it now? No one. You'll have the same teachers doing the same job under the same supervision.
Well. You'd have to set up an accreditation system. But that *could* be very very simple. In a fully privatized education system, you simply accredit based on where the students of any given school go after they graduate. Accreditation is granted, not by some huge government agency based on standards that may not apply, but based on collections of private organizations who the public believes represents the best future for their children.
Thus, if your school is a high-tech training focused school, you'd check out accreditations from high-tech employers, right? Afterall, what matters is whether or not the school is properly preparing the students for the job market. Something simple like "87% of our graduates obtained jobs with a member business of <accreditation X>" is sufficient for parents and students to judge whether a school is doing what it's supposed to do.
Businesses (and secondary education schools) can then independantly form into "accreditation groups". Basically structures that represent "success" in a field. So at a lower level (grade school equivalent), you might judge the quality of a school based on the number and types of other schools that consider it "accredited" (ie: they accept a significant percentage of applicants). Universities already do this to some degree. Businesses can do this at the high school and college level as well. Same idea as above.
The point is to provide true choices to parents and students. The point is to provide *real* accountability to the schools. The best measure of a schools quality is to measure its ability to send students on to "the next level" (whatever that may be). You don't need a huge government and massive testing proceedures to do that. Simple measurements of past success is sufficient. That in turn allows a free market process to occur, which ultimately will ensure a higher quality of education accross the board. After all, now schools are actively competing with eachother. Remember, under my plan, you'd have school vouchers paying for the majority of this, so every school gets the same amount of money per-student. Thus, any difference in success is a true meausre of the quality of the school itself (within its area of focus). This provides an incentive for schools to provide the best education they possibly can.
I'm not sure why anyone would think this wouldn't work. The biggest negative isn't the structure I'm proposing, but the pain involved in shifting over to this sort of education system. I think it's worth it in the long run though...
Edited, Jun 27th 2007 3:18pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
The thing is, what I'm hoping will happen is change the way americans view education. In almost all countries around the world except america your parents have to pay to send you to school, not college but places like high school, and people view it as a privelage. When people start viewing it as a privilege, and having to pay for it, then it will motivate the parents to look at what their children are doing at school and give a flying rats a*s about what is being taught.
A difference in philosophy I suppose. An education is a child's right, not privilege. If you put it in the hands of the parents, I doubt they are going to care much more than they already do. I haven't met many if any parents who care about their money more than their child's education in the first place, and there are plenty of student's who do care even though their parents are entirely uninvolved.
Quote:
With the important difference that they will then be in a results based setting where when a parent pulls a child, funding goes with it, as opposed to an entitlement setting where it matters not what a school does, it still gets the check. The teachers unions will also likely not have nearly as much power as they do today, which would be lovely.
Yes, that would be excellent if people who knew little to nothing about education could use their dollars to call the shots on it. The main problem with privatized education is that it is politicized education.
Quote:
Should i state that most of those people will already be retarded, we'll just get them out of school, and stop them from filling up our classes. You know the people, the kids who did not want to go to school, did nothing there, parents didn't care, etc. those people need to get their act together and understand what they have, or leave.
You raise a valid concern, but there are plenty of ways to deal with children like these without throwing them to the wolves. Kids change. I've seen kids who over a month's time you'd think they have no future, then turn around within a few months and show themselves to be a great student. I've also seen perfectly decent students drop out right before graduation.
Quote:
I say getting people with business backgrounds into administrative positions in schools is a better idea than getting rid of it all together; These people dont understand how to run a school because they have backgrounds in education, not running, what could be considered, a business.
The thing is that an administrative education/background is mandatory to be in a serious administrative position. Yes, a school is in many ways a business, but would you want someone to manage a business that they knew little to nothing about the product or process? No, those are important aspects of being a good manager, and they are required to a very reasonable extent of administrators.
Quote:
yes, i've spoken to people and, once a teacher gets hired by the state, its near impossible to get them fired.
Then YOUR state is messed up, but in most states, a teacher can be fired within the first several years of their employment without being given any reason at all. Once they gain tenure, then the only comfort they are given is that now there needs to be a reason for them to be fired.
Quote:
Accreditation is granted, not by some huge government agency based on standards that may not apply, but based on collections of private organizations who the public believes represents the best future for their children.
And that is my problem with it: the public does not know much of anything about educational practice and really don't even have any kind of reliable consensus on what is "the best future" for their children OR this country. A good education is based on good educators with a good education, not a democracy or dollars.
Quote:
The point is to provide *real* accountability to the schools.
You should realize that the majority of schools would still be filled with the children of parents who were perfectly satisfied with public schooling and a lot of the more financially successful schools will actually be those that provide the best "value". The rest of the kids will go to schools where their education will be equivalent to that of any private school today.
All that aside though, a parent shouldn't be the one to decide a child's career path, and the quality of a child's education shouldn't be based on how much money a parent has. If you want your child to go to an elite school and you have the money for it, you ALREADY have that choice. By law all children are entitled to a free and appropriate education regardless of their parent's income.
You think that it'd be better to have schools compete, but just look at the competition of other businesses. Does it always result in a higher quality product? Often, it doesn't. Products of equal quality often in today's market play second banana to the better marketer. It results in more money spent in advertising, because gauging the quality of a school (which is based on the collective performance of a hundred plus faculty) is ridiculously unrealistic. Colleges themselves have their own "stock" value, and it is often based on decades-past performance rather than modern day. Recent studies even found that a lot of Ivy league schools were not in any way significantly better than smaller institutions, just more expensive. It'd suddenly be the same story K-12.
More likely, the better a school is at marketing, not the better it is at providing a good education, would end up determining what school a child went to. So, no thanks.
And I say that as someone who would easily make MUCH more money if that were the way the system worked.
Quote:
Quote:
As a teacher...
So, how much do they pay babysitters in your neck of the woods?
Quote:
... and administrator,...
F'uck me, a member of the biggest bloat and most wasteful part of the education system in America, right here in our midst.
A great big f'uck you to you. When the revolution happens here, we'll line you c'unts up behind the lawyers and use you to increase the efficiency of poor marksmen.
As a teacher...
So, how much do they pay babysitters in your neck of the woods?
Quote:
... and administrator,...
F'uck me, a member of the biggest bloat and most wasteful part of the education system in America, right here in our midst.
A great big f'uck you to you. When the revolution happens here, we'll line you c'unts up behind the lawyers and use you to increase the efficiency of poor marksmen.
I take offense, sir.
Its these kinds of mistaken assumptions that points out Kachi's original post, that most people know nothing about the educational system other than the small part they played as a student (except how to comlain about it).
The school I work at is a small, free public charter high school that accepts any and everyone as long as we have room (many dropouts, young parents, criminals, at-risk teens). We receive HALF the funding that public schools get, therefore I receive about half the pay rate for what you call babysitting as a public school teacher would get. The only way the school can stay alive is through fundraising, grants, and volunteer work. I volunteer 1-2 hours per day as an administrator (fulfilling two administrative roles), and so do many other teachers/adminstrators here. We take pride in provding an alternative education that encourages creativity (students can paint on the walls) with minimal beauracratic red-tape (no policy more restrictive than the state law).
As a federal grant administrator, I recognize the waste and ineffeciency that I must take part in on a daily basis. That is why I'm here, so I can voice these views and try to HELP CHANGE THE SYSTEM, NOT JUST COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. I recently succeeded in maneuvering $7000 alloted to travel expenses and contract labor in our grant to equipment that can be purchased for the students to use. We can recruit volunteers to help fill in the gap for the contract labor.
The point is that, unless you have taken part in and understand the educational system more comprehensively, your mistaken assumptions and ignorant slandering will do nothing to help improve our education.
Quote:
I take offense, sir.
cry more n00b
Quote:
The point is that, unless you have taken part in and understand the educational system more comprehensively, your mistaken assumptions and ignorant slandering will do nothing to help improve our education.
You mean like the fraud you described elsewhere in your post?
Thank you all the same. I've participated and seen firsthand all I need to see of the public school system, and my assertions are dead on. Even the teachers and administrators who claim to care about the kids are nothing more than small cogs in a broken wheel. You're babysitters and drains on society.
Your "alternative education" environment does a disservice to kids and should be shut down.
Quote:
The point is that, unless you have taken part in and understand the educational system more comprehensively, your mistaken assumptions and ignorant slandering will do nothing to help improve our education.
But if he has, they will?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I'll address the stuff you responded to from my post.
And that is my problem with it: the public does not know much of anything about educational practice and really don't even have any kind of reliable consensus on what is "the best future" for their children OR this country. A good education is based on good educators with a good education, not a democracy or dollars.
The public doesn't know anything about cars, or televisions, or phones, or sofas either. Yet, as consumers they are able to figure out which ones work well for them and which ones dont. Why assume this wouldn't work for education?
In this case "the public" does not represent a group of people getting together and deciding what is best and then making it so (a government solution essentially). It means that over time, each individual choice has an effect on the whole. This type of system automatically adjusts to changes in curriculum and technology. IMO, it's better in every single way.
You should realize that the majority of schools would still be filled with the children of parents who were perfectly satisfied with public schooling and a lot of the more financially successful schools will actually be those that provide the best "value". The rest of the kids will go to schools where their education will be equivalent to that of any private school today.
Why is this a problem? If the majority of people are satisfied with what they're getting now, and wont change anything under the new system, that's great for them. That's their choice. The problem isn't with those people. It's with the minority who are very unsatisfied with the education their children recieve, but under the current system have absolutely no way to choose anything different.
It's exactly "the rest of the kids" that this addresses. Right now, you are a slave to your district. If you can't afford private school on your own (and most people can't), then you have absolutely zero choice as to what school your chidren attend. The only way to change schools is to change address. The trap here is that if the way for poor kids to get out of the ghetto is to study hard and be successful so that their children can grow up in a better neighborhood (and therefore attend a better school), it's much much easier to do that if the child can attend a school better tailored to that child's educational needs. It's a chicken and egg problem. It's easy to get a good education and a good life if you're attending a good school. It's incredibly hard to do that if you're not. My proposal fixes this problem. Any child can obtain a high quality education based solely on the child's own interests and ability, not because of where his parents happen to live.
Yes. The problem is that most parents can't afford a private school. So it *is* based on how much money the parents have. Almost exclusively. So the rich kids have a choice, and the poor kids don't. Worse, since education is paid for by taxes, there are some people in the middle class who might have been able to afford to send their kids to a private school but the taxes they're paying for education are just enough to prevent that. Thus, the public education system becomes self-fullfilling for them (and they're worse off as a result).
What this does is allow any student to attend a "private school". The quality of that school is based on the student's own abilities rather then the families wealth. I don't see why this should be a problem. It's actually one of those things that I don't get since it seems like those who most oppose privatization of education are those who are also the most in tune with the whole "haves versus have-nots" issue. You'd think this would be accepted much more readily as a way to break that paradigm.
What percentage of the time is "often"? I think you'd have a hard time actually supporting an argument that open competition somehow prevents a better resulting product over time. All evidence shows the exact opposite. Certainly, competition does not *always* result in a better product, but it does so more often then any other method you could choose to use.
Hence why my accredidation idea is performance based, not "advertising" based.
The accredidation is inherited and flows ultimately from the job market downwards through the education system. The assumption here is that in the actual job market there is no reason or desire to falsely accredit an education facility as a result of some kind of advertisements. Doing so would only result in your own business being saddled with less effective employees, right? Not only is there no incentive to do that, there's a huge incentive to do the exact opposite.
The measurement is based on hiring/acceptance. Again. I suppose some business or university could choose to accept a bunch of people from some school because of advertisement (money one way or another), but then they're going to be accredited by the next layer. Either they are the business, in which case their business will suffer for it, or they need the accredidation of some business group (and they'll suffer for it). Either way, it wont work for very long. You can try to sell an Ivy league school as somehow being a superior education, but if it's not *actually* superior, those who hire the graduates from that school will know it. Even if they don't say anything directly, the fact that over time, they'll choose to hire graduates from some local state university instead will affect the ratings. If a higher percentage of medical students from schoolA get residencies at hospitals then at schoolB, schoolA will look like a better medical school and will presumably be more in demand in terms of students (and more attractive in terms of vouchers). You can't lie in this system. Not without costing yourself more then you gain...
Not if the accredidation is hire based. The only way to "lie" in that system is to deliberately hire people you know are underqualified simply to make a particular school look better. The schools certainly can market themselves in other ways, but as long as the students/parents have access to the accredidation ratings, then they can see past the BS if they wish. Those that don't? Well, that's economic darwinism at work, right?...
The question isn't whether you might make more money or not, but whether the result provides parents and students the ability to make more choices about their education that allow themselves to improve their lives in the long run. Ultimately, isn't that the purpose of an education system?
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Accreditation is granted, not by some huge government agency based on standards that may not apply, but based on collections of private organizations who the public believes represents the best future for their children.
And that is my problem with it: the public does not know much of anything about educational practice and really don't even have any kind of reliable consensus on what is "the best future" for their children OR this country. A good education is based on good educators with a good education, not a democracy or dollars.
The public doesn't know anything about cars, or televisions, or phones, or sofas either. Yet, as consumers they are able to figure out which ones work well for them and which ones dont. Why assume this wouldn't work for education?
In this case "the public" does not represent a group of people getting together and deciding what is best and then making it so (a government solution essentially). It means that over time, each individual choice has an effect on the whole. This type of system automatically adjusts to changes in curriculum and technology. IMO, it's better in every single way.
Quote:
Quote:
The point is to provide *real* accountability to the schools.
You should realize that the majority of schools would still be filled with the children of parents who were perfectly satisfied with public schooling and a lot of the more financially successful schools will actually be those that provide the best "value". The rest of the kids will go to schools where their education will be equivalent to that of any private school today.
Why is this a problem? If the majority of people are satisfied with what they're getting now, and wont change anything under the new system, that's great for them. That's their choice. The problem isn't with those people. It's with the minority who are very unsatisfied with the education their children recieve, but under the current system have absolutely no way to choose anything different.
It's exactly "the rest of the kids" that this addresses. Right now, you are a slave to your district. If you can't afford private school on your own (and most people can't), then you have absolutely zero choice as to what school your chidren attend. The only way to change schools is to change address. The trap here is that if the way for poor kids to get out of the ghetto is to study hard and be successful so that their children can grow up in a better neighborhood (and therefore attend a better school), it's much much easier to do that if the child can attend a school better tailored to that child's educational needs. It's a chicken and egg problem. It's easy to get a good education and a good life if you're attending a good school. It's incredibly hard to do that if you're not. My proposal fixes this problem. Any child can obtain a high quality education based solely on the child's own interests and ability, not because of where his parents happen to live.
Quote:
All that aside though, a parent shouldn't be the one to decide a child's career path, and the quality of a child's education shouldn't be based on how much money a parent has. If you want your child to go to an elite school and you have the money for it, you ALREADY have that choice. By law all children are entitled to a free and appropriate education regardless of their parent's income.
Yes. The problem is that most parents can't afford a private school. So it *is* based on how much money the parents have. Almost exclusively. So the rich kids have a choice, and the poor kids don't. Worse, since education is paid for by taxes, there are some people in the middle class who might have been able to afford to send their kids to a private school but the taxes they're paying for education are just enough to prevent that. Thus, the public education system becomes self-fullfilling for them (and they're worse off as a result).
What this does is allow any student to attend a "private school". The quality of that school is based on the student's own abilities rather then the families wealth. I don't see why this should be a problem. It's actually one of those things that I don't get since it seems like those who most oppose privatization of education are those who are also the most in tune with the whole "haves versus have-nots" issue. You'd think this would be accepted much more readily as a way to break that paradigm.
Quote:
You think that it'd be better to have schools compete, but just look at the competition of other businesses. Does it always result in a higher quality product? Often, it doesn't.
What percentage of the time is "often"? I think you'd have a hard time actually supporting an argument that open competition somehow prevents a better resulting product over time. All evidence shows the exact opposite. Certainly, competition does not *always* result in a better product, but it does so more often then any other method you could choose to use.
Quote:
Products of equal quality often in today's market play second banana to the better marketer. It results in more money spent in advertising, because gauging the quality of a school (which is based on the collective performance of a hundred plus faculty) is ridiculously unrealistic. Colleges themselves have their own "stock" value, and it is often based on decades-past performance rather than modern day. Recent studies even found that a lot of Ivy league schools were not in any way significantly better than smaller institutions, just more expensive. It'd suddenly be the same story K-12.
Hence why my accredidation idea is performance based, not "advertising" based.
The accredidation is inherited and flows ultimately from the job market downwards through the education system. The assumption here is that in the actual job market there is no reason or desire to falsely accredit an education facility as a result of some kind of advertisements. Doing so would only result in your own business being saddled with less effective employees, right? Not only is there no incentive to do that, there's a huge incentive to do the exact opposite.
The measurement is based on hiring/acceptance. Again. I suppose some business or university could choose to accept a bunch of people from some school because of advertisement (money one way or another), but then they're going to be accredited by the next layer. Either they are the business, in which case their business will suffer for it, or they need the accredidation of some business group (and they'll suffer for it). Either way, it wont work for very long. You can try to sell an Ivy league school as somehow being a superior education, but if it's not *actually* superior, those who hire the graduates from that school will know it. Even if they don't say anything directly, the fact that over time, they'll choose to hire graduates from some local state university instead will affect the ratings. If a higher percentage of medical students from schoolA get residencies at hospitals then at schoolB, schoolA will look like a better medical school and will presumably be more in demand in terms of students (and more attractive in terms of vouchers). You can't lie in this system. Not without costing yourself more then you gain...
Quote:
More likely, the better a school is at marketing, not the better it is at providing a good education, would end up determining what school a child went to. So, no thanks.
Not if the accredidation is hire based. The only way to "lie" in that system is to deliberately hire people you know are underqualified simply to make a particular school look better. The schools certainly can market themselves in other ways, but as long as the students/parents have access to the accredidation ratings, then they can see past the BS if they wish. Those that don't? Well, that's economic darwinism at work, right?...
Quote:
And I say that as someone who would easily make MUCH more money if that were the way the system worked.
The question isn't whether you might make more money or not, but whether the result provides parents and students the ability to make more choices about their education that allow themselves to improve their lives in the long run. Ultimately, isn't that the purpose of an education system?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'll address the stuff you responded to from my post.
That'd be a first.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
I'll address the stuff you responded to from my post.
That'd be a first.
And here I am doing it again... ;)
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
10 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Public school helped me to be tough enough to beat up the prep school kids on the otherside of town.
Doing the beating > taking a beating.
Doing the beating > taking a beating.
While I was handed more beat downs than I gave out, at least I wasn't scared to fight. I wish I fought more public school kids then my fight avg. would be above .300 lol
Quote:
You mean like the fraud you described elsewhere in your post?
There was no fraud, its all about finding creative ways to work with the system and change it for the better, which we do.
Quote:
Thank you all the same. I've participated and seen firsthand all I need to see of the public school system, and my assertions are dead on. Even the teachers and administrators who claim to care about the kids are nothing more than small cogs in a broken wheel. You're babysitters and drains on society.
I dropped out of public high school and graduated early through self motivated studies because, for the most part, your assertions are correct.
However, we can see how the system has done its damage, as so many of you make ignorant assumptions, leaps of faith, without any clear indicators from which to judge. Examples are as follows:
Quote:
Your "alternative education" environment does a disservice to kids and should be shut down.
Do you have any idea what type of environment we have? Any idea what these people would be doing if not for us? Any idea how many grateful people credit us with giving them something to live for, for turning their lives around?
You have no perspective from which to make a clear judgment, just ignorant assumptions, complaints about your experience, and name-calling.
Quote:
The point is that, unless you have taken part in and understand the educational system more comprehensively, your mistaken assumptions and ignorant slandering will do nothing to help improve our education.
But if he has, they will?
But if he has, they will?
Not necessarily. Semantic logic is not like algebra. Just because if he hasn't it won't doesn't mean if he has it will.
Bit of a necro, so rather than respond extensively to "the wall" I think I can sum things up with this:
lol, HELL of an assumption. A little money under the table... old friends... please-- the world of business has no place directing the flow of education. As a goal, a product of education, ok. Otherwise you throw the future of the students to the wolves.
Quote:
The assumption here is that in the actual job market there is no reason or desire to falsely accredit an education facility as a result of some kind of advertisements.
lol, HELL of an assumption. A little money under the table... old friends... please-- the world of business has no place directing the flow of education. As a goal, a product of education, ok. Otherwise you throw the future of the students to the wolves.
Kachi wrote:
Bit of a necro, so rather than respond extensively to "the wall" I think I can sum things up with this:
lol, HELL of an assumption. A little money under the table... old friends... please-- the world of business has no place directing the flow of education. As a goal, a product of education, ok. Otherwise you throw the future of the students to the wolves.
Quote:
The assumption here is that in the actual job market there is no reason or desire to falsely accredit an education facility as a result of some kind of advertisements.
lol, HELL of an assumption. A little money under the table... old friends... please-- the world of business has no place directing the flow of education. As a goal, a product of education, ok. Otherwise you throw the future of the students to the wolves.
If the owners/managers of a business choose to waste money overpaying someone, that's their business, isn't it? I addressed this very issue in my earlier post. While a group of businesses could falsely endorse a poorly performing school purely because it chock full of the sons and daughters of other wealthy business types, that's not ultimately going to impact *anyone* except those involved. The businesses hiring those people are choosing to hire less effective people. If the cost of doing that is acceptable to them, then that's their choice.
Most businesses aren't going to do that for the simple fact that most businesses have to compete for their business. If company A participates in the "hire friends and family no matter what" program, and company B hires purely based on quality, company B will gradually "win" in the free market. This "problem" is self correcting and really has a minor effect on the whole market (or education system in this case).
I don't see it as a problem.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'm just amazed at how you think this would work out in practice, but oh well, ****, you really think that kid's with richer parents won't basically be able to buy a better education with this system, and no, don't flatter yourself-- the education won't actually have to be better. I don't know what to tell you.
Currently there are, you know, laws and stuff that prevent someone from being hired or passed over for a position for reasons other than their ability to do the job. What would you do about that?
Currently there are, you know, laws and stuff that prevent someone from being hired or passed over for a position for reasons other than their ability to do the job. What would you do about that?
I don't see it as a problem.
Well then, I guess we can add it to the list of Racism, Sexual Assault, Erosion of Civil Liberties, Slaughtering of innocent people, Gross abuse of executive privlidge, etc.
Married **** still a big concern, though, right? Just want to stay current.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
9 posts
Without having read all of the thread, I figured I'd comment anyway.
I'm from a horribly small town and my graduating class was only 26 people. The entire school (including the staff) had only 360 members the year I graduated. I believe the next town over had a graduating class of near 600 or so. Now that I've shared that, you may be able to understand where I'm coming from.
I feel that public school, for me, was a blessing. The teacher to student ratio at my school was somewhere around 1:20. Almost all of the teachers were dedicated. If you didn't want to do the work, they found some way to make it worth your while. If it included bribing you to do it somehow, they were willing. Because the class was so small the teachers actually got to know you and were able to find ways to get you to do the work, and with a little persistance, make you actually enjoy the class.
However, due to the small class size, people who were more intelligent than most students had to suffer as there simply weren't enough teachers to teach advanced courses. So, if you happened to be one of those students, it was your job to go above and beyond the call and do more work for your own personal benefit.
I can honestly say that just about every one of my teachers was a mentor at some point. With a school that small, it was easy to get to know them. If you were having a rough time at home, they'd listen and give you advice. They'd tell you everything you wanted to hear and even more often the things you didn't want to hear.
One of the teachers taught English and Drama. At one point he was married. When drama class and finals came around, he'd spend something like 18 hours a day at the school helping people and working on plays and other things. He'd even manage to enlist the help of other teachers and get them to abandon their families (or on occasion bring them in) to help out whatever cause.
As for the original question (whether public schools destroy creativity), I don't think so. Not at my school. If there was so much as a bud of something creative in your mind, I'm sure that it would be picked and watered until it blossomed.
That is my opinion, from a small (but public) school.
I'm from a horribly small town and my graduating class was only 26 people. The entire school (including the staff) had only 360 members the year I graduated. I believe the next town over had a graduating class of near 600 or so. Now that I've shared that, you may be able to understand where I'm coming from.
I feel that public school, for me, was a blessing. The teacher to student ratio at my school was somewhere around 1:20. Almost all of the teachers were dedicated. If you didn't want to do the work, they found some way to make it worth your while. If it included bribing you to do it somehow, they were willing. Because the class was so small the teachers actually got to know you and were able to find ways to get you to do the work, and with a little persistance, make you actually enjoy the class.
However, due to the small class size, people who were more intelligent than most students had to suffer as there simply weren't enough teachers to teach advanced courses. So, if you happened to be one of those students, it was your job to go above and beyond the call and do more work for your own personal benefit.
I can honestly say that just about every one of my teachers was a mentor at some point. With a school that small, it was easy to get to know them. If you were having a rough time at home, they'd listen and give you advice. They'd tell you everything you wanted to hear and even more often the things you didn't want to hear.
One of the teachers taught English and Drama. At one point he was married. When drama class and finals came around, he'd spend something like 18 hours a day at the school helping people and working on plays and other things. He'd even manage to enlist the help of other teachers and get them to abandon their families (or on occasion bring them in) to help out whatever cause.
As for the original question (whether public schools destroy creativity), I don't think so. Not at my school. If there was so much as a bud of something creative in your mind, I'm sure that it would be picked and watered until it blossomed.
That is my opinion, from a small (but public) school.
Kachi wrote:
I'm just amazed at how you think this would work out in practice, but oh well, @#%^, you really think that kid's with richer parents won't basically be able to buy a better education with this system, and no, don't flatter yourself-- the education won't actually have to be better. I don't know what to tell you.
I never said that under my system the kids with richer parents wont be able to buy a better education. That's a false dilemma since the kids of richer parents can buy better educations *now*. There's no change there.
What my system does is prevent the bottom from falling out quite so badly as it does now in the public school system (especially in urban areas). My system gives the poor kids who *cant* afford to have choices in the current system the ability to choose which school to attend based on their abilities and not just their economic status.
You can see how that's a good thing, right?
Quote:
Currently there are, you know, laws and stuff that prevent someone from being hired or passed over for a position for reasons other than their ability to do the job. What would you do about that?
Huh? What does this have to do with my idea?
Edited, Jul 13th 2007 1:53pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Just who is going to make sure that these providers of private education are going to be any more qualified than those who are publicly funded? Who that can't already do it now? No one. You'll have the same teachers doing the same job under the same supervision.
Well. You'd have to set up an accreditation system. But that *could* be very very simple. In a fully privatized education system, you simply accredit based on where the students of any given school go after they graduate. Accreditation is granted, not by some huge government agency based on standards that may not apply, but based on collections of private organizations who the public believes represents the best future for their children.
This would be a godsend.
I'd change some details, but basically gbaji has the right idea. An idea which could also be applied to public schools under the heading of "grading" schools, say, instead of accrediting them.
Be prepared for some pretty strange results, however. I'm certain the public will choose some rather special "collections of private organizations", like, say, Oral Roberts University (in some parts of the country) - but that is their choice. And they'll get exactly what they deserve.
Accreditation of Universities (in the western USA, as run by these folks: http://www.wascweb.org/ ) was probably started with the best of intentions but now (from my limited experience) has virtually no bearing on the quality of education at said institutions. It is exactly the kind of thing which would give gbaji fits.
If we implemented gbaji's plan and it turned into the kind of accreditation I've encountered, which I am very sorry to say is likely, it will be yet another expensive waste of time in a failed attempt to reform US education.
As generations of immigrants have shown, it is quite possible to get a world class education in the public schools of the USA.
Although it would take time, if the public cared enough about it, the current system could be world class, with no major structural changes.
Quote:
I never said that under my system the kids with richer parents wont be able to buy a better education. That's a false dilemma since the kids of richer parents can buy better educations *now*. There's no change there.
Uh, no, because whether or not you can get a good job nowadays really has about jack **** to do with what K-12 school you went to. I mean I just ******* explained that they won't ACTUALLY be buying a better education, they'll just be able to better buy their way through school.
Quote:
My system gives the poor kids who *cant* afford to have choices in the current system the ability to choose which school to attend based on their abilities and not just their economic status.
Maybe your system does, but life doesn't. The reality of the world makes your idealistic system not work-- as if it will be so simple for the kid to go to whatever school they want/qualify for. If a brilliant kid just happens to live only around low-performing schools, well that's too bad for them. Children who live in poor regions will be even more deprived of a good education than they are now.
What you're talking about now is ability grouping students in the worst way for the sake of increasing incentive for teachers and administrators to perform better. That is not sound educational practice, and as for improving schools, it's like cutting off your finger because you have a hangnail. You'd get better results just giving raises based on performance evaluations.
Quote:
Huh? What does this have to do with my idea?
It's pretty simple. Your idea makes the school a person attended a deciding factor in them getting a job. They went to a good school, so they get a good job. You don't see how this is a problem, especially in light of the aforementioned geographical limitations?
It could be that I'm simply not understanding your proposal, but I think it's more likely that you just haven't put a lot of realistic thought into the repercussions that a system like this would entail.
I guess what it really boils down to is that if you don't like the public school system, you don't have to use it, unless you're poor, in which case, you should be thanking whatever God you believe in that it's there.
Recent Visitors: 170
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (170)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Do public schools kill creativity?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC