Abolish the Department of Education?

[BadenP]

Better yet abolish the Dept of ED and all state and district school districts,which are nothing more than another level of unneeded bureaucracy, thereby eliminating the need for ever increasing property taxes. Then allow charter and private schools the opportunity to establish their own curriculums and let the parents choose what they like the best.

 

Public schools are miserably failing our kids today,and have been for a long time now from the stupidy of the unions protecting lousy teachers to local school district administrations becoming more and more corrupt, siphoning funds for pet projects and personal use.

[packsaddle]

BadenP, I wouldn't paint all of public education with that failure. Some, yes. The schools my children went to were, by most measures, very good, both the private and the public ones.

 

To address some of what Oak Tree noted, we also confronted those limitations on 'choice' and we moved our residence in order to make sure we were in the best school district. I do understand what you say. Thing is, if you think a 'free market' approach is going to make it all easy, or somehow bring some magical improvement to what most of us agree is an essential system that is not working well, you are mistaken. The free market approach that I advocate is going to cost more and access to the best schools is going to be even more competitive for many of us. There is no way around this. To expect, or even wish for anything else is either fantasy, self-deception, or some kind of expression of an attitude in which we really don't care but want some kind of free ride at Disneyworld. All the free market approach will do is allow greater latitude in rearranging the problems, it won't make them go away because the problems in education, nearly all of them, begin with the families involved. And the marketplace won't address that. At least not directly.

[BadenP]

pack

 

I hear what you are saying however in a recent survey I read on a nationwide basis high school drop out rates are averaging 40-50%, if that is not a failure I don't know what is. We need to demand more of our educational systems and the public schools are falling further and further behind every year. Yes charter and private schools cost more, put if the same public money were to be given to them based on results it would significantly bring down those costs and make most of those schools affordable.

 

The public school system when it was created over 100 years ago was fine for the needs of those times, but not anymore. Public schools are cutting music, art , PE, sports, and many other programs just to get within their budgets. This is nothing more than an ever increasing failure of the public school system. Look at some of the inventive programs of education in poor inner city areas are seeing. In Harlem one man started a program charter school to help 10,000 at risk youth, and EVERY one of them not only graduate from high school but all of them who apply to college are accepted. These kids get personalized attention and motivation. This school receives no public funds which instead go to the public schools in the area whose administrators admit they have not been able to meet even the basic standards in their schools.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[acco40]

It is in my best interest that my children have a proper education. It is in my best interest that the children in my neighborhood have a proper education. It is in my best interest that the children in my state have a proper education. It is in my best interest that the children in my nation have a proper education.

 

I have no issue with a federal DOE. I have certain issues with some of the things they do.

[Beavah]

It is in my best interest that the children in my nation have a proper education.

 

Yah, there's the rub. I agree with acco.

 

So for my part, I am willing to contribute more than my fair share, based on my income, to successful education. I just don't want my money allocated by a bunch of smarmy lawyers who failed at da practice of law (meaning politicians ).

 

I don't know what da best allocation is. I'd be happy if I got to give the money direct to a school or schools. No overhead, and I'd do the work to make sure I gave to schools that would use my dollars well. I'd be happy to give my money direct to individual students as a scholarship, selected by me or by a method I trusted. Again, no overhead, deserving students get the help. I'd be happy giving the money to parents to spend on a school of their choice, so long as da school was accredited by an independent outside agency of educational professionals. No overhead, and parents know their kid's interests and needs better than I do.

 

I'm not very happy giving it to Washington, to be allocated by congress, to be dispersed by da DOE, to be delivered to states, to be allocated and dispersed by the state DOE, to be given to da local district, to be allocated by more politicians, da remaining fraction to be dispersed to da programs that might ultimately reach kids, provided anything selected by a politician will ever really help kids.

 

BadenP is right, eh? A significant fraction of public education is failing, despite a fairly substantive investment. Investing more may be warranted, but why would anybody invest in a system with that kind of record? Even our "best" schools fall behind their international peers.

 

Beavah

 

[skeptic]

While there is ABSOLUTELY a huge problem within our public schools, much of which can be addressed by strict policies regarding attendance, discipline, and respect, we really cannot make a fair comparison of the charter schools and non-charters within districts I don't feel. Charters are successful more because of the students attending; they are the ones whose families seem to better understand the importance of education. The support outside of school directly effects the outcome within the school. And, many of these parents directly involve themselves gratis in the functions within the schools, resulting in good examples to their own children and the benefit of all those receiving the dedicated programs.

 

Of course, the fact that the charters and private schools tend to take the best students just leads to even poorer results within the student populations left in the traditional schools. So, the charter focus needs to be the focus in ALL the schools. But, it cannot work, if there are no strictly upheld consequences for the non performing students and their non-supportive families. Teachers will seldom succeed at high levels if their time is too dominated by disruption and bad attitudes; nor if they feel they cannot realistically grade the student work.

 

All of this has been discussed over and over. The real trouble is that we continue to turn a blind eye within most of our school system. We know the answers, or at least what will help. Somehow we have to find the courage to suck it up and do what needs to be done. And we need to stop pushing the idea that every kid NEEDS TO GO TO COLLEGE, or they are failures. It is likely that barely 50% of the kids in school really will benefit from traditional academic college. The other half really need to be channeled into the trades or other areas. They will be far less likely to become disinterested problems if they are involved in something in which they are actually interested. And that includes many areas of the arts, as well as trades. We NEED plumbers, electricians, carpenters, auto mechanics, computer "repair people", culinary experts and so on.

 

End of current rant.

[Beavah]

Yah, I agree with skeptic too. In most of da rest of the world there is a well-respected non-academic educational track in schooling. Not our vocational Ed which tends to be a holding pen for weak students, but a real, rigorous program that attracts bright students who aren't thinkin' in terms of university.

 

But let me come back at yeh, skeptic. What "strictly upheld consequences" would yeh propose for non-supportive families? Are yeh ready to have the state take the children away from such parents? If not that, then what?

 

Beavah

[packsaddle]

I will also followup on something Skeptic wrote regarding the absence of need for every child to go to college. I agree. However, it is, in fact, the current status if our dropout rates are what were just quoted. Less than 10% of my graduating class went to college. I think am nearly the only one of them to complete a terminal academic degree although I believe there is one veterinarian and there may be a dentist - we don't know what happened to a few of them. While I admit that my school was probably near one of the extremes in this particular metric, the 'elite' schools had far from a majority in college attendance.

In public meetings, I still hear statements similar to Skeptic's - but expressed to support a contention that not every child needs to complete high school. It is a simple matter to extend the argument to school attendance at all and I believe I have read statements essentially to that effect in these threads from one member who advocated denying education to 'uneducables'. He has yet to explain who those 'uneducables' are.

 

So I also ask, in addition to Beavah's questions, how would we decide who 'should' go to college? I am ok with making opportunities available to all persons and then letting individual merit and fair standards in the marketplace of higher education determine the outcome. It mostly works that way now with a few exceptions here and there. Skeptic, how would you change/improve over what we have now? Some details would be nice.

 

I ask this because I do see the need, in this new world with the need of high-tech understanding even in the trades. I really CAN see the utility of math literacy and science literacy, even verbal skills (writing skills) for every citizen - IF they are to fully understand and participate in today's society. Or is the intent to prevent that?

 

At one time the mill villages in the South (and, I suspect, the North) had a tradition of providing the absolute minimum of education needed to maintain a stable workforce. This often also translated into other descriptions that had to do with the ability of the mill owners to control 'their' people. I would be surprised if any industry in which the entire local society was organized around that industry didn't have similarities to what I just described, it was certainly true for coal miners.

 

Is this the model of society that we want? It evidently didn't work given where we are today.

[skeptic]

Beavah, I really do not have an answer that makes sense in today's society. Certainly something like fines for not making kids actually be in school might help; though reality is that the same people would simply ignore the fines, even if the kids are expelled. Parents that want to take a kid out for something other than doctor appointment and such, should have to request it and indicate how the student will make up the missed work; and kids should still be accountable to catch up on missed work in most instances. That is part of the problem. When I was in school, if I got in trouble there, I was in even more when I got home or my parents came for me. Respect for adults in general, and basic manners were the normal expectation.

 

I also would like to see the schools able to stand up for the rights of the majority, in that they should not have to deal with the kids who have physical or emotional issues that are a "constant" disruption to the class; indiscriminate mainlining just because the parent does not want to stigmatize is simply not fair to the rest of the class that they are in. Would like the schools to get rid of intercoms that blare interruptions to the classes, for the phones to not be ringing for any minor thing, for runners not to constantly just appear to interrupt the lessons, and for teachers to know they will be backed up in most cases should the need arise. Would like a system that at least attempts to find children with basic reading and math issues early enough to get them the help they need "before" they get pushed into other subjects they cannot understand without those basics. Personally, I have no problem with reasonable dress codes that do not allow suggestive clothing, or things that are insulting to others in some way; no problem with very strict cell phone rules, including confiscation if it disrupts a class; no problem with reasonable expectations of civil language; and would welcome closed campuses.. I personally would love to see cameras, with proper taping, in every classroom to prove disrespect from students to others, including the teacher, as well as protect the students and teachers from false accusations; it is not an invasion of privacy, as it is a public school. After 13 years as a sub, I think I have seen just about every thing and had some of it aimed at me. The really sad thing is that 95% of the kids are fine; but the other 5% simply makes things miserable in too many cases.

 

But, as we know, I am old and out of touch with things.

 

(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[Scoutfish]

 

 

 

Yeah, but you also have to realize, a parent who p[ays a bunch of money to send their kid to a chgarter school usually has a lot more blood sweat and tears involved in their kids lives too. Not knocking parents of public school, ( I am one) , but in a public school, you have a mix of parents: Some who barely wake their kids and get them dressed for school all teh way to those who are seriously committed to their children doing their very best.

 

And without it being just one ethnic or geographical groupo...you know some parents will sue a tacher for thinking of punishing their kids. You know what I mean? They won't discipline their perfect angfels, will sue the school if teh school, does it, but have no more involvement in their childs life other than tossing out a bowl of cereal in the morning.

 

Then you have parents who set the kids educatiuon as the higfhest of hishest priorities. Before scouting, before sports, before friends.

 

These parents will pay for tutors, ask their kids EVERYTHING about their day, what went on and how school is going, not that they have to ask because they already know!

 

 

So the parents who pay the money for charter schools are not the ones who make minimal effort just to satisfy the law.

 

Another problem with charter schools becoming the main steam: Statistics and track records. I support free market all the way, but education should not be a part of it if it is education for all. What about the kid who just doesn't advance at the same rate as anybody else? he gets dumped of put intyo a rediculously simple program to improve his scores. THose scores are the calling card, and therefor the "how awesome we are" rating of those schools.

 

And since we are talking about these schools being for profit, they will not stand for any student to ncreate a bad score.

[skeptic]

Again, I am "skeptical" that much of what was the norm when I was in school would fly in today's "me first", "don't hurt my kid's feelings" society. Certainly, as far as determining my own incentive to find a better than menial job, was the fact I did menial jobs. I had my first job starting the summer after my freshman year, cleaning up Foster's Freeze before school. Had to be there at 5:30AM, and still get to school before first bell at 8AM. Did that til I graduated. In between, I cleaned motel rooms, house sat, did yard work (I lived in the desert), worked as a helper on moving vans, delivered packages during Christmas when the Marine base got tons of mail, and kicked carpet one summer. For seven month before I went in the AF, I worked in an open pit salt mine where I set charges and worked on the track crew moving rail, ties, and driving spikes. After the service, during the summer between college terms I was a forest service laborer, swamper on tractors, and truck driver. None of this hurt me, but it certainly helped me focus on finding something a little less dirty and exhausting.

 

One thing that comes to mind is that when I first went to college straight out of high school, I really was not ready, even though I was near the top of my class. I played too much, and almost flunked out. By the time I went back, at 25, on the G.I. Bill, I was far more focused and did better. When I went back to grad school nearing 30, I did even better yet. So maturity has something to do with how you react to educational opportunities I think. I suspect that many who rebel at 16, if they spent some time in meaningful, but needed work, they might be better candidates for advanced skills, whether academic or vocational.

 

Finding something that will work for most is the real challenge. It may take dozens of variations and attempts for some. And, we will NEVER succeed with them all, so we need to accept that.

 

Enough rambling.

[John-in-KC]

My Walter Mitty dream...

 

1) Consolidate every single federal program to educate kids into a single fund line in the Federal budget.

 

2) Apportion the line to the several States on a per capita basis for grades K-12.

 

3) Let the States run their own education programs.

 

Justice can take care of any discrimination claims and any fraud.

 

Of course, the other option is to terminate all mandates from Federal level, close down the Department of Education, lower the tax rate by that portion which goes to education, and let the States do it. That was how we did it in the US for a long time...

[Beavah]

Yeah, but you also have to realize, a parent who p[ays a bunch of money to send their kid to a chgarter school usually has a lot more blood sweat and tears involved in their kids lives too.

 

Yah, hmmm... It might be worth mentioning that charter schools are a type of public school, and that as such parents don't pay any money to send their children there (though they might have to provide their own transportation). Private and parochial schools parents have to pay money for, unless they are in a school-voucher area.

 

ScoutFish's point is still valid, though, because da parent(s) of charter school pupils did have to go out of their way to do the work and research of picking a school and applying for it. So it's a good bet they're pushing their child's education more than most.

 

I like John-in-KC's thoughts.

 

And skeptic has an elephant-in-the-room point. What to do with Special Ed? Most of da special ed funding (and all of the special ed mandates) comes from the Fed.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

Those mandates don't carry much weight unless there's other funding at risk. So if the federal component of the funding for education goes away, for practical purposes so does the mandate. In the old days, before the mandates, in NC at least (and I suspect elsewhere) special ed was left entirely to the state and the severely handicapped children were basically stacked into hell holes like the Western Carolina Center for Mentally Retarded Children. Children who were merely learning disabled were just passed through the system and then discarded by society. I suspect we'll return to some approximation of the old way if the states take over again without any external incentives to the contrary.

 

Scoutfish, either embrace the market and its consequences or not. You can't have it both ways. Yes, selective forces ARE going to be very mean to some children. That is unavoidable. Those who aren't poor enough to receive indigent education but not rich enough for the best private schools are going to struggle. Tough. If a child is gifted, the system will recognize this and they will do fine. Others will find their place according to their abilities. It is the ONLY truly fair system.

[packsaddle]

Comparison of states to countries. Found it. This is from 2007 and was reported in the NYTimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/11/14/education/20071114_STUDENTS_CHART.html

here is the source report:

http://www.air.org/files/phillips.chance.favors.the.prepared.mind.pdf

 

The source report was from American Institutes for Research. Interesting comparisons, state by state but in 118 pages it will take a while to digest.

Mississippi...as we say elsewhere in the South, 'thank God for Mississippi'.

 

Edit: This comment caught my eye:

"The bad news is that even our best-performing states are significantly below the highest performing countries.

This report shows that the American public has very low levels of mathematical and scientific literacy. Instead of relying on science we rely on pseudoscience."

 

Indeed!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)