Quote: Original post by Silvermyst
Regarding the current system, my personal belief (based almost solely on very limited anecdotal evidence) is that it doesn't do enough to get rid of the bad apples; bad teachers and disrupting students.

This is a good point. My own experience leads me to both agree and disagree with this conclusion. For quite a stretch of time, I never really had a class with truly disruptive students -- then I got to high school and experienced a few classes that were not Honors/AP. My reaction every time was a "W. T. F. ? !"

I had to take two language classes, which did not have an Honors level. I also missed a test and had to make it up during that teacher's non-Honors Geometry class. Half the class never stopped talking, and I think they threw paper at the teacher when her back was turned. Those classes were a zoo. I thought bulls**t like that only existed in the slummiest schools of DC or something .... little did I know that I had to look no further than a couple of doors down to find such idiotic behavior. I figure there was no way in hell I would have learned anything during the classroom time there. I was appalled.

So, for kids who were willing to learn from the lectures in those classes, I feel sorry for them .... it wasn't going to happen. As I mentioned though, I, myself, had been pretty well-shielded from such classroom experiences. I attribute this to being in Honors and AP class. So, my conclusion is that there is a route that protects many people from the disruptions, but I suppose it's not accessible to everyone who is eagerly willing to learn; there should be a way to save those students too. Aside from the Honors/AP route, perhaps it could be made so that teachers hold an additional "regular(?)"-level version of their classes, but one which is available for students who get some number of teachers to sign-off. This would allow students to self-select themselves out of problem classes, with teachers able to weed out problem kids from doing so.

Another one

">experiment.
Todays Medvedev approved an experimental religious education program in 18 state (public)schools

Quote: Original post by Silvermyst
The internet brings pros and cons. I fear that it will allow people to forego properly memorizing data, as it is a readily available tool that now fits in the palm of your hand. Similar to the calculator, I think it has the potential to eradicate learning behaviors that are beneficial to the human mind. Of course, in the right hands, it can also be a very effective teaching and learning tool, so maybe I'll be proven wrong. (Though I have noticed myself that when I learn something new, I'm already thinking of the words to use if/when I ever want to google it. If I find the right words, I think I file the newly learned item away in the "discard" box inside my mind.)

This is a risk of all technologies, but not a problem with the technology itself; it is a function of how we apply it, and our intrinsic laziness.

Personally, I'm not a fan of rote memorization of data. That's the entire purpose of reference material. I am far more interested in learning concepts and then turning to reference to supply the data necessary to complete the solution. In secondary school in Nigeria, for instance, it was common for students to memorize formulas such as the quadratic formula (which we referred to as "almighty formula"! [smile]). I never memorized it; instead I learned how to derive it from the basic quadratic equation ax² + bx + c = 0. Whenever I had exams I would first scan the problems for common categories and manually derive the necessary formulas on the edges of the question sheet.

I still apply this approach today. I don't memorize APIs; I learn concepts and then search documentation to find the specific equivalent in language/platform X. Over time the formulas and APIs that I use most regularly become reflex, and I don't need to look them up. I feel, however, that not having to commit so much junk to memory allows me to focus on the problem essentials. You can always slot data in at the last minute to obtain a numeric result in math, physics and chemistry, after all, but if your understanding of the process is wrong and you approach it incorrectly, no amount of data will save you.

That said, I believe that testing and evaluation should occur in controlled environments where access to technology can be restricted as a preventive measure against over-reliance on them as crutches.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If private schools are such a great thing, why aren't the financiers on Wall Street lining up to fund their expansion? If they're such a great thing then why aren't there more of them? Why didn't they sprout up left and right like Starbucks during the last ten years? Why are proponents of private schools clamoring for public money? Why would they subject themselves to the conditions that come with public money? It's not about private enterprise, it's about getting around the separation of church and state. It's a sham.

Because government provided education is "free" and we've already established that the majority of parents in this country simply don't care enough to make sure their children get a quality education. The parents who DO care and don't live in an area with excellent public education ARE looking into private schools.

I wasn't asking about parents. I wasn't asking about demand, I was asking about supply. Why wasn't the "if you build it they will come" mentality so prevalent a few years ago applied to private schools?

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
They are effectively a niche product since there is a "free" alternative that is good enough for most parents. If a voucher system were put into place, demand would go up. This has been shown in states / cities that have tried voucher programs.

Why the dependency on public money? Why are they waiting for vouchers? Why the demand to essentially demolish public schools in order to perform such a risky experiment? FedEx didn't demand that the post office be abolished before it could go in to business. Why do private school advocates demand such special treatment? If what they have to offer is so much better, then the demand should be high and competitors should be sprouting up everywhere and the competition should bring the prices down to levels that everyday people can afford. Instead, we find that none of this has happened. Vouchers and the entire private school movement talks up improved education but the reality is that it's all about circumventing the separation of church and state while having the state pay for it.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Furthermore, most of the schools that are kicking our ass in student performance are subsidizing private education. This includes most countries in the European Union.

Really? Says who?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I wasn't asking about parents. I wasn't asking about demand, I was asking about supply. Why wasn't the "if you build it they will come" mentality so prevalent a few years ago applied to private schools?

I answered that question, you just chose to ignore it. Let me put it in simpler terms. Why build a vast excess of supply if the demand is low? If the demand increases, that's when businesses would look into increasing the supply.

Quote: Why the dependency on public money? Why are they waiting for vouchers? Why the demand to essentially demolish public schools in order to perform such a risky experiment?

Once again, I've already answered this. But I'll go over it again, just for you. Most parents in this country don't care enough about their child's education to spend extra money on it, and there are parents who do care about their childs education and can't afford a private school. If some or all of that tuition were covered by a voucher, then those who can't afford it might be able to.

Quote: FedEx didn't demand that the post office be abolished before it could go in to business. Why do private school advocates demand such special treatment?

Apples, meet oranges. When the US Postal Service allows me to ship packages across the country for free, your point might be worth talking about.

Quote: If what they have to offer is so much better, then the demand should be high and competitors should be sprouting up everywhere and the competition should bring the prices down to levels that everyday people can afford. Instead, we find that none of this has happened.

In most cases they are better. I've explained why demand is low, parents don't care all that much, and public schools are "free". It's really not that difficult of a concept. If the government gave away free computers that are capable of playing Half Life 2, how many people are going to buy an entirely new computer for $2,000 so they can play Crysis? Not very damn many. Now, what if instead you were given $1,500 to buy a computer. Now you just need to spend $500 to play games with crysis level graphics. Suddenly a lot more people are going to be interested in those computers.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Furthermore, most of the schools that are kicking our ass in student performance are subsidizing private education. This includes most countries in the European Union.

Really? Says who?

It's really not that hard to find the information.

Private Education in the EU

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Why the dependency on public money? Why are they waiting for vouchers? Why the demand to essentially demolish public schools in order to perform such a risky experiment?

Once again, I've already answered this. But I'll go over it again, just for you. Most parents in this country don't care enough about their child's education to spend extra money on it, and there are parents who do care about their childs education and can't afford a private school.

Wow. You're really trying to make "caring about your children's education" synonymous with a desire to spend enough to get them into private schools? That's just unfathomably presumptuous.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 21, 2009 9:55:12 PM]

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If what they have to offer is so much better, then the demand should be high and competitors should be sprouting up everywhere and the competition should bring the prices down to levels that everyday people can afford. Instead, we find that none of this has happened.

In most cases they are better.

Not really. There may be a lot of hype, but there's actually very little compelling evidence that a school teaches a child better simply by virtue of it not being a public school.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
I've explained why demand is low, parents don't care all that much, and public schools are "free". It's really not that difficult of a concept. If the government gave away free computers that are capable of playing Half Life 2, how many people are going to buy an entirely new computer for $2,000 so they can play Crysis? Not very damn many.

So .... basically you're telling us that people's behavior indicates that private schools are viewed as only offering a very marginal value over public schools (if that)? If public education were truly viewed as patently inferior to the value offered by private schools, then people would scrap their government-issued Commodore-64's and buy their "Crysis systems."

Simple example:
People pay taxes which fund the bus system all of the time, and yet they still go out and spend hundreds of dollars per month on a car. So the truth of the matter is likely that private schools simply have failed to prove their value is a vast improvement over public schooling, no matter how some individuals may believe the value is there.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Now, what if instead you were given $1,500 to buy a computer. Now you just need to spend $500 to play games with crysis level graphics. Suddenly a lot more people are going to be interested in those computers.

And since the cost of education doesn't work like your analogy, ultimately, the only people who will have a "computer" [education] at all are those who it seems you would like to have seen in private schools in the first place. For everyone else, that voucher would likely become unusable. Perhaps, that'd be an acceptable trade-off for some folks, but most advanced societies abandoned systems with similar results a long time ago.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 21, 2009 10:25:53 PM]

Quote: Original post by LessBread
As for California's vehicle emission regulations, that was part of the Clean Air act passed back in the 1970's when smog was worse out here than anywhere else. Now it's Houston that has the bad air. At any rate, the problem is that the curriculum fights in Texas constitute a step backwards, not a step forwards. Tougher auto emissions constitute a step forward: Children's IQ Can Be Affected By Mother's Exposure To Urban Air Pollutants, Study Suggests. Expect fewer and fewer bright children in Texas...

There is no shortage of brilliant people in polluted countries. They'll solve the pollution problem. What about the brain damaging effects of gang warfare and pop culture? Has anyone performed a study analyzing the IQ drop precipitated by exposure to such mind rot?

Quote: Trig and calc weren't required when I was in school either, but I guess putting mention of those subjects in parenthesis wasn't sufficient for you to understand I was conveying their special status. I guess you played hooky from English the day that lesson was taught. At any rate, the point flew past you. Cut school off at 6th grade and you cut all of those subjects off - including government class and so on. If proficiencies are bad now, abolishing high school won't make them better. You complain about drop outs, but you would have it so that every child drops out at 12. Wonderful!

Children would end up getting a private education devoted to these subjects.

Quote: Maybe you were all at the top because you cheated. Clearly, you cheated yourself on your education, by "skimming and writing bullshit". You seem proud of having fooled the teachers, but you were really fooling yourselves. And again, instead of holding yourself to account, you blame the system. How convenient to pump yourself up in the process too. They couldn't challenge you because that would have meant failing everyone else? Oh Please! And why were you content to go along with coloring exercises? Why didn't you demand better? Could it be that you were happy to let your teachers let you be lazy? You brag about "skimming and writing bullshit", clearly, you weren't interested in hard work or challenging yourself.

Now you're just making me laugh. I challenged myself outside of the classroom and in college. I took a math course in summer school to get ahead. The junior year US history class I mentioned was the ordinary course, not the AP class (although I had taken a special honors combined world history/English course the year prior, also a complete waste of time taught with textbooks that had factually incorrect information.) The next year, I ended up taking more AP classes. AP Calc homework was done in AP English the period before, and I applied my usual strategy to AP English, learning more about the literature I didn't read than students who actually read it, and acing the AP English exam with no preparation while most of the class failed it. I recall reading at the beginning of the course but I quickly lost interest because of the excruciatingly slow pacing and thoroughly uninformative discussions. I wanted to take AP Physics but could not, because not enough students had signed up in order to warrant teaching the class.

The system is a joke, as is your attempt to belittle me without knowing what happened. You weren't there, you can't judge me. I have done fine in college and beyond. Of course I wish I had applied myself harder at each step but, then again, who doesn't? I went far and beyond what was expected of me in high school and college, and I can be rightfully proud of that, even if it's a modest achievement considering how laughable the US education system is.

Quote: The marketplace would turn schools into infotainment centers, where kids would be fed commercials all day as part of their conditioning as the next generation of consumers, with no greater aspiration than brand name conformity.

The parents who squander their money (and childrens' educations) on infotainment centers will help facilitate a great transfer of wealth to more studious segments of society.

Quote: Which speaks more to the corporate mismanagement of the economy than it does to anything else.

It is not corporate mismanagement, but government mismanagement. Although they retain capitalist economies, there is a great deal of smart government planning with regards to economic development in those very countries where jobs are migrating to. Yay government! Let's let them take care of our education and social safety networks. I'm sure they'll do a splendid job, just as they've done with everything else. And now they have a convenient scapegoat: "corporations." You'll continue to blame them long after they've moved on and the Indians and Asians are kicking our asses.

Quote: Original post by trzy
I recall reading at the beginning of the course but I quickly lost interest because of the excruciatingly slow pacing and thoroughly uninformative discussions. I wanted to take AP Physics but could not, because not enough students had signed up in order to warrant teaching the class.

The system is a joke, as is your attempt to belittle me without knowing what happened. You weren't there, you can't judge me. I have done fine in college and beyond. Of course I wish I had applied myself harder at each step but, then again, who doesn't? I went far and beyond what was expected of me in high school and college, and I can be rightfully proud of that, even if it's a modest achievement considering how laughable the US education system is.

Pssst. You could have gone to private school, then. Even you -- the guy championing how they must be so much better -- apparently didn't find a suitable private school.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Wow. You're really trying to make "caring about your children's education" synonymous with a desire to spend enough to get them into private schools? That's just unfathomably presumptuous.

Not necessarily. Some public schools are just fine. They are just generally in the wealthier neighborhoods. Too bad for those who can't afford to live on the other side of the tracks eh?