Submit Your Three Point Plan For Education

Discussion in 'Education' started by upside-down cake, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0


    It should not be what the student likes, but what he scores best in. The decision should be made for him, just as the decision about whether he can play college football is. The only thing the university does right is something it shouldn't be doing at all: sports. That should be model for the few who belong in college: exclusive focus on those with the most natural talent, popularity with fellow students from childhood on, a full scholarship that provides a better lifestyle than the 18-22 year-olds who work instead of going to college have.

    The most important omission today is in not concentrating on talent. Our wrong focus is like telling a coach he should neglect those who made the team and spend all his time on those whom he had to cut. It would also still be insulting talent if we told him to neglect his first string and concentrate on all the other players. Our national test scores are irrelevant as a reason to change unless our best students score lower than the best students in other countries. The way the media present these data is like wasting time determining whether the average University of Alabama student is better at football than the students at other universities. I don't care if the fratboys, nerds, and couch potatoes at Bama couldn't beat a randomly picked junior college team, so why should we insult brains as much as the actual players would be insulted if we did care about that? Even the word "gifted" is insulting. No one gave us anything; we are the gift. But all we get is insults, ingratitude, and humiliation, especially when we see the way superior athletes are treated. The way our illegitimate leaders would influence the public into calling my proposal "elitist" is contradicted by the fact that the elitist way we treat athletic ability is acceptable.

    Before college, under my natural system, the talented student would get his team Friday off or save his group from having to come in on Saturday. He would be looked up to in the same way that the superior athlete who hits the game-winning home run is now. Second, being paid to teach the Saturday class to students four grades younger would give him the presently missing material reward from being smart. Third, it would give him the pride in being a leader. But all this would endanger the rich corporate parasites, who steal all their wealth from humiliated High IQs meekly submitting to becoming Cash Cows. Corporate patents is the model for the way all the talented are treated all the time. A typical example of The Goose That Lays the Golden Eggheads is the case of the inventor getting a $30,000 bonus while his corporate slaveowners got $300,000,000 for the patent! The same thing happened to the inventor of Valium. And to the inventor of television. Such stolen wealth must be confiscated. High IQ hackers can do that.
     
  2. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Athletics is different from Academics. Just because I do well on a test, doesn't mean that's the field I'm going to go into. I am a whiz in history, placing a 4 on the AP exam with only an hour of studying. But I want to go into a public speaking job, despite the fact I have no test to back up how well I can speak in front of a crowd.

    Yes, we ignore talents to some degree. But I have yet to see what you're talking about. Those that do well can choice to take harder courses. It's all up to them to learn more if they want to.
    Than that doesn't provide the incentive for the other people to work. Them relying on one person means they don't have to work as hard. That weakens the system because those that need to learn skills, find no need to learn them until their out on their own.

    .
    .

    And that's their choice to work for said company. But it sounds more now that you want to revise the patent laws.
     
  3. septimine

    septimine New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think we have a couple of problems at the college level.

    First, we do a terrible job at the college level of telling kids what the college degrees are to be used for. I've yet to see ANY college post the results of earning a degree in plain English anywhere. So kids think that everyone who graduates with a certain degree is going to be doing afterward. I think part of the reason that this doesn't happen is that it would hurt the colleges too much. They need lots of lib-arts students in the seats reading Proust to keep enrollment high and pay for the people majoring in more expensive Chemistry or whatever. It also helps keep the C+ kids coming. They all think they're the top and the elite because they're majoring in X and graduating, however I think if it were known that a B+ in a major is required to get a job in that field, they might choose other options.

    Second, because of the way student loans and so on are structured, the cost of the degree doesn't kick in until AFTER you buy it. It's fairly easy to get a loan, and mom and dad are willing to chip in as well, but since the student themselves isn't paying until later, it's getting the education "free" which means that there's no real reason for a kid to consider not going. Even if you aren't a great student, you can hang around a college campus and have the college experience while delaying adulthood for another few years. The bill, when it comes later, will be a rude awakening, sure, but for the 4 years you're on campus there are no negative consequences for having done so. The other part is that it prevents a kid from treating the college education he is getting as an investment. He has no skin in the game. If you buy a house, you spend your own money and will insist on getting that baby inspected and all problems fixed before you sign on the dotted line. You'll care about the neighborhood, you'll care about all kinds of things. And you'll also care about keeping up that house even after you buy. You aren't going to trash a house you buy with your money. I think education is much the same -- if you paid as you go, you wouldn't spend more time at frat toga parties than you do studying, you wouldn't be thrilled to find out that class is cancelled for the day. You wouldn't cut corners on homework. You paid $10K of your own money to be in that class, you aren't going to ditch it, you aren't going to skip the assigned readings, you aren't going to turn in re-worded wikipedia entries as your "report", you'll bust your hump because you're investing -- paying now for a hopefully bigger payoff in the future. You're also more likely to ask the hard questions about the courses you're taking -- does this investment pay me back? Is this something that will enhance my resume, is it something that's going to give me a real skill, is it something I can see myself wanting to do for 20 years.
     
  4. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is my plan for the broke US public school education system.

    1) Abolish the public school system, turn them private with some gubment funding, about 1/4 the funding.

    2) Abolish the huge public school administrative mess. And impose, Super strict oversight by a team of private and public officials. About 1/30th the size and 5% of the current cost for public school systems today.

    3) Allow private and contracted players to enter in the market of education, and make it a requirement for parents to be involved if they have kids being funded by the taxpayer. Or make them pay some part for their kid's education.

    There you have it a modern day school system for a modern future for the global economy.

    But this is all fantasy, those lame public school welfare employees of the US public school system will never allow this to happen. Makes too much sense, and they don't want kids smarter than them.
     
  5. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see the issue some schools are bad but mostly the areas they are in are bad, that is not the schools fault. I checked most comparisons it seems out students rank globally in the top 25% of all nations and in that tend to be decently placed overall. Our population is 99% literate, most can use mathematics and know sufficient history and science for an average citizen. Or they have the skills to look this information up if curious. That isn't bad can there be improvements say in funding or what is taught perhaps, but overall schools are doing okay.

    If anything employers need to give vocational education the same weight as college in more cases its bad a military person can leave say twenty years and their military training is not worth it to an employer even if the skills are largely what the employer wants but don't have a degree.
     
  6. FreeMind

    FreeMind New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    System of education should be :

    1.Test kids in 1st grade see them which lesson are they interested in and have little and fun talks with them untill they are teens.

    2.When they become teens give them a form of lessons that they want to choose but when i say teen age like ( 14 ) 8th grade.
    And they can pick the lessons they want in high schools and you will see that they are more motivated in those lessons like one girl will pick math and science cources ( Chem,Phy,Bio ) and she wants Music for her own language English Literature and other courses like wood working (clubs ) and other lessons only pick one Geography , P.E , foreing languages etc.
    They shouldnt fail for an average and dont stress them at those ages. They get pretty stress for one exam over another they are allways stressed in their schedule teachers should observate them if the student is irresponsible they and fails you can put them on a exam to pass them in the class that he/she failed. But the other student who's responsible never breaks promises only has a lesson that he/she cant catch up with and she/he fails for that shouldnt be an option ! Those kind of kids should pass right away with teacher observation.

    3.Collage , University Exam stress put them in Universitys with the courses they selected and look at their 4 years of High School Averages. And if the test is really necesarry just give a small test for them as a barage not a big test like those university exam pass.
     
  7. septimine

    septimine New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kids need at minimum some foundation on which to build. Fun little talks don't teach him to read or write or add. And at any rate, there are lots of skills that are not fun but needed, even in adulthood. No one likes everything they do, there's always a task that needs done that you don't want to do.

    I disagree here too. The problem is that kids need to be directed into something that the economy actually needs, which is made somewhat worse by the problem that many kids have only a limited understanding of what the skills are like what kinds of things are good to know. So we're going to create lots of people with skill in arts and literature and perhaps some kinds of social sciences, which we don't need, while at the same time not producing students skilled in business or sciences which are going to be the drivers of the 21st century technology.

    And as far as not stressing the students with the possibility of failure -- I think that's actually cruel in a sense. We aren't going to do that once they graduate. No boss is going to pat an employee on the head if they screw up. And not giving kids the possibility of failure doesn't teach them that they can recover from a loss. The people who do better at things have learned that you can "come back" from a failure. By not letting a kid fail ever you stunt that growth, they crumple at the first sign of trouble because they've never been in that situation and they don't know that they can recover. They think failing is the end of the world because they've never lost anything.

    How do you know if they've even bothered to buy the book for these courses? How do you know if they get the material? Would you want to be treated by a surgeon who was never tested on his knowledge of anatomy or chemistry?

    And I will point out that it's rather ironic that the one guy who is worried about the difficulty of passing tests and the stress of the school system is (thus far) the one with the poorest grasp of spelling and grammar. I'd give you a test, but that would be stressful.
     
  8. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not possible to provide potential education solutions when we don't know the clear and concise mission or goal of the US public education system.

    I believe several months ago I actually checked the Department of Education website looking for their mission statement and didn't find anything. This was not surprising since if we commit to specific goals then we could be held accountable.

    I suspect that the reason why decade after decade we are incapable of finding 'root' solutions is because none of us know the goals of our public education system.

    So...my ONE POINT plan for US public education is simple; define public education
     
  9. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Anyone who does not at least graduate HS or get a GED will receive absolutely no benefits of any kind from the government. There is no reason why anyone else should have to pay for their stupidity.

    2)Parents who have kids that are routinely absent from school will no longer be eligible for any government benefits as well.

    3)Kids that do not behave will be expelled immediately and both they and their parents will lose all benefits and be ineligible for any future benefits for at least 5 years.
     
  10. Voltiare

    Voltiare New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. Launch an Education Reform initiative. Look at what is working in other countries (ie, Singapore's approach to mathematics is unparalleled, Finland's approach to education theory is allowing it to outcompete American children in international testing, Germany beats the US while children only are going to school for half a day (8AM-12AM/1PM)). Seriously begin adopting what works, not what "fits" with tradition, ideology, etc.

    2. Reform teachers. Cull the herd. Teachers are not respected by students (as TV has shown for years)because they are in general brutish/dominating, uninterested in the development of the children, and focused on money. This is an American problem, few other countries have a generational "beef" with educators. There are numerous plans already proposed (incentives for teachers with high-performing students for example) that I do not feel need to be expounded upon too much.

    3. School choice. If anyone is familiar with the DC Opportunity Scholarship that allowed children from low-income families to enter private schools. The results were spectacular. Not only was it cheaper than the failing, overcrowded public schools, the students ENJOYED school, they were excelling. Sadly, the program was canceled because it upset too many teaches unions. Imagine if there were state/nationwide Opportunity Scholarships allowing parents and students to choose the school that will allow them to develop their talents and skills to become functioning, productive, and satisfied workers. Why should students be forced to attend failing schools because of where they live?
    Also, homeschooling has shown itself to be more than capable at producing academically superior students. Why not encourage parents to homeschool and thus reduce burden on the physical school. Or what about charter schools which are growing in popularity and success. Florida and Pennsylvania both have high-achieving cyber-schools that are outperforming the traditional factory-style schools of the past.
     
  11. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    1. Re-localize schools. There has been an ongoing centralization effort, to 'raise standards' in theory, but it lowers effects in reality because such measures take the school away from the community and give it to bureaucrats. Re-localizing schools will also make it easier for parents to have a say in their child's education, and will increase parent involvement.
    2. Create a voucher system to allow parents to take slightly less than the amount of money allotted per student in the school in their area and use it towards getting their child a private education. Not doing so would only further the wealth gap, not bridge it in any way.
    3. Bring back shop class. College isn't for everyone, and high schools should have classes geared towards more than just college prep. Just as important, though, there really is something about shop class that builds character. We could also do with bringing back the emphasis on self-reliance. When my dad went through high school he was taught how to change oil, tires, brake pads, etc., and I have no idea why that wasn't included in my high school education.
     
  12. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regarding #1, in order to decentralize public schools this means more facilities and teachers and administrators...if you double the number of schools you double the costs. And having more schools allows for greater variances from one school to another.

    I'd like someone to consider a single highly qualified teacher broadcasting their class study to many satellite facilities including into the homes. Remote sights could be administered by teacher's assistants and local facilities could be smaller/simpler. We have video-conferencing so why not use this technology? Maybe not 100%...how about 50% of classes?

    The answer to your #3 is today most people have AAA or simply call a service. Further, most people could care less what the tire air pressure might be or oil and water levels, etc...let a warning light on the dash tell them when something needs to be done.

    Your #2 does not solve anything about public education; just encourages students to seek other institutions?

    Generally, the problem with this thread and the question is no one knows the actual goals/mission of public education? You mention above 'college prep' which is ridiculous when 30% fail or drop out of high school while another 20% didn't learn a single thing; obviously at least 50% of public education kids are not being prepped for college. Then you talk about 'shop class' as if public education is supposed to provide vocational training? Bottom line is if we do not understand the goals of public education...how can we possibly offer solutions? So the first question of this thread might ask 'what should the goals of a public education system be'? Once we know if public education is for baby-sitting, or learning the three R's, or college prep, or vocational studies, then we can solve how to design the national system...
     
  13. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    #1) not really. Decentralization of schools, as it happened in my home state, is more about cutting eliminating school districts and thereby eliminating position that previously were at the district level (which was the case in my home state). There wasn't any decrease in the number of teachers or staff, there was just a cut in overhead costs. The result was that parents became less involved (when you have to drive hours to speak with a district manager, who doesn't have time for you anyways, it's much harder to make an impact). And it's obviously not just because of distance, decisions started being made over broader districts, and so represented the localities less well. Localities got less and less say in how education was in their town. This isn't really a new thing - communities use to be much more involved in education.
    #2) no, it doesn't improve public schools, it improves the education of the public - which is the entire point of this thread. public schools usually do worse for a reason. Most often, when you find public schools that do really well and have a good reputation, you'll find that they're those schools that haven't suffered the negative effects of consolidation (which is what I was talking about in #1).
    Video conferencing isn't really a rebuttal of #1, it's a different matter, which I would support. Technology is advancing quickly - you don't need consolidated school districts to have those kinds of programs.
    #3) .... :blankstare: why, thank you Captain Obvious. I know what most people do with car issues. It'd be economically better for our students to learn how to do that stuff on their own.

    You're fighting a straw man here. I never said "we should haz shop clas cuz kidz two dumb to go to colig these dayz." Read past the second sentence in the paragraph.
     
  14. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I might add that most kids couldn't care less what Shakespeare said, or how plant cells operate.
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again...all of this dialogue cannot find consensus because we have no clear and concise goal/mission of the public education system. I'm not going to argue silly stuff with you or anyone because we're off topic until we know the goal of public education. Even the Department of Education website, which I looked at maybe a year ago, had nothing indicating the goals and mission of public education. Now if the DoEd has no idea what their goals might be, how can they possibly design a public education system to get them where they don't even know where they are going? We have tens of millions of Americans who will pass through this education system, ALL of them with different needs, different capabilities, different interests, different social and economic backgrounds, different locations, etc. and they cannot all fit into a politically convenient cubby-hole. I challenge anyone to get Obama or someone from Congress or the DoEd to provide in writing the goals of public education...IMO if we do not know where we are going how can we possibly ever get anywhere...

    - - - Updated - - -

    And from the eyes of many kids and parents they could care less about automotive repair, Shakespeare and plant cells...
     
  16. Voltiare

    Voltiare New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't Mann (the founder of the American public education system) push for public education to train up American youth to be able participants in both society and government? To teach student's the Three R's (an economic reason) and fully able to make informed decisions for their government (social reason).

    Now, it seems that the mission/goal/aim of Public Education is it's lack of mission and aimless behavior. I do agree that until a goal of education is established it will be very difficult to begin addressing the issue. Imagine being a construction firm and not knowing what to construct, only that you must construct.
     
  17. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My new three point plan.

    1. End compulsory public education.

    2. Make education the legal obligations of the parents to provide just like other obligations or its felony child neglect but require the parents be providing some form of education up to age sixteen, this could be any form of education as long as they read, write and do mathematics at the end at the 8th grade level.

    3. Reduce taxes on property for schools and give the tax break to parents on their income tax of say half what the government spends on education per child, for example $4000.

    There you go education goes where it belongs the parent(s) or foster parent(s) as the case may be.
     
  18. CRUE CAB

    CRUE CAB New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Messages:
    5,952
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Force parents to be involved.
    Grade teachers just like you grade students.
    Take kids on field trips to places like prisons, you know, just to show the alternative.
     
  19. Voltiare

    Voltiare New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, the Dept. of Education does have a mission statement:

     
  20. septimine

    septimine New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Use the German Sie it's the 3rd person, and can be just about anything you need it to be. And it would agree.
     

Share This Page