On another thread a brief discussion about the US education system came up. I think it is pretty obvious that the US spends a lot on education and gets very poor results. So what would you propose to fix it?

I think the goals should be (in no particular order):
1) reduce the cost - the current system is incredibly expensive
2) get improved results - currently we test lower than most of the industrial world
3) have no economic barriers - currently poor neighborhoods have worse schools

What's your solution or what would be your goals?

-Dale

First thing we should do is make George Bush do what he promised.
"No Child Left Behind" is a crock of shit!
Too much money is being wasted on making "smarter" teachers".
And when I say wasted I mean sending them on "conferences" to learn the same exact things that they have been learning conference after conference.
They stay in swanky hotels, eat at top notch restaurants and don't even attend the conference half the time. Instead they go shopping or see the sites. Not all, but most of the ones I know of.
Then there is the NCLB clause the states in so many words all children should be able to succeed with the same standards no matter what. All kids do not function on the same level. Special needs kids needs special standards and so on. Stop spending money on the bogus Gateway exams and other specialty developed assessment programs who are making oodles of money selling these programs to school systems. With all the money that is being wasted, we could use it to actually buy the texts and the facilities and hire teachers who actually care about kids' education and pay them a respectable wage for a job well done. Perhaps teachers should be paid according to the success of their students. :bugeye:
George and Laura were on the TV talking about how education is their number one priority and yet funds are being cut from almost every corner of education. If you are going to be on welfare and feed of off the government tit than you are going to have to work to improve your way of life and set a good examples for your children by getting your GED, but yet Bush turned around and cut Adult Education funding drastically. Laura Bush was supposed to have been a librarian and she said that Literacy and literacy programs are important to her and she will work to support it. Than she should talk to George when she goes to bed at night because the literacy program in my area was cut by 86 percent. Which one shouldn't complain too much because George actually recommended ZERO funding. If you want to improve education George, you are going to have to spend some money there and spend it in the right places. :eek: I know, why not take away the big old pension that all the members of congress get and make them draw a regular social security like the rest of American citizens have to do and let them live off of that! We could always put the money that we save in the government pension into education and probably a whole bunch of other places as well.
If we want the education system to improve and work right then we have to start by making our government get their priorities straight and work right first.

First thing we should do is get the Federal Government out of education and return control; back to the local school boards, next go back to the basics and work up from there, learn to read, print, add, and subtract in the first grade, and work up from there. The control of the money should be at the local level, and it should stay there, ever since the federal government stuck its nose into education all that has happened is the learning curve has fallen.

First thing we should do is get the Federal Government out of education and return control; back to the local school boards, next go back to the basics and work up from there, learn to read, print, add, and subtract in the first grade, and work up from there. The control of the money should be at the local level, and it should stay there, ever since the federal government stuck its nose into education all that has happened is the learning curve has fallen.
Then get the unions out.

Here, here.

Thank you Mr. G I forgot all about them, that should really be the first thing on the list. Also no social passing of a student that does not make the grade!

Grade? What grade?

Competency is now defined as possessing a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Emphasize science, math, and communication requirements - integrate physics, chemistry, calculus, engineering, law, history, and foreign language to graduation standards. It might seem like a stretch for students to take a class on calculus, but all they need to do is demonstrate a basic understanding of the concepts and pass the course. In any case, the cirriculum for American schools is limited by requirements imposed by the government. I graduated from high school in 2004, and from 1999-2003 there were requirements called "Graduation Standards" which was a checklist of assignments for students to complete, and if they did not complete them, they would not graduate. I did not finish three or four of them, but after the 2003 school year, the state of Minnesota decided that Graduation Standards were no longer required, which seems to me like a lot of wasted tax dollars, effort, and time.

In any case, math and science need a huge boost in our country. Hell, every subject should be taught better - some people still firmly believe that Christopher Columbus was the FIRST person to discover America, and that the 20th century was mostly peaceful. If you asked the average person to name all of the wars they could think of that occurred in the 20th century, you would probably hear: World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. That's it, and they would know those only because America was directly involved in some way. I know that there were armed conflicts almost every year of the 20th century.

Oh yeah. I would also fire any teacher that discusses reality TV shows as a lecture every other class day. THAT is annoying.

Maybe they should stop teaching Bible myths as historical facts.

wsionynw, in the schools were they teach religion and the home schoolers who do so out of religious or political convictions, the graduating students run ring in educational competency around the Public Education students, so maybe there is something to be said for teaching those Bible Myths, and pride in your Country, I would definitely look into what they are doing.

Disclaimer: DaleSpam, I love you and your posts. This is criticism for criticism's sake.


1) reduce the cost - the current system is incredibly expensive


I don't think the costs should be reduced, they should be changed. We waste money in some areas, and don't spend enough in others. Just a reduction in costs across the board would hurt more than it helps.

For one thing, our school buildings are getting way too fancy and expensive. People love complaining about trailers, as if the structure creates the education. Let's save money from building these enormous schools that are too small by the time they are built, and cost billions of dollars a year across the country. Replace them all with cheap structures and fill these with high-paid teachers. Average salary in my state is $47,000. If we could just push this average up to $65,000, you would get a different set of teachers. The only way for this to work, however, is to recruit new teachers into this salary. You can't give raises to the current teachers, that would reward incompetence. Current teachers are there because they weren't motivated or capable of doing something that paid more.


2) get improved results - currently we test lower than most of the industrial world


There are some stilted statistics here. The reason our average test scores are lower is because we are one of the few countries that educates all of our students. In other countries, kids drop out before highschool to work in the family business or join a trade. So you are comparing the brightest of another country with the entire population of ours. If you look at overall literacy rates you can see the true effects of this. We have the best education sytem in the world. Bar-none. It is just overpopulated with kids that shouldn't be a part of it. This is both a good and a bad thing, depending on what your societal goals are.


3) have no economic barriers - currently poor neighborhoods have worse schools


And rich people have bigger TV's. And more security. And nicer cars. And bigger houses. And more representation in government. And better healthcare.

Why shouldn't education also be on this list? Is part of an ideal society really where we all get the exact same standards of everything? No matter how hard we work, how motivated we are, how much we contribute to society? Don't we want a meritorious system that rewards people for striving to better their situation? Don't humans usually require a carrot?

And how fair is it that the top half taxpayers pay for 90% of the schools? And also are being robbed for the social programs that keep the poor afloat? Is perfect socialism really our goal here?

I'm not saying that I feel the opposite, but people throw these inequalities out there as if it is a given that these are problems that must be fixed. And before you get into the "equal opportunity" speeches, keep in mind that having broadband internet vs. not being able to afford a computer is a leg-up for the rich as well. And so is having an extra car so one parent can take the kids to the library, while the other parent uses the primary car for work. And so is the luxury of one parent having this time off, or only needing one job.

The only proven way to make life fair is if we drag everyone DOWN to some low level, and oppress them there. There is no way to pull everyone up to the same level. The only way the poor get better off is if we have inequality, and the rich keep raising productivity and the standards of living, and the poor enjoying the crumbs. Because the crumbs of today include TV's, and cable, and cellphones, and cars, and AC, and refrigeration. Things that the socialist system would never have distributed.

I want more and greater inequality, not less. The further ahead the rich get, the greater the pull forward for the rest of us. The trick is to compare your SES with those of the same comparative SES throughout history, NOT to compare yourself to a higher SES of today.

Emphasize science, math, and communication requirements - integrate physics, chemistry, calculus, engineering, law, history, and foreign language to graduation standards. Definitely. Most of our engineering and science students in US colleges come from outside of the US. Most students graduating from a US high-school and going to college choose a liberal arts field.

-Dale

Here is an idea my wife had: Every kid has an educational contract that represents a certain percentage of their future earnings. The overall cost to society would be reduced because education would become a money-making enterprise with incredible competition. The results would improve because resources would naturally be focused on the best students and best teachers. And there would be no economic barrier because the educational dollars would follow the brains and not the neighborhood. Plus it could be done entirely privately.

-Dale

I don't think the costs should be reduced, they should be changed. We waste money in some areas, and don't spend enough in others. Just a reduction in costs across the board would hurt more than it helps.

For one thing, our school buildings are getting way too fancy and expensive. People love complaining about trailers, as if the structure creates the education. Let's save money from building these enormous schools that are too small by the time they are built, and cost billions of dollars a year across the country. Replace them all with cheap structures and fill these with high-paid teachers. Average salary in my state is $47,000. If we could just push this average up to $65,000, you would get a different set of teachers. The only way for this to work, however, is to recruit new teachers into this salary. You can't give raises to the current teachers, that would reward incompetence. Current teachers are there because they weren't motivated or capable of doing something that paid more.I hear what you are saying, particularly wrt trailers v. teachers. I am not talking about across-the-board cost cutting, I am talking about overall bottom-line cost cutting. The educational industry needs to be cost-conscious like any other industry, so this needs to continuously be an important goal even if costs were already minimal, which they aren't.

All competitive industries have core components of their business where it literally doesn't pay to skimp and non-core components where failure to cut costs leads to cost overruns and resulting failure in the marketplace. The educational industry has had no competition for so long that bottom-line cost reduction could be achieved simultaneously with improved spending in the core.


There are some stilted statistics here. The reason our average test scores are lower is because we are one of the few countries that educates all of our students. In other countries, kids drop out before highschool to work in the family business or join a trade. That may be. I honestly don't know.


And rich people have bigger TV's. And more security. And nicer cars. And bigger houses. And more representation in government. And better healthcare.

Why shouldn't education also be on this list? Is part of an ideal society really where we all get the exact same standards of everything? No matter how hard we work, how motivated we are, how much we contribute to society? Don't we want a meritorious system that rewards people for striving to better their situation? Don't humans usually require a carrot?

And how fair is it that the top half taxpayers pay for 90% of the schools? And also are being robbed for the social programs that keep the poor afloat? Is perfect socialism really our goal here?

I'm not saying that I feel the opposite, but people throw these inequalities out there as if it is a given that these are problems that must be fixed. And before you get into the "equal opportunity" speeches, keep in mind that having broadband internet vs. not being able to afford a computer is a leg-up for the rich as well. And so is having an extra car so one parent can take the kids to the library, while the other parent uses the primary car for work. And so is the luxury of one parent having this time off, or only needing one job.

The only proven way to make life fair is if we drag everyone DOWN to some low level, and oppress them there. There is no way to pull everyone up to the same level. The only way the poor get better off is if we have inequality, and the rich keep raising productivity and the standards of living, and the poor enjoying the crumbs. Because the crumbs of today include TV's, and cable, and cellphones, and cars, and AC, and refrigeration. Things that the socialist system would never have distributed.

I want more and greater inequality, not less. The further ahead the rich get, the greater the pull forward for the rest of us. The trick is to compare your SES with those of the same comparative SES throughout history, NOT to compare yourself to a higher SES of today.No child has any assets. They are all peniless and economically unproductive, regardless of the status of their parents. I have no problem with one individual producing more than another and therefore obtaining more than another. But children have not produced anything and cannot rationally separated that way.

The human mind is the most valuable natural resource in the world, but it must be developed before it is useful. The problem with permitting economic barriers is that it leads to overdevelopment of some useless minds and underdevelopment of some useful minds.

-Dale

Why shouldn't education also be on this list? Is part of an ideal society really where we all get the exact same standards of everything? No matter how hard we work, how motivated we are, how much we contribute to society? Don't we want a meritorious system that rewards people for striving to better their situation? Don't humans usually require a carrot?

Wealthier people shouldn't get better public education. If they really want better education for their children, they should put them in private schools.

And how fair is it that the top half taxpayers pay for 90% of the schools? And also are being robbed for the social programs that keep the poor afloat? Is perfect socialism really our goal here?

The positive externalities are tremendous. It's entirely fair that the top half of taxpayers pay for the education of their employees. Public education is also a great way for children to be properly socialized and instilled with the culture and values we want in our children.

What do you think of this guy's efforts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_and_Individual_Development_Association_C ity_Campus)?

Get rid of tenure. Get rid of teachers unions. Fire incompetent teachers. Flunk students who don't perform. Bring back corporal punishment. Teach the basics: math, science, reading, history. Cut out the social engineering. Don't bus kids around to achieve racial balance. Let them go to school where they live, with their neighboors and demand performance from teachers at every school. Also, back up teachers when students become discipline problems. Zero tolerance for disruptive behavior. A kid won't obey the teacher, ship him off to reform school.

madanthonywayne, go back to local control, get the federal government out of the education process, all they do is take the money return about half of it and screw up the curriculum, and then throw more money at the problem, and watch the system fall apart even further, we were better educated before the government forced us into the consolidated school system that they took contrail of.

Well I would make going to school more then just following rules, and taking standard tests. That's the whole problem so much time spent teaching kids how to wear their clothes, and teaching them how to answer multiple choice questions, that kids fail to remember that they are there to study, and learn. I think multiple choice questions, dress code rules, and anything pretty much other then learning should be banned from school it's self.

Wealthier people shouldn't get better public education. If they really want better education for their children, they should put them in private schools.

All public schools are paid for by the wealthy. If their neighborhood or district is collecting more in taxes due to their wealth, these areas should have better schools. Which is exactly what you see, and is the way it should be.

You could of course check out how the best public school systems in the world are organized.

But we are talking about america.

So tax cuts for the rich should solve the problem.

You could of course check out how the best public school systems in the world are organized.

But we are talking about america.

So tax cuts for the rich should solve the problem.


If only we knew how to vote..

The rich school districts do have better schools and also are robbed of their funds at the same time, it is called equalization, the districts that have a higher property base have the money taken from them by the government, and then that money is distributed to communities with lower tax bases, and in the end they still don't educate the student, the dropout rate in my state in the big cities runs at almost 40%, and in the small cities in drops to less than 3%, why? the reason the better districts and home schoolers do better is the family involvement in the education process, now this also happens in the poor districts but because of the broken family structure of the inner city but it happen far less often, the school districts seem to have a love hate relationship over parental involvement, on one hand they want the parent to lean on the kids to learn but on the other hand they don't want any parental involvement in the choice of curriculum, and seem to think that the parent should have no control of what is taught to their children, and so we get a lot of social engineering taught and practiced in the social advancement programs, that let children advanced with the hope they will catch up later, but if you are already weak as a student and don't have a proper base how are you going to catch up on what you don't know, and learn new subjects that need the building blocks of the former subject to be mastered, and the two most important subjects that need to be taught in the First Grade are READING and MATH, that is why the control of the schools should return to the local districts and a lot of the thing that are part of the school day would be dropped in favor of hard subjects that are needed to survive in today's world.

Try to use paragraphs when you write that much.

1. Increase the cost. That is, pay teachers more, so they will be attracted to the profession.
2. More equalization, I like that idea, but I don't think it happens everywhere.
3. Decrease standardized testing. It costs alot and doesn't really give any return.

1. Increase the cost. That is, pay teachers more, so they will be attracted to the profession.

I disagree with everything you just said. Teachers are paid pretty well. Considering they have a three month vacation, every federal holiday, and are off by three every day. Not to mention that education is practically the easiest major there is in college.

Furthermore, private schools, which pay way less than public schools, usually vastly outperform public schools.
2. More equalization, I like that idea, but I don't think it happens everywhere.
The only way to ensure equalization is to make it crappy for everyone.
3. Decrease standardized testing. It costs alot and doesn't really give any return.
That is absolute crap. How the hell else are we supposed to judge teacher's results?

I know some teachers. I know that with nonstandardized tests they often just give a student a grade based on their general impression of him. Standardized tests are fair and objective. Nonstandardized tests are subject to unfair discrimination and predetermined outcomes.

Lol.

'richest' country in the world can't produce a decent educational system.

you americans are funny (in the tragic sad way).

It's funny too, because even with our lack of educational control, we still seem to do better then most other countries. I mean, imagine if we did have a good education system, maybe then we could vote good leaders, and double the gap you other countries still havn't seemed to catch up with. Even though you've had plenty of time to get with the program...

No you don't.

We're the richest country arn't we? Now that's enough said on the matter.

carefull ricky, if you make too many points the monkey can't dispute he'll put you on ignore.

the dutch are gutless.

No you aren't.

Norway has highest HDI

The UN Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used by many people to distinguish whether the country is a first, second, or third world country.

Well, i meant in the sense america has some of the richest people, and some of the most powerful. I've never really heard of anyone, or anything to spectacular comming out of Norway though. Actually this is probably the only thing i've ever heard good from Norway, other then the usual nothing.

Well, i meant in the sense america has some of the richest people, and some of the most powerful. I've never really heard of anyone, or anything to spectacular comming out of Norway though. Actually this is probably the only thing i've ever heard good from Norway, other then the usual nothing.

Yes, we are all aware of the fascination of americans with dictatorial and elitest ideas.

Beats the hell out of alot of other countries ideals.

I prefer equality and freedom.

Save your personal attacks for another time, when you can produce arguments that aren't so generalized and underwhelmingly stale.

One other thing I would like to have implemented for a case study is the starting time for students and teachers. A later starting time would be beneficial for those who are not "morning people"; that is, those whose circadian rhythms conflict with an early-morning schedule. Either that or having a standard four-day school week. Or every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday every week of the year. I personally would prefer the later starting time and the usual 5-day a week, 9 months per year school schedule.

equality and freedom is an impossible reality.

and original they call those schools excel programs. They already exist, and you go to school from 12-4pm, and however many days a week you need to go to school. However when you apply those rules to public school, you lose money on budget, because schools get paid for every student that goes to school, everyday. Every day a student misses school, you lose the money.

Save your personal attacks for another time, when you can produce arguments that aren't so generalized and underwhelmingly stale.

One other thing I would like to have implemented for a case study is the starting time for students and teachers. A later starting time would be beneficial for those who are not "morning people"; that is, those whose circadian rhythms conflict with an early-morning schedule. Either that or having a standard four-day school week. Or every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday every week of the year. I personally would prefer the later starting time and the usual 5-day a week, 9 months per year school schedule.

on ignore for being unoriginal.

Lol.

'richest' country in the world can't produce a decent educational system.

you americans are funny (in the tragic sad way).
here's laughing at you kid.
it seems the monkeyman can fit BOTH of his feet in his mouth.

the stats for just one of americas schools:
http://www.med.umn.edu/faculty/handbook/info/home.html

YEAH! U of M! I love Minnesota... but the educational system could still use some fixin'.

On another thread a brief discussion about the US education system came up. I think it is pretty obvious that the US spends a lot on education and gets very poor results. So what would you propose to fix it?


I think the goals should be (in no particular order):
1) reduce the cost - the current system is incredibly expensive
2) get improved results - currently we test lower than most of the industrial world
3) have no economic barriers - currently poor neighborhoods have worse schools

What's your solution or what would be your goals?

-Dale

I do not live in the US but did watch a TV doco on Schools.
It was quite alarming actualy.
If i recall it was Oprah that was doing the Doco.
It showed Schools within walking distance of th ewhite house, to have walls falling apart ceilings caving in toilets closed with no money to repair any of it.

I would like to think that if such a school was in such a state in my country it woudl be front page news.

The way i see it is,
effectively you have this problem of economics.
Schools can not charge the actual true cost of education to the Student.
AND
Employers (who are supposedly the ones who will and or intend to profit from this education) will not fund the schools.

Soo...
you are left with a system that simply cant charge enough money to the student (who does not have it anyway) to supply a product to the employer who does not want to pay the actual cost of developing that product.

As long as the entiure schooling system is run on a un profitable system it will fail to provide the coreect service for development of the product to a high enough standard to be profitable for th eEmployer.

The entire US system is based on Capitalism, Soo
User pays,
the user is the E,ployer.
The employer needs to start paying.
Maybe Large companys needs to open their own schools from Kindy right througyh to University.
That would be one answer.
Obviousely they are not going to educate peopel who they will not employ so you will be left with peopel who can nto get an education or afford one, which is what happens to the poor peopel anyway.
soo,
all those Tax dollars being syphenned off by large corprate middle men can simply be used to build more prisons to house allthose poor peopel who will have to turn to crime to feed themselfs and house themselfs,
which in turn will cost vastly more than the overall cost of educating them or paying for a social welfare system.

All nice and simple realy,
but
the solution involves getting people to hand over money when they have spent their entire life building a fortune by not doing that.
Some Companys are infact exceptions to the rule and stand out in th eworld market in comparrison, but they are few and far between.

At the end of it all is 2 basic moral foundational constructs of thought.
One is Social Welfare and thus a Socialist support structure to reduce crime and corruption.
the Other is pure survival of the fittest, effective Jungle law where only those with enough money for armed gaurds survive.