How to improve Education

[Backroads]

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.

I can see your point there. I spent several years studying Singapore math, and I don't agree it's all that rote, though there is a nod to the rote learning, probably to make it better to be integrated into your standard classroom. I actually loved it BECAUSE of the focus on math theory.

[HoosierGuy]

I know the natural reaction to bad schools is taking your kids out of those schools and putting them in private schools. But this is going to end up bad for the U.S. Private schools are private because they don't let everyone in the school in the first place.

We will see more money flowing from the public to private schools. The private schools will cherry pick the best teachers from the public schools. They will cherry pick the best students.

What we will see is the dream of many, taking this country back to the southern 1800's and that caste system they had with different levels of people and difficulty to move from the bottom up.

We already have different economic levels in the U.S. - poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, lower wealthy, mid wealthy, upper wealthy, etc.. But with more private education we will start to to see walls built between those levels. One of the great things about the U.S. is the middle class and how people can move from the lower to middle and middle to upper and from upper to middle and lower. But with more private education that movement is going to stop.

This push to a voucher system is bad for the country.

[mightynancy]

An engineering or business model is not exactly right (though the engineers certainly do bring proven methods to the table). Kids are not widgets. I don't think there's one right way to reform education. What works in Boise may not work in Miami, and what works for Sarah may not work for Ben.

I do like choice - the charter school movement has been interesting to watch. The school district I work in has a number of magnet schools; I think they retain students by offering a number of options (elementary IB, Montessori, dual language, Harbor Method, math & science middle/high school...I'm sure I'm forgetting some).

[Backroads]

I know the natural reaction to bad schools is taking your kids out of those schools and putting them in private schools. But this is going to end up bad for the U.S. Private schools are private because they don't let everyone in the school in the first place.

We will see more money flowing from the public to private schools. The private schools will cherry pick the best teachers from the public schools. They will cherry pick the best students.

What we will see is the dream of many, taking this country back to the southern 1800's and that caste system they had with different levels of people and difficulty to move from the bottom up.

We already have different economic levels in the U.S. - poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, lower wealthy, mid wealthy, upper wealthy, etc.. But with more private education we will start to to see walls built between those levels. One of the great things about the U.S. is the middle class and how people can move from the lower to middle and middle to upper and from upper to middle and lower. But with more private education that movement is going to stop.

This push to a voucher system is bad for the country.

Which is why we need to improve PUBLIC education. I agree with you: I don't want to see a scenario where a family's wealth determines a child's entire educational life, and I have yet to see a voucher system that would cover all kids (mind you, I quite like the idea of vouchers, but there are some flaws).

My biggest hang-up with public education as it currently stands is the push to have all kids the same. Nationalization, standardization... the kids get lost in it, even if everyone has the best intentions.

Which is why I love charter schools and why I think education should become more localized.

[Vort]

Which is why we need to improve PUBLIC education. I agree with you: I don't want to see a scenario where a family's wealth determines a child's entire educational life

Yet this is exactly the situation to which lack of vouchers condemns many children -- children whose parents would choose alternatives to public school (private schools, homeschool, etc.) if only they could use the tax money toward something other than the government-owned, teacher-union-lobbied public schools.

[JudoMinja]

Vort- I believe I am beginning to understand where your concerns are coming from. The problem is that these scenarios you are suggesting just wouldn’t happen if we implement all the changes I am proposing. My simple “steps” were not adequate in really explaining what I have in mind for our education system. Instead of addressing your questions individually, as this would just result in us continuing to hash our points out back and forth without you really seeing the big picture I have in mind, I will try to do a better job of fleshing this out. I’m pretty sure this will address your concerns much better than if I just answered your questions. Bear with me though… It’s going to be long.

‘First off, every* child would be expected to meet a VERY MINIMUM standard in BASIC SKILLS of communication (reading, writing, speech, etc) and mathematics. Though meeting this standard would be required, going to school would not be as this would be something expected to be provided by the parents. Parents not capable of teaching their children for whatever reason would have other options in place, like in-home tutors or small group-teaching settings, but this would only be what is absolutely necessary for these children to integrate with others successfully in social settings. Parents who are not going to teach their children would be required to secure this education for their kids by a certain cut-off age (I haven’t determined what that would be yet, but understand this has all just been theoretically figured out in my mind).

*Children incapable of meeting the standard would have other educational opportunities provided on an individual basis to help them get by in society and be as independent as possible.

Most children would be capable of meeting this standard probably around age six- some sooner, some later. There would be another cut-off age where all* (see above again) children would be expected to have mastered these skills and be tested to make sure they have not been deprived of this education. Those who master them sooner than this particular cut-off age can take the test sooner. When the test is passed, children will be given an opportunity to decide whether or not they want to pursue any further education. If they don’t want to, it won’t be forced on them. If they do want to, it will be presented in a way similar to how those going to college choose their majors.

It would be different from college majors though in that it would be better catered to the younger audience, with something more along the lines of “What do you want to be when you grow up?” Answer options would be things like fireman, policeman, veterinarian, ballerina, musician, doctor, lawyer, etc. The things kids typically say they want to be when they grow up. If they want to go to “school” to pursue these “careers”, parents should not be allowed to deny them that opportunity. This is where what the kid wants goes above what the parent says. Now, if the parent is capable of teaching the child what (s)he needs to know for their chosen path at home, and the parent feels the child would be better suited learning it at home than in a physical school, this would be a permitted option. The exact location where the child continues his or her education is up to the discretion of the parent.

Because this is optional and children would be entering the school system at a variety of different ages, schools would be designed very differently than they are now. Because children have not really fully developed their decision-making skills, to make sure they do not end up with limited options for their adult futures it would not necessarily be “ballerina school” vs. “doctor school” though, either. The most basic courses necessary across several fields would have to be covered first (much like how basic courses have to be covered at college before pursuing those relevant to your degree), and children would be required to take “electives” that would open their minds to other possible choices. The system would have to be extremely flexible to allow children to flow back and forth between “degree” choices, as many children tend to change their minds a lot.

The most important distinction between this system and the current school system is that children would be starting school with the knowledge that “This is what I need to know in order to be a _____ (whatever they chose)” instead of “I have to go to school because I have to”. This means kids would be more likely to decide they WANT to get an education greater than just the basics. Instead of being made to go to school with no choice in the matter, children would be deciding what direction they want their education to take.

Now, if a child decides they don’t want to get any education further than the minimum requirements and the parents decide they want to teach their kid more, nothing will be in place to prevent that. Things would be designed in favor of more education over less. If the parents want to send their child to a physical school to learn “something”, there would be something kinda like a “general studies” degree in place with a number of “INTRO” courses designed to give these kids a look into some of the options available to them. If the child makes it through these intro courses and still doesn’t want to do anything, the parents would not be able to pick something for the child or force their own direction on the child. More likely than not though, the child would find his or her interest piqued by something.

Hopefully this helps you better understand what kind of changes I’m talking about, why I think school should not be required, and what I mean by having the child’s choice trump the parents’. I am young, and I don’t have any school age children, though I do have A young child- so this is probably very idealistic. Of course, I didn’t have any problem with it being idealistic since I figure there is no way this is ever going to actually be implemented. Unless I somehow manage to get these ideas to catch the eye of someone who can actually do something about major school reform across the nation, this will just remain a possibility in my mind.

And anatess- I did look up those Montessori schools. They ARE rather similar to this… just less extreme. Kinda.. de-ja-vu-ish. Hard to believe someone basically already came up with the “same thing” and figured out how to make it work in our current school system. If I can afford to send my son to one of these schools in the very near future here, I most definitely will be doing so.

[Guest]

I know the natural reaction to bad schools is taking your kids out of those schools and putting them in private schools. But this is going to end up bad for the U.S. Private schools are private because they don't let everyone in the school in the first place.

We will see more money flowing from the public to private schools. The private schools will cherry pick the best teachers from the public schools. They will cherry pick the best students.

What we will see is the dream of many, taking this country back to the southern 1800's and that caste system they had with different levels of people and difficulty to move from the bottom up.

We already have different economic levels in the U.S. - poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, lower wealthy, mid wealthy, upper wealthy, etc.. But with more private education we will start to to see walls built between those levels. One of the great things about the U.S. is the middle class and how people can move from the lower to middle and middle to upper and from upper to middle and lower. But with more private education that movement is going to stop.

This push to a voucher system is bad for the country.

Hoosier... you are completely looking at this in a socialist viewpoint. Which is fine and good. But, the US is not a socialist country and I don't see it going that route anytime soon.

Look, food is a basic necessity right? I'd say more basic than education. Yet, we don't distribute food from a central public distribution system. What we have is a grocery store competing with another grocery store. Big box grocery stores competing with mom-and-pop stores. $5.99 1-lb bag of brand-name carrots competing with $0.99 1-lb bag of generic carrots...

Do you see the grocery stores creating a "caste system"? No. You see rich people paying $5.99 for brand-name carrots and poor people paying $0.99 for generic carrots... both containing the same nutritious elements with only the packaging making a difference.

Do you believe that the food industry is bad for the country?

Economic levels is not inherently bad. We can't all be in the same level of economic achievement because, let's face it, there are losers and there are producers. You can't all put them on the same economic status because - it doesn't take much effort to be a loser, yet, it takes a lot of effort to be a producer. If you make it so that they are all middle-class, then there's not much reason for somebody to be a producer when he can just sit in his couch all day long and still be middle-class.

At the same time, not everybody wants to be in the upper crust. Because, it takes a lot of pressure to be there. So, some people thrive on that pressure to keep achieving, while others are content with their humble home with a white picket fence and a family dog.

So, America - in its basic ideals - do not decide what economic level you should be in. America - in its basic ideals - allows you to decide what you want to become. America only makes sure that there is always equal opportunity for everyone - you are left to figure out how to maximize that opportunity.

Edited May 13, 2011 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

Excellent - I see the homeschooling option is being discussed!

‘First off, every* child would be expected to meet a VERY MINIMUM standard in BASIC SKILLS of communication (reading, writing, speech, etc) and mathematics. Though meeting this standard would be required, going to school would not be as this would be something expected to be provided by the parents.

Just out of curiosity JM, can you point to the state that doesn't currently have a set of minimum educational standards already in place? Here in CO, homeschooling laws are relatively permissive and easy, and still my homeschooled kids are required to have periodic testing or evaluation by qualified people at set intervals.

Can you tell me which state doesn't currently do what you're proposing?

Parents not capable of teaching their children for whatever reason would have other options in place, like in-home tutors or small group-teaching settings, but this would only be what is absolutely necessary for these children to integrate with others successfully in social settings.

First, how do you propose measuring "successful integration in social settings"? Would it be participation in a set number of extra-curricular activities? Surveys or questionairres completed by the child?

Second, assuming you get some sort of way to appropriately measure it, who is going to pay for these "other options" you mention? Are you saying that the state will pay to get me an in-home tutor if my homeschooled kid is an introvert? That would be cool - but I seriously doubt you'll get anyone outside of the homeschooling community to agree to fund that.

Third, again assuming you have a good measure, can you explain how tutoring or group teaching is supposed to "cure" kids who can't integrate socially with others? A common assumption I see everywhere, is that group education is where socialization happens, and without some teacher to sit there and supervise and measure and aid and guide, socialization doesn't happen. Is that sort of your background assumption here? Are you aware that issues like sensory integration disorder and autism require more than just someone encouraging little Johnny to come play with the rest of the group, right?

Fourth, are you aware that with the measures of sociability we do have, homeschooled kids outscore public schooled kids in every test, across most every demographic?

Most children would be capable of meeting this standard probably around age six- some sooner, some later. There would be another cut-off age where all* (see above again) children would be expected to have mastered these skills and be tested to make sure they have not been deprived of this education. Those who master them sooner than this particular cut-off age can take the test sooner. When the test is passed, children will be given an opportunity to decide whether or not they want to pursue any further education. If they don’t want to, it won’t be forced on them. If they do want to, it will be presented in a way similar to how those going to college choose their majors.

So, Judo? States decide this stuff on a state level. Are you proposing some sort of federal takeover of state's rights here, to make all the states do it your way? You can expect a fight if that's the case. (Actually, the fight has always been going on, you can just expect that you'll be joining a side in it, and you'll be unhappy to learn that although your side is in favor of the WeSaySo approach, nobody agrees on what the blanket mandate should be.)

“What do you want to be when you grow up?” Answer options would be things like fireman, policeman, veterinarian, ballerina, musician, doctor, lawyer, etc. The things kids typically say they want to be when they grow up. If they want to go to “school” to pursue these “careers”, parents should not be allowed to deny them that opportunity. This is where what the kid wants goes above what the parent says.

I see you still refusing to answer Vort's question about the child that wants what is not in their best interests. Let me join with him in asking you for a response.

Hey Judo - sometimes kids want things that are not in their best interests. Why are you pushing to not allow parents to parent their kids in these situations?

I am young, and I don’t have any school age children, though I do have A young child- so this is probably very idealistic.

Judo, please understand that I am not trying to be offensive or mean, but you are not just idealistic, you seem to be unaware of many important foundational realities governing the issue. I would suggest that you do a lot more reading and learning before proposing such unconstitutional radical redesigning of the entire educational system.

Here's some required reading for anyone wishing to opine on the subject of homeschooling. The links are getting a bit old, but every study I see coming out after them is only reinforcing what you see here:

The famous "Rudner Study" - 20,760 homeschooled kids across America took the standardized Iowa tests, and median scores fell between the 70th and 80th percentile of students nationwide and between the 60th and 70th percentile of Catholic/Private school students.

Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream CATO/Fraser Institute Analysis - Establishes that home schooling is thriving, and empirically demonstrates that the HS kids have superior academic and socialization.

US Department of Education Study - An interesting look at who homeschools. A similar study is found here: 1.1 Million Homeschooled Students in the United States in 2003

HSLDA state-by-state breakdown of homeschooling laws.

LM

[JudoMinja]

Ok.. Looks like that fleshing out just produced more questions... LM, as I attempt to answer your questions, please understand that this is the first time I've shared this idea- so until this point it has only been rolling around in my mind. I see some very serious reform necessary for the school system. I honestly can't stand the way it currently works, so my idea is rather radical. I am glad there is a homeschooling option out there right now. I applaud those who currently homeschool their children and I agree, this system is much better than the current public education system. I would homeschool myself, if I could. Don't see any way I can make that work though as a single parent, and I can't really afford sending my son to a private school, so yeah... I kinda dream about what I wish public schools would be like. Anyway... to your questions.

Just out of curiosity JM, can you point to the state that doesn't currently have a set of minimum educational standards already in place? Here in CO, homeschooling laws are relatively permissive and easy, and still my homeschooled kids are required to have periodic testing or evaluation by qualified people at set intervals.

Can you tell me which state doesn't currently do what you're proposing?

Yes, I recognize that states already have their own minimum standards for education. Where what I'm proposing would be different is that this minimum would actually be extremely basic- something that, as I said, could be achieved by most six year old children. At that point, continued education would be optional and would be something more "career oriented" than the current system.

First, how do you propose measuring "successful integration in social settings"? Would it be participation in a set number of extra-curricular activities? Surveys or questionairres completed by the child?

Honestly not sure what the best method would be for measuring that. I've taken classes on surveys and test writing, and they all have their flaws and insufficiencies. I particularly have issues with "standardized testing" and feel it does not adequately measure a child's education.

Second, assuming you get some sort of way to appropriately measure it, who is going to pay for these "other options" you mention? Are you saying that the state will pay to get me an in-home tutor if my homeschooled kid is an introvert? That would be cool - but I seriously doubt you'll get anyone outside of the homeschooling community to agree to fund that.

In my little ideal here, in-home tutors would be more the norm, and yes the state would pay for it. Yeah, it'd be hard to get others to agree to fund it. Again, I'm dreaming here.

Third, again assuming you have a good measure, can you explain how tutoring or group teaching is supposed to "cure" kids who can't integrate socially with others? A common assumption I see everywhere, is that group education is where socialization happens, and without some teacher to sit there and supervise and measure and aid and guide, socialization doesn't happen. Is that sort of your background assumption here?

No that is not my background assumption. I don't think group education is where socialization happens. I think socialization happens when people find like interests and pursue them with others. There are already ways to teach and measure things like team-working skills, communication skills, and the like. This is what I would be talking about here. There would not be a "cure" for those who are not capable of this integration. These children would have individualized "schooling" kinda like current life-skills classes, but with differences... I think that system is really broken too.

Are you aware that issues like sensory integration disorder and autism require more than just someone encouraging little Johnny to come play with the rest of the group, right?

I do have an autistic brother. I've read Temple Grandin's books among others on autism and similar disorders. I've worked with special needs kids. I know what you are talking about here, and I just haven't quite fleshed out how to exactly address the needs of these children in the system I'm proposing other than "individualized studies".

Fourth, are you aware that with the measures of sociability we do have, homeschooled kids outscore public schooled kids in every test, across most every demographic?

Yes. I am aware of that. I highly approve of homeschooling.

So, Judo? States decide this stuff on a state level. Are you proposing some sort of federal takeover of state's rights here, to make all the states do it your way? You can expect a fight if that's the case. (Actually, the fight has always been going on, you can just expect that you'll be joining a side in it, and you'll be unhappy to learn that although your side is in favor of the WeSaySo approach, nobody agrees on what the blanket mandate should be.)

Technically, yes. That is what I'm proposing. I know its crazy, but I don't quite see it as imposing "one way" on everyone. I think if it was done this way, there would be a greater opportunity for choice in education. It would drastically alter the format of current schools, but think of it as changing everything to a bunch of "little-kid" universities and trade schools.

I see you still refusing to answer Vort's question about the child that wants what is not in their best interests. Let me join with him in asking you for a response.

Hey Judo - sometimes kids want things that are not in their best interests. Why are you pushing to not allow parents to parent their kids in these situations?

I wasn't intentionally avoiding that question. I just don't see how it applies in what I'm envisioning... It's more of a parents can't tell their kids "No you can't get more education". Let me take Vort's example for a moment... say a child says "I want to be a pole dancer when I grow up". There would be no such thing as a "pole dancing" school. There would be a "dancing" major at schools that provide dancing as an option. There would also be "dancing" tutors, or if the parents already know dance they could teach it. If the child went to a school, they would have to cover all their basic courses necessary for pursuing a professional career as well as some elective "intro" courses to present some other career options to the child along with the dancing classes. Other poor judgement calls on the part of the child would be handled similarly.

[Guest]

Yes, I recognize that states already have their own minimum standards for education. Where what I'm proposing would be different is that this minimum would actually be extremely basic- something that, as I said, could be achieved by most six year old children. At that point, continued education would be optional and would be something more "career oriented" than the current system.

I don't agree with this part of your concept Judo.

In my opinion, the current K-12 is basic education. For example, Statistics is not career-specific. Nurses use statistics, mechanics use statistics, stay-at-home moms use Statistics - something that a 6-year-old doesn't know.

I can name a gillion more - Geometry, Physics, Literary Expression, History, Political Science... etc. etc. etc.

But, I like your idea of a career-path education. I did that thing myself. I pursued programming classes while I was in high school. So, to improve on your concept, I say you give the children a vocational add-on to their K-12 studies.

That's actually already being done right now in Public Schools - through magnet programs. For example, my father-in-law used to teach computer technology in the Technology Magnet High School in my town. Children who attend that magnet school receive their 9-12 schooling and in addition, they graduate with enough knowledge to test for either an A+ certification (computer technician), N+ certification (network technician), or a S+ (computer security technician) that they can use to get a job in the computer technology field.

[NeuroTypical]

Well answered, Judo.

I would homeschool myself, if I could. Don't see any way I can make that work though as a single parent, and I can't really afford sending my son to a private school, so yeah... I kinda dream about what I wish public schools would be like.

That makes sense to me. From where I'm standing, homeschooling is not for everyone.

Anyway, every now and then, an inexperienced idealistic dream turns into a massive step forward for humanity. So I won't be standing in your way - except for the unconstitutional trampling on state rights you're proposing. I will be standing in your way on that one as much as I possibly can. And also - unless you can find a way to solve the money problems, your dreams probably won't take flight. I'll certainly be trying to stop you from taking more of my money for these changes.

Maybe if you shifted your focus to the state level, you could gain a little more traction. The way it's supposed to work, is when a state tries something that works, other states adopt the practices. So much better than the horribly inefficient and bloated and borderline evil federal government steamrollering a bunch of radical changes that people didn't ask for and don't want.

[JudoMinja]

I don't agree with this part of your concept Judo.

In my opinion, the current K-12 is basic education. For example, Statistics is not career-specific. Nurses use statistics, mechanics use statistics, stay-at-home moms use Statistics - something that a 6-year-old doesn't know.

I can name a gillion more - Geometry, Physics, Literary Expression, History, Political Science... etc. etc. etc.

But, I like your idea of a career-path education. I did that thing myself. I pursued programming classes while I was in high school. So, to improve on your concept, I say you give the children a vocational add-on to their K-12 studies.

That's actually already being done right now in Public Schools - through magnet programs. For example, my father-in-law used to teach computer technology in the Technology Magnet High School in my town. Children who attend that magnet school receive their 9-12 schooling and in addition, they graduate with enough knowledge to test for either an A+ certification (computer technician), N+ certification (network technician), or a S+ (computer security technician) that they can use to get a job in the computer technology field.

While I see your point, I still think the standard should be very minimized. Sure, mothers, nurses, mechanics and all kinds of people use statistics- but a statistics course is not necessary to pursue those things, nor is everyone capable of understanding statistics.

I believe that the only education that should be required is that which every* child should be able to master. I think the way the K-12 system is currently structured wastes many years of time and learning. There are some people who just do not value an education, and some jobs that don't really require one. To make them have to go to school to learn history, extensive grammar, chemistry, advanced mathematics, along with all the many other "elective" courses is just a complete waste of time and money. If the child doesn't want to take those classes- don't make them. Hence, a very minimum education standard that can be met by young children.

* I am again making an exception for those entirely unique children who would need something entirely different for their education.

This is all operating on the belief that most children will want to pursue more than the minimum requirements, and that most careers will require more than the minimum as well. Some careers would require very minimal formal education and would likely offer something more like apprenticeships, and some would require no extension on the basics (like working in the fast-food industry for example- I know we all hate that example, but somebody ends up working there). But most, would require something more than that, and if a child wants to pursue such a career, they would need to pursue the adjoining education.

As I look over the Montessori theory and schools you suggested, I am finding more and more that this is a much more feasable option which largely encompasses what my dream ideal is trying to achieve. Essentially, the education is designed so that children enjoy learning and will want to learn because they find it fun and exciting. Most will excel at their educational pursuits and will likely go for more than one "degree". They will learn because they want to learn and not be stuck in a rigid system more akin to babysitting than teaching.

Maybe if you shifted your focus to the state level, you could gain a little more traction. The way it's supposed to work, is when a state tries something that works, other states adopt the practices. So much better than the horribly inefficient and bloated and borderline evil federal government steamrollering a bunch of radical changes that people didn't ask for and don't want.

Agreed. I firmly believe that one person's will or ideal should not be enforced upon others. That's why I haven't done anything more than mull this over in my mind thus far. If I were to try to lobby for this kind of change, I would need to flesh it out much more and find a way to have it be a more gradual change that the general populace would actually agree with. Officially, I'm thinking my stance is just going to be to support the Montessori method and hope that becomes implemented in public schools.

Edited May 13, 2011 by JudoMinja

[Vort]

JudoMinja, I appreciate your willingness to respond and actually converse, and also your willingness to engage without taking offense. Such discussions are a pleasure, even when we don't see eye to eye.

I don't understand every nuance of what you are proposing, but I do think I see the broad outlines. If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that many children are being held back by parental laziness, fear, or ignorance. Your objective is to remove the roadblocks caused by the parents by insuring that all children get all the education they want, without forcing them into "education" that they don't want, and therefore won't really be getting educated.

Here is why I disagree with that idea:

When a child is born, he (or she) is helpless, utterly unable to care for even his most basic needs. Literally, the most he can do is breathe and suckle while his body carries on his life processes. The duty for providing life's necessities, both morally and legally, rests with the parents. They are expected -- indeed, required -- to provide a minimally healthy environment for the child.

Please note: In many cases, this means forcing the child to do things he doesn't want to do, such as eating his spinach or going to the doctor for immunizations.

We assume (especially in the West, and especially in America) that adults are capable of fending for themselves. We allow them to make choices and suffer the consequences of their actions*. To this end, we establish an "age of majority", at which point we assume the helpless child has developed into a responsible adult. We know this to be a fiction, on many levels: Many adults are irresponsible, the age of "adulthood" cannot be legislated for each individual by fiat, some adult actions have consequences that ought to be mitigated, etc. Still, this is the best we can do. Doing otherwise means assuming that adults cannot make such determinations for themselves, and instead puts the state in the position of decision-maker. Western thought values individual liberty, so we abhor this idea.

(*Well, except for those who promote a nanny state and seek to remove all consequences from actions. But that's a separate discussion, probably best addressed in a different thread, if at all.)

But there are obvious problems in seeking to extend this personal liberty to minors. If the kid doesn't want to eat his spinach, or insists on chocolate cake over oatmeal, the parents have the right -- indeed the duty -- to enforce their will over him. Similarly, if the kid prefers Xbox to school, the parents can and must enforce their opinion over his. He may honestly believe that his Xbox "training" is of more value than school. More likely, he just doesn't care, and simply WANTS to play Xbox. In either case, it doesn't matter. He will do what his parents adjudge best for him. Why? Because he's a minor. THEY are his decision-makers until he reaches that age of majority.

What you propose shifts the responsibility for this decision-making from the parents, who are assumed to be capable and responsible, to the child, who is assumed to be incapable and irresponsible, and to the state, a soulless entity that by definition cares nothing for the child. This is utterly, absolutely unacceptable. This is ancient Sparta, or Middle Ages serfdom, or 20th-century Russia.

The most important thing to preserve is not the possibility for educating the child. The most important thing to preserve is the liberty of self-determination. This means that (within reason) I determine what happens to my children, not you or the church or the state or any other entity. We can determine some reasonable bounds that the large majority will agree on -- you can't beat your child to death, you can't lock him in a closet until he's 18 -- but outside of that, such decisions as how the child is to be education must be left to the parents. To abrogate that power is to destroy the very foundation of liberty.

This is why I (and, I assume, LM) have had such a seemingly strong reaction to what you propose. It's not personal against you; rather, we see this idea (one common to many more people than you alone) as one that destroys our liberty and ultimately takes away our very ability to bring up our children as we see fit.

[zippy_do46]

Take Sports out of our Elementry and Middle Schools.

[JudoMinja]

I don't understand every nuance of what you are proposing, but I do think I see the broad outlines. If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that many children are being held back by parental laziness, fear, or ignorance. Your objective is to remove the roadblocks caused by the parents by insuring that all children get all the education they want, without forcing them into "education" that they don't want, and therefore won't really be getting educated.

Vort-

You kinda got it, and I pretty much agree completely with the position you described for why you don't like this. Yes, parents should have the overruling authority in how to govern the lives of their children, as long as those children are not being abused or neglected, in every aspect until the child reaches "adulthood". The only thing that I would be saying the child gets the right to decide, even over the will of the parents, is if they want to get an education and the parents are trying to hold them back. This is because what I'm picturing would end up being fairly similar to colonial era education, and during that time it was pretty common that some children would want to go to school but the parents would say "no", because the children were needed on the farm.

If a child said they don't want to get an education, and the parents think they should at least learn something, the parents could enroll their child in some kind of "general studies" option. This would not be considered wrong of the parent to do, even though this would be "imposing the parent's will on the child". The parents could not however, after these general studies were completed, force the child into a particular "career path". This is to prevent problems like the gung-ho football dad wanting his son to become a professional football player forcing him into a football school when his son may prefer say... acting. I do not mean it to promote children sitting around playing video games while their parents hold their hands up helplessly in the air because they want their child to get an education. No. I don't want that happening either.

For the most part, what the parent says would still go. Parents just wouldn't be allowed to hold the kid back or make them pick something they just aren't interested in learning about in the least. That is what I'm trying to address here. If parents are having a hard time getting their kids interested in something, they could work on what their child is doing at home that has them not wanting to pursue an education. Like the video games example, for instance. If the kid is really into video games, it could be suggested that they seek classes on video game development.

Oh and PS: I appreciate the dialogue too. It's really getting me thinking more critically about this idea, as it's just been floating around in my head until now. It's been more of a "If schools could be any way I want them to be, how would they be" kind of thought, and now you guys are making me really get into the nitty-gritty and figure out if it could even become a possibility.

Edited May 13, 2011 by JudoMinja

[zippy_do46]

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 think we need to take Sports out of Elementary schools and Middle schools. The elements that surround these sports help make our schools into social clubs instead of places for education. I would go back to teaching the child not the Test.

[Guest]

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 think we need to take Sports out of Elementary schools and Middle schools. The elements that surround these sports help make our schools into social clubs instead of places for education. I would go back to teaching the child not the Test.

Disagree.

Sports is an important part of learning. It is where you learn how to win and lose with grace and comaraderie. It is also where you learn to work as a team in a controlled environment to achieve a very specific, very well-defined goal.

You don't want to wait until High School age to learn that. By then your hormones are raging and the impiacts of win and lose are magnified by it.

[Guest]

While I see your point, I still think the standard should be very minimized. Sure, mothers, nurses, mechanics and all kinds of people use statistics- but a statistics course is not necessary to pursue those things, nor is everyone capable of understanding statistics.

I believe that the only education that should be required is that which every* child should be able to master. I think the way the K-12 system is currently structured wastes many years of time and learning. There are some people who just do not value an education, and some jobs that don't really require one. To make them have to go to school to learn history, extensive grammar, chemistry, advanced mathematics, along with all the many other "elective" courses is just a complete waste of time and money. If the child doesn't want to take those classes- don't make them. Hence, a very minimum education standard that can be met by young children.

Judo, I understand where you're coming from. But I think you're missing something VERY important.

The points you give above work in a Socialist society where every individual is assigned a "societal contribution" in a silo. That is, if you're good in carpentry, you are sent to work at the construction sites and that's pretty much all you are required to do. Therefore, what you don't know outside of carpentry does not affect anybody but you.

Unfortunately, this will not work in a Democratic Society. Why?

This is a very important concept that you need to account for in your educational system - in a Democratic Society, nobody works in a silo. Because - major societal decisions are voted on and your vote has the potential of cancelling somebody else's. Therefore, what you know and what you learn directly impacts the society as a whole.

Unless you put in a system where you have to take a test to get the privilege to vote (not only politically but also anything in society that requires consensus) then your required learning goes waaaaayy beyond the bare minimum that you suggest. Because, what you know is not only applicable to what your job is going to be. It is also applicable to any exercise of the democratic system.

For example - voting in a mayorial, gubernatorial or presidential election requires that you understand the principles of economics, finance, know the basics of political science, government, know American as well as World History, and yes... statistics... among others.

By the way... all these are something that every American should know. You seem to think that statistics can not be mastered by everyone. I disagree. If the way we teach Statistics do not allow for everyone to master it then we need to change the way it is being taught... because, it is necessary in a democratic society.

That is really why K-12 is structured as it is now. K-12 are lessons one needs to exercise their right to vote as well as be eligible for a military draft.

I am not saying you have to go to school for it. I am saying - it is required learning - whether you learn it in school or at home, you have to learn it if you intend to become a citizen of the United States or any democratic country where your learning impacts society.

Make sense?

Edited May 13, 2011 by anatess

[zippy_do46]

Disagree.

Sports is an important part of learning. It is where you learn how to win and lose with grace and comaraderie. It is also where you learn to work as a team in a controlled environment to achieve a very specific, very well-defined goal.

You don't want to wait until High School age to learn that. By then your hormones are raging and the impiacts of win and lose are magnified by it.

Disagree,

Sports is not an important part of having better education. Alot of money is spent on sports. Money that could be used for education. Anatess those hormones start even younger. The control enviroment is often a coach that want only the best players. There are only so many on a team. They have a certain time to make the team and then you are out. To some this is a rejection that hurts.

You are right, about teaching them about losing and winning. The problem lies when some how the words and actions become winners and losers. I do not believe these young minds believe there is a diffrence. I have seen young players taunting others about being losers because they did not make the team. The other side is those young people who play on these teams think they are what they are because they are on the team. If they do not make the team then they are nothing. Education is not always important at this point.

I do believe we should have physical activities for the younger grades. Just not team sports where you only use a small group of the population of kids. I think all should be divided up and a good coach would make sure there is strong players on all teams. This would teach winning and losing with grace. Not put all of the good players on one or 2 teams and then all the other players divided up. What is fair about this? It teaches another lesson I believe.

[Guest]

Disagree,

Sports is not an important part of having better education. Alot of money is spent on sports. Money that could be used for education. Anatess those hormones start even younger. The control enviroment is often a coach that want only the best players. There are only so many on a team. They have a certain time to make the team and then you are out. To some this is a rejection that hurts.

You are right, about teaching them about losing and winning. The problem lies when some how the words and actions become winners and losers. I do not believe these young minds believe there is a diffrence. I have seen young players taunting others about being losers because they did not make the team. The other side is those young people who play on these teams think they are what they are because they are on the team. If they do not make the team then they are nothing. Education is not always important at this point.

I do believe we should have physical activities for the younger grades. Just not team sports where you only use a small group of the population of kids. I think all should be divided up and a good coach would make sure there is strong players on all teams. This would teach winning and losing with grace. Not put all of the good players on one or 2 teams and then all the other players divided up. What is fair about this? It teaches another lesson I believe.

You are pointing out the deficiency of the delivery of the education, not the education itself. Like Judo and some others have been illustrating here, the Public School System is not the only source of education. My children, for instance do not rely on the Public School System for everything, hence, to supplement their education, they are in MMA and the soccer league.

Now, on your observation about "making it to the team", fact is: not everybody are cut out for basketball, football, or whatever. There are only 10 people on a basketball court, 22 on football, etc. Try outs (like auditions in the arts) are essential in the making of the team. It gives the opportunity for those who are cut out for that sport the environment to excel, all the others find their own niche. If you don't make it to the team then that's not the sport for you. Try out for something else. Because a kid like LeBron James could not have achieved the excellence he has now if he is challenged by talentless Joe Schmoe the entire time. This is a very important part of education - realizing your stenghths and weaknesses and finding the right avenues for them then pitting the best with the best to achieve excellence.

When you go out into the adult world, you will soon realize that even if your lifelong dream is to become an Engineer, if you can't understand Calculus you have to find another career path instead if insisting that the system be changed to provide a level playing field for those who suck at advanced math, thereby dumbing down the field of Engineering.

Physical Education is separate from sports. Everybody learns PE - it is the lesson that allows you to learn the benefits of sports and exercise and teaches you to appreciate it. This is also where you learn what is required for certain sports and match up your qualities with the sport/exercise that fits your strengths. Sports is the application of that learning.

Edited May 14, 2011 by anatess

[JudoMinja]

Judo, I understand where you're coming from. But I think you're missing something VERY important.

The points you give above work in a Socialist society where every individual is assigned a "societal contribution" in a silo. That is, if you're good in carpentry, you are sent to work at the construction sites and that's pretty much all you are required to do. Therefore, what you don't know outside of carpentry does not affect anybody but you.

Unfortunately, this will not work in a Democratic Society. Why?

This is a very important concept that you need to account for in your educational system - in a Democratic Society, nobody works in a silo. Because - major societal decisions are voted on and your vote has the potential of cancelling somebody else's. Therefore, what you know and what you learn directly impacts the society as a whole.

Unless you put in a system where you have to take a test to get the privilege to vote (not only politically but also anything in society that requires consensus) then your required learning goes waaaaayy beyond the bare minimum that you suggest. Because, what you know is not only applicable to what your job is going to be. It is also applicable to any exercise of the democratic system.

For example - voting in a mayorial, gubernatorial or presidential election requires that you understand the principles of economics, finance, know the basics of political science, government, know American as well as World History, and yes... statistics... among others.

By the way... all these are something that every American should know. You seem to think that statistics can not be mastered by everyone. I disagree. If the way we teach Statistics do not allow for everyone to master it then we need to change the way it is being taught... because, it is necessary in a democratic society.

That is really why K-12 is structured as it is now. K-12 are lessons one needs to exercise their right to vote as well as be eligible for a military draft.

I am not saying you have to go to school for it. I am saying - it is required learning - whether you learn it in school or at home, you have to learn it if you intend to become a citizen of the United States or any democratic country where your learning impacts society.

Make sense?

Hmmm... You're definitely giving me more to think about. :) It's been awhile since something has really strained my brain. Thanks!

This does make perfect sense. I just still don't see how someone who does not want to learn these things and does not see it for its usefulness will learn it. The history, government, and economic classes are considered basic requirements now, and students who don't care for it don't learn it. These people who are supposed to be informed voters either elect not to vote, or they put hardly any thought into the vote they cast. If part of our "necessary" education is to develop informed and intelligent voters... then we need to find a way to get everyone to CARE about learning and maintaining this portion of their education. I think that is really the core issue here.

What students learn isn't really as important as getting them to care about learning. If we can instill in everyone a desire to learn, a desire to test their brain, a desire to be an informed and intelligent voter, we won't have any problems with education. My limiting of the requirements was an attempt to create that desire, as many people who struggle with their education do so because they feel forced into it. If they don't feel forced into it, they may be more likely to WANT it.

However, this approach could be faulty to, as this could mean many will just skip over the classes that would make them more informed voters just because they do not find them interesting enough to pursue. So, I guess, I would say one of the biggest changes we need to make to our educational system is figuring out how to instill in children a desire to learn- even those subjects they may not find interesting. How we are going to do that... I'm not really sure.

[zippy_do46]

"Now, on your observation about "making it to the team", fact is: not everybody are cut out for basketball, football, or whatever. There are only 10 people on a basketball court, 22 on football, etc. Try outs (like auditions in the arts) are essential in the making of the team. It gives the opportunity for those who are cut out for that sport the environment to excel, all the others find their own niche. If you don't make it to the team then that's not the sport for you. Try out for something else. Because a kid like LeBron James could not have achieved the excellence he has now if he is challenged by talentless Joe Schmoe the entire time."

In many of our schools in America, "the Game" is all important. Education takes second place. Teachers are asked even to give special treatment to these children. These children know this and sometimes the results is that education becomes 2nd to sports.

Joe Schmoe might have been a better player if he had been given an equal chance. Many times the children that excel in sports today are the ones that spend time in Sports Camps and etc... If you do not have the money you do not play on a team. It took our Family together to let my 2 grandsons and 2 granddaughters to play ball last summer. It cost over $600.00. Three of them had never played so between balls, gloves, shoes, uniforms, fees, and weekly games we had to all pitch in or my daughter would not been able to let them play. So Joe Schmoe might have come from a family that could not come up with such funds. Sometimes it is who you know and not what you know that gets you there.

Education is more then sports. In my opinion we spend too much time on the game and not enough time on education. If we take it out of early education classes then maybe time and money spent can be used to futher education.

Does your school provide organized sports? (anatess) This is what I am saying. PE yes, show them ways to keep their young bodies strong. In High School bodies are stronger and the mind is alittle more mature.( not much) So many of these young bodies are pushed to the point that their bodies are being destroyed before they even get a chance to move on to adult life.

"This is a very important part of education - realizing your stenghths and weaknesses and finding the right avenues for them then pitting the best with the best to achieve excellence"

Yes, but we are talking education and not sports. This is what is happening in our school at a time when our young children need to realize their strenghths and weaknesses in education. They are setting their goals in sports instead of education. We are setting them up to think the bottom line is "how you play the game of life".

Even the ones that do not make the team, with their young imature minds believe they are losers. Education takes the back seat. I have never seen a cheerleading team, drill team, a band, for the debate team. :)

Our children see where we place importance. They see past us saying one thing and doing another. We need to show and support the importance of education just as strongly as we support every ball game or other sport events.

When was the last time we set down with out children and really found out what is happening in our schools? I have notice that many schools have running sale promotions just to support some of the teaching programs in our schools. How many of you have bought boxes of candy or candles to support these programs? This upsets me when millions is spent on a test that determines how children learn. I think we need to loose the Test and teach our children for a "learning experience" and not to place them in a group.

I am sorry this is so long. You know one of the things I like about this forum is that even though we disagree on how we need to do something we do agree that something needs to be done.

[Guest]

"Now, on your observation about "making it to the team", fact is: not everybody are cut out for basketball, football, or whatever. There are only 10 people on a basketball court, 22 on football, etc. Try outs (like auditions in the arts) are essential in the making of the team. It gives the opportunity for those who are cut out for that sport the environment to excel, all the others find their own niche. If you don't make it to the team then that's not the sport for you. Try out for something else. Because a kid like LeBron James could not have achieved the excellence he has now if he is challenged by talentless Joe Schmoe the entire time."

In many of our schools in America, "the Game" is all important. Education takes second place. Teachers are asked even to give special treatment to these children. These children know this and sometimes the results is that education becomes 2nd to sports.

Joe Schmoe might have been a better player if he had been given an equal chance. Many times the children that excel in sports today are the ones that spend time in Sports Camps and etc... If you do not have the money you do not play on a team. It took our Family together to let my 2 grandsons and 2 granddaughters to play ball last summer. It cost over $600.00. Three of them had never played so between balls, gloves, shoes, uniforms, fees, and weekly games we had to all pitch in or my daughter would not been able to let them play. So Joe Schmoe might have come from a family that could not come up with such funds. Sometimes it is who you know and not what you know that gets you there.

Education is more then sports. In my opinion we spend too much time on the game and not enough time on education. If we take it out of early education classes then maybe time and money spent can be used to futher education.

Does your school provide organized sports? (anatess) This is what I am saying. PE yes, show them ways to keep their young bodies strong. In High School bodies are stronger and the mind is alittle more mature.( not much) So many of these young bodies are pushed to the point that their bodies are being destroyed before they even get a chance to move on to adult life.

"This is a very important part of education - realizing your stenghths and weaknesses and finding the right avenues for them then pitting the best with the best to achieve excellence"

Yes, but we are talking education and not sports. This is what is happening in our school at a time when our young children need to realize their strenghths and weaknesses in education. They are setting their goals in sports instead of education. We are setting them up to think the bottom line is "how you play the game of life".

Even the ones that do not make the team, with their young imature minds believe they are losers. Education takes the back seat. I have never seen a cheerleading team, drill team, a band, for the debate team. :)

Our children see where we place importance. They see past us saying one thing and doing another. We need to show and support the importance of education just as strongly as we support every ball game or other sport events.

When was the last time we set down with out children and really found out what is happening in our schools? I have notice that many schools have running sale promotions just to support some of the teaching programs in our schools. How many of you have bought boxes of candy or candles to support these programs? This upsets me when millions is spent on a test that determines how children learn. I think we need to loose the Test and teach our children for a "learning experience" and not to place them in a group.

I am sorry this is so long. You know one of the things I like about this forum is that even though we disagree on how we need to do something we do agree that something needs to be done.

I can summarize your entire post here as follows:

"You are pointing out the deficiencies of the way the Education is delivered, not the Education itself".

To solve the deficiencies of delivery, you don't get rid of the Education itself. You fix the deficiency.

And that is what this whole thread is all about.

[zippy_do46]

I can summarize your entire post here as follows:

"You are pointing out the deficiencies of the way the Education is delivered, not the Education itself".

To solve the deficiencies of delivery, you don't get rid of the Education itself. You fix the deficiency.

And that is what this whole thread is all about.

OK, I may be misunderstanding something here.

We are talking changes that would help education. If I believe how it is delivered is wrong then for me suggest this change would not be what this thread is about?

If so then I am sorry. I do believe that we can not improve on education if we do not change the enviroment of schools and the delivery of the educational basics.

Edited May 16, 2011 by zippy_do46

[Guest]

Hmmm... You're definitely giving me more to think about. :) It's been awhile since something has really strained my brain. Thanks!

This does make perfect sense. I just still don't see how someone who does not want to learn these things and does not see it for its usefulness will learn it. The history, government, and economic classes are considered basic requirements now, and students who don't care for it don't learn it. These people who are supposed to be informed voters either elect not to vote, or they put hardly any thought into the vote they cast. If part of our "necessary" education is to develop informed and intelligent voters... then we need to find a way to get everyone to CARE about learning and maintaining this portion of their education. I think that is really the core issue here.

What students learn isn't really as important as getting them to care about learning. If we can instill in everyone a desire to learn, a desire to test their brain, a desire to be an informed and intelligent voter, we won't have any problems with education. My limiting of the requirements was an attempt to create that desire, as many people who struggle with their education do so because they feel forced into it. If they don't feel forced into it, they may be more likely to WANT it.

However, this approach could be faulty to, as this could mean many will just skip over the classes that would make them more informed voters just because they do not find them interesting enough to pursue. So, I guess, I would say one of the biggest changes we need to make to our educational system is figuring out how to instill in children a desire to learn- even those subjects they may not find interesting. How we are going to do that... I'm not really sure.

I think a lof ot it is cultural. It's much easier in the Philippines to instill that "desire" in children because the parents know exactly what happens if their education is deficient. When you have naked children not even 20 kilometers from the LDS Temple, just in the outskirts of downtown, diving in the pier for coins as a livelihoood, you get that instant desire to take every opportunity to learn EVERYTHING so you can have a greater chance of landing a job.

When you got McDonald's burger flippers requiring college education, you learn to appreciate History/Economics/Statistics or whatever else the school has to offer to get you counted with those "learned" folks.

My dad put me to bed without dinner because I got 1/10 in my Kindergarten quiz! Yes, I learned to appreciate education very very early on.

When you meet people in the Philippines you will notice that they get introduced with their Educational achievement. "Anatess, meet Board Certified Chemical Engineer Joe Schmoe...". So, the pressure is on to get educated.

My uncle was a great General Surgeon, so my brother dreamed of being a doctor since he was very little - before he even started Kindergarten. He knows that he needs to excel in school to have a shot at medical school, so he was very competitive throughout elementary school. So competitive that all 4 years of high school, he did not get a single grade lower than 90%, including the required military training. He was first in class every single grading period graduating valedictorian - a sure shot at gaining entry into the University of the Philippines - the best med school in the country.

This story is not unique - I was a programmer since I was 12. This is a common theme in Philippine culture. When there is only 1 job for every 3 Filipinos, you are driven to achieve.

So, in a way, the decline of American education is a product of the success of American society. When the unemployment rate skyrockets, you'll find more parents engaged in teaching their children the advantages of a great educational foundation - because there's a lot less room for failure.