How to improve Education

[Traveler]

It appears to me that there is general agreement that education has degenerated in the USA. I thought to start this thread to create discussions on steps to improve education.

I have quite a list but I will begin with this first step: End all Federal Government intrusions into education with the exceptions of the service academies (Army, Navy and Air force).

This would mean the end of all Federal monies, including grants and research. I am not saying that there is no good that can come from such monies - just that I do not believe the federal government should have strings and sponsorship into local right to education.

Please keep in mind there is more to this thread than Federal intrusions into local rights to control education as granted in the constitution. So rather than responding to a debate over federal verses state’s rights - please keep the topic about education - Thank you

The Traveler

[Backroads]

Get rid of--or at least make optional-- the age-based system. It's based on the notion that kids automatically do better with kids of their exact age, rather than considering that not all kids are going to progress the same, despite their age. Which is why I like Waldorf and Montessori systems.

End National Education (for the most part, I'm sure there are plenty of good ways to alter this). Let state, or even local communities, handle the schools.

Back to the basics: reading, writing, 'rithmetic. You don't get a good handle on those, you are pretty much done for. Catch-up on learning-how-to-read in high school is hard.

Get rid of the negative view of trade skills.

Repair standardized testing. If you HAVE to have it.

[Vort]

Are you talking about the education of minors, so-called "higher education", or both?

Education will improve dramatically when, and only when, parents accept the ultimate responsibility for educating their children instead of expecting the state to take care of it for them. Since this is utterly at odds with the teachers' unions, and since the teachers' unions are the most powerful unions in the US at the present time, I don't see this as an easy change.

[Guest]

Give all school-aged children X-dollars of education subsidy. This subsidy goes to the school of their choice (public or private) that are nationally accredited. Homeschoolers may receive the subsidy at home but will have to use accredited materials with periodic achievement inspection.

Allow public schools to charge for deregulated tuition and/or fees (students use their subsidy to pay).

Remove the area-restriction as well as the age restriction on all public schools.

Optional:

Make Montessori-style of teaching the standard in public schools with the current traditional style the option at least in Elementary School.

[JudoMinja]

I've developed a few ideas of my own on this. First off- make education NOT required. While I approve of seeking out a good education, it's not for everyone and not necessarily needed for everything that a person could do to make a living. I would have something in place to make sure people are not depriving their children of the opportunity to get an education, but I would not have it be mandatory for people to send their children to school.

Second- I would make all schooling operate on a system something similar to how colleges operate. This being that when a child goes to school they pick what they want to "be when they grow up" and are put in a program with classes that will prepare them for that career. If a child at some point changes their mind, they can switch programs. Things that are necessary for just about every job (communication skills for example) would be required of every student, while other classes would be "extra".

With both of these changes, we would see kids starting school at multiple ages and levels, but each would be pursuing the education they "want" with the knowledge that it is preparing them for their future. Classes would have to be designed to cater to these differences and allow a lot more flexibility than they currently do.

Third- bring back "apprenticeships". As part of the "college system", kids should be allowed to study under somebody who is already doing what they wish to learn about. More "on the job" and "in field" training as opposed to being stuck in the classroom.

And my last big suggestion would be to get most classes outdoors, using actual physical tools and scenarios to teach things like math and history. Get kids actively involved in their community and surroundings so that their schooling actually applies to the "real world" and doesn't feel like a waste of time.

[Backroads]

anatess, somewhat off-topic, but what are your thoughts of Montessori-style for high school? (It's bad to open up a discussion of teaching styles in my presence... I have far too much fun debating and learning.)

[Guest]

I've developed a few ideas of my own on this. First off- make education NOT required. While I approve of seeking out a good education, it's not for everyone and not necessarily needed for everything that a person could do to make a living. I would have something in place to make sure people are not depriving their children of the opportunity to get an education, but I would not have it be mandatory for people to send their children to school.

Second- I would make all schooling operate on a system something similar to how colleges operate. This being that when a child goes to school they pick what they want to "be when they grow up" and are put in a program with classes that will prepare them for that career. If a child at some point changes their mind, they can switch programs. Things that are necessary for just about every job (communication skills for example) would be required of every student, while other classes would be "extra".

With both of these changes, we would see kids starting school at multiple ages and levels, but each would be pursuing the education they "want" with the knowledge that it is preparing them for their future. Classes would have to be designed to cater to these differences and allow a lot more flexibility than they currently do.

Third- bring back "apprenticeships". As part of the "college system", kids should be allowed to study under somebody who is already doing what they wish to learn about. More "on the job" and "in field" training as opposed to being stuck in the classroom.

And my last big suggestion would be to get most classes outdoors, using actual physical tools and scenarios to teach things like math and history. Get kids actively involved in their community and surroundings so that their schooling actually applies to the "real world" and doesn't feel like a waste of time.

Judo... look up Montessori... what you propose here is very similar to it...

[MarginOfError]

Give all school-aged children X-dollars of education subsidy. This subsidy goes to the school of their choice (public or private) that are nationally accredited. Homeschoolers may receive the subsidy at home but will have to use accredited materials with periodic achievement inspection.

AMEN!

Make Montessori-style of teaching the standard in public schools with the current traditional style the option at least in Elementary School.

and AMEN!

Eliminate the AP programs. Spend more time in high school covering algebra, functions, and trigonometry. Don't introduce computers and calculators for mathematics until after the skills and concepts have been mastered*.

And read books that are fun! Instill a love of learning instead of trying to embed knowledge of literature. Again, this can vary from group to group and year to year. Let the kids decide what to read!

Perhaps instead of laptop programs, we could do Kindle programs.

*Computers for word processing, presentations, etc are fine, but computational use for mathematics can inhibit the learning of concepts and ideas, which is what math should be about.

[Backroads]

Recent studies have shown early introduction to computers has no crucial educational impact--therefore often little more than a waste of time.

Whole language and phonics need to be combined!!! Stress one or the other as needed, but stop focusing on only one!

More arts in the schools.

I'm on the fence with career-focused education. There are some obvious benefits, but it also leaves out the "extras" kids love. I see a school discouraging a kid and his desire to study history the rest of his life.

Smaller class sizes. I have yet to see a good argument for 30+ kids.

I recommend the book "The Book Whisperer". An amazing approach to teaching literature.

[Guest]

Eliminate the AP programs. Spend more time in high school covering algebra, functions, and trigonometry. Don't introduce computers and calculators for mathematics until after the skills and concepts have been mastered.

AMEN!

In addition to the 3 R's... teach critical thinking and computational thinking skills.

There's a point to which Math just starts to become meaningless. For example - it's fairly easy to see the real-life application of 4-2=2 (There were 4 students in a bus, 2 got out, how many are left?). But when you get to the level of square roots, the teaching stops to become real-life and starts to be just memorization of steps.

You can't get away from the step-by-step extraction of a square root. Therefore, computational thinking skills is paramount here. But, at the same time, how do you apply that to solve a problem? Critical Thinking skills become paramount as well.

This is missing in schools these days that cashiers who get good math grades can't seem to figure out what to do when I give them $2.05 to pay for a $1.80 item...

[Guest]

Recent studies have shown early introduction to computers has no crucial educational impact--therefore often little more than a waste of time.

Whole language and phonics need to be combined!!! Stress one or the other as needed, but stop focusing on only one!

More arts in the schools.

I'm on the fence with career-focused education. There are some obvious benefits, but it also leaves out the "extras" kids love. I see a school discouraging a kid and his desire to study history the rest of his life.

Smaller class sizes. I have yet to see a good argument for 30+ kids.

I recommend the book "The Book Whisperer". An amazing approach to teaching literature.

Oh man! I happen to think that programming should be taught in Elementary School - as early as 1st grade! It is, after all, the best way to learn computational thinking.

[Dravin]

I would have something in place to make sure people are not depriving their children of the opportunity to get an education, but I would not have it be mandatory for people to send their children to school.

Such as? My concern would be less that children wouldn't learn algebra or what have you as it would that they might not learn reading and writing.

[Backroads]

I think if we could implement the other things we've mentioned, there would be a better case for computers. Computational thinking is crucial, but I disagree there is only one effective way of teaching it. Have you studied Singapore math style?

[JudoMinja]

I would have something in place to make sure people are not depriving their children of the opportunity to get an education, but I would not have it be mandatory for people to send their children to school.

Such as? My concern would be less that children wouldn't learn algebra or what have you as it would that they might not learn reading and writing.

Perhaps some kind of social worker visit to make sure that those kids not receiving a "formal" education are being "taught" in the home? I agree that at the very least everyone needs to learn communication skills of every kind (including reading and writing). If parents are not going to teach it to their kids themselves, then yes they would need someone else to teach them. Actually sending your kid to a school should not be forced on people- that is what I meant by not making school mandatory. But if a kid "wants" to go to school, parents should not be allowed to prevent them.

[Bini]

On a different note, I think schools should have uniforms. Not sure what the research says but from my own experiences, having a school uniform and faculty dress code, boosted morale and helped prevent problems like financial/class segregation and inappropriate clothing (be it gang affiliated apparel or scantily clad apparel).

[Vort]

But if a kid "wants" to go to school, parents should not be allowed to prevent them.

Why not?

Parent: Let's go, Junior. Time to do your math.

Junior: I hate homeschool. Timmy says public school rocks. They talked about dinosaurs and sex. Maybe even dinosaur sex.

Parent: Lovely. Get your math out.

Junior: NO! I WANNA GO TO SCHOOL!

Parent: Don't tempt me, kid...

You're saying that the parent ought not be allowed to make the decision? That the nine-year-old child should have the final say in his education?

I disagree.

[rameumptom]

The public education system needs to be run on by engineers, or at least engineering methodology.

1. Establish a base line.

2. Determine a testable theory to improve education.

3. Implement the theory on a testing level.

4. Measure it.

5. If the test theory shows improvement and a good return on investment, implement it. If not, return to the baseline and try something else.

The current system in public schooling goes like this, instead:

1. Come up with a theory.

2. Fully implement the theory.

3. If the theory doesn't work, come up with an additional theory to tweak the initial.

4. Implement the added theories to tweak the original.

5. Don't have a baseline to go back to, just keep moving forward.

Of course, many of our government systems are like this, which is why they are so bloated and useless.

[JudoMinja]

Why not?

Parent: Let's go, Junior. Time to do your math.

Junior: I hate homeschool. Timmy says public school rocks. They talked about dinosaurs and sex. Maybe even dinosaur sex.

Parent: Lovely. Get your math out.

Junior: NO! I WANNA GO TO SCHOOL!

Parent: Don't tempt me, kid...

You're saying that the parent ought not be allowed to make the decision? That the nine-year-old child should have the final say in his education?

I disagree.

I believe that a parent should not be allowed to hold a child back from their desire to get more education than they could get at home. I believe that the education we receive should be more about individual choice and getting the education we want. This would improve on students' desires to seek out more education, because it would be "fun" and not forced on them. So I would have to say that, yes- I believe a child should have the final say in their education.

Should a child respect their parent and not be defiant? Yes. Should parents play an active roll in helping their child choose the classes they wish to take if they opt to go to school? Yes. Will a child always make the "best" decisions about their education? No, but if we redesign the education system properly, that won't matter.

So, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

[Vort]

So, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

No, the "agree to disagree" excuse is used too soon and too frequently.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a minor child should have state-sanctioned control over his education, regardless of his parents' desires. That is, if his parents want him to be educated at some particular institution but the minor child wants to pursue his education elsewhere, the child's will reigns supreme.

Is this correct?

Do you feel this way about other aspects of life? If a parent wants to take his minor child to Church but the child wants to stay home and play Nintendo, should the state require the parents to acquiesce to the child's demands? If the parents want to take the child to Italy but the kid wants to go to Disneyland, should the state enforce the child's wishes?

How far will you take the sovereignty of the minor child over the will of the parents?

[JudoMinja]

No, the "agree to disagree" excuse is used too soon and too frequently.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a minor child should have state-sanctioned control over his education, regardless of his parents' desires. That is, if his parents want him to be educated at some particular institution but the minor child wants to pursue his education elsewhere, the child's will reigns supreme.

Is this correct?

Do you feel this way about other aspects of life? If a parent wants to take his minor child to Church but the child wants to stay home and play Nintendo, should the state require the parents to acquiesce to the child's demands? If the parents want to take the child to Italy but the kid wants to go to Disneyland, should the state enforce the child's wishes?

How far will you take the sovereignty of the minor child over the will of the parents?

Sorry if you feel I pulled that "agree to disagree" up too soon. I just saw our difference of opinion on that matter and thought that was that.

"Where" the student goes would still be up to the parents. This applies only to if the student wants to go to school outside the home, parents should not be allowed to hold the child back. Essentially, what I mean is that if a child wants MORE education, they should not be prevented from getting it. The exact, specific school the child goes to would be determined based on two things- the particular "field" of education the child wanted to pursue (narrowing it down to whichever schools provide that), and the parents' discretion about which one is the best fit.

So in your first scenario, whether or not the child's will would win would depend. If that was the only school hosting the particular type of education that child wanted (and the parents are capable of enrolling said child in that school), then the child wins. If there are other schools to choose from for what the child wants to learn and the parents pick one different from the child's preference, parents overrule the child.

Granted, this is all based on the hypothetic scenario that schools are designed the way I envisioned in my first post on this thread. In today's system, this wouldn't work.

I only take the soverignty of the child's will over that of the parents in such matters that the child is able to pursue the TYPE and AMOUNT of education the child desires. This is because I believe that, even as children, education should (mostly) be a choice and not a requirement. Making it a requirement puts a stigma on education that causes many children to hate school and neglect their studies. I may be wrong, but I think if it were not forced on us, more people would "want" to get an education.

[Guest]

I think if we could implement the other things we've mentioned, there would be a better case for computers. Computational thinking is crucial, but I disagree there is only one effective way of teaching it. Have you studied Singapore math style?

I don't agree there is only one effective way of teaching it as well. But, programming is the easiest way to train a student's thinking process to approach a problem computationally. And programming, in its core, is critical thinking. So that, when a child is faced with a problem (be it mathematical or social or otherwise) his first thought process is to understand the problem and break it down into solvable pieces that contribute to a holistic solution that can be applied over and over to similar scenarios - which, essentially, is how programmers have to think.

Yes, I've actually looked into Singapore math although not in-depth. It runs in parallel with Montessori learning except for the Montessori focus of self-actualization and the extreme de-emphasis of rote learning. Singapore math still uses rote learning with the underlying foundation of critical thinking. I can see where Singapore math is superior in timed problem solving as opposed to Montessori. It is better in competitive environments.

[prisonchaplain]

Develop an expert team of turn-around administrators and moderators, who could swoop in to troubled schools, or even whole districts, and make the necessary changes to bring them up to standards. I nominate the LDS.net moderating team for this challenge.

[Vort]

Sorry if you feel I pulled that "agree to disagree" up too soon. I just saw our difference of opinion on that matter and thought that was that.

I think lots of fruitful discussion can result if people dialog, as I think we're doing here. Too often, "let's agree to disagree" is trotted out when one or the other party doesn't want to put the effort into the conversation. I think that's a pity.

"Where" the student goes would still be up to the parents. This applies only to if the student wants to go to school outside the home, parents should not be allowed to hold the child back.

I homeschool my children. (Well, my wife does.) I assure you, they are well ahead of their peers in all or most scholastic areas outside of proper condom usage and analyses of households with two mommies. (We generally wait until they're twelve or so to broach such topics. I know, we're such Neanderthals.) Each of my five children has learned to read before the age of five. My youngest, just turned five, reads his own verse from the Book of Mormon every day, and rarely needs help.

So in your system, if one of my kids says they want to go to the elementary school, I as a parent should have no ability to impose my will on them? I should be required, under threat of law, to acquiesce to my nine-year-old's educational demands?

Essentially, what I mean is that if a child wants MORE education, they should not be prevented from getting it. The exact, specific school the child goes to would be determined based on two things- the particular "field" of education the child wanted to pursue (narrowing it down to whichever schools provide that), and the parents' discretion about which one is the best fit.

So my discretion is that my child is better off at home. Who wins, me or the kid?

So in your first scenario, whether or not the child's will would win would depend.

Seriously? Who makes the judgment? Do we have a whole new layer of bureacracy consisting of state workers who check in on parents and quiz the children about where they prefer to be schooled?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I am guessing you're young and childless. As a parent, I am appalled at the idea that the state (or perhaps even more absurdly, my minor child himself) should have the final say over how my child is reared.

If that was the only school hosting the particular type of education that child wanted (and the parents are capable of enrolling said child in that school), then the child wins.

So if my daughter wants to enroll in pole dancing school, I have to let her? For a less outlandish scenario, if my nine-year-old daughter decides she wants to be a professional athlete and insists on enrolling at a school with top athletic programs but lousy academics, I have no authority AS A PARENT to make the decision that she will do no such thing?

I only take the soverignty of the child's will over that of the parents in such matters that the child is able to pursue the TYPE and AMOUNT of education the child desires. This is because I believe that, even as children, education should (mostly) be a choice and not a requirement.

The reason we classify young people as "minors" is because we acknowledge that they are not capable of making important life decisions. Until they reach the age of majority, those major decisions are left with the parents, who are assumed to have both the wisdom/life experience to make those choices and the best interests of the child at heart.

Your plan seems to take that power away from the parent and put it on the child, who by definition is not qualified to make the decision. How do you rectify this? Or do you think that minor children are indeed qualified to make such decisions, and parents have no moral authority to educate their own children as they see fit (e.g. make them learn math, practice piano, or whatever)?

[estradling75]

I nominate the LDS.net moderating team for this challenge.

Wait... What???

[Backroads]

Wait... What???

estradling is new to this, let's not give him too much pressure!