They already do.
The thing that you're pissed about is that there aren't more schools teaching kids that dinosaurs and human lived together.
When there are people getting out of high school who cannot read, there is a problem. There are certain base skills that *EVERYONE* needs.
This is false, choices exist. The choices may not be ideal or possible, but they do exist.The thing I am pissed about is that there aren't more choices for those parents willing to take responsible actions in their kids education.
They also don't have a choice in where they live...it's either a trailer or no home. They don't have a choice on food...it's either unhealthy food or no food.The poor have no choice. It's poor public schools or no school.
Which is their choice. They do not have to.The rich are paying double for their child's education.
How would that change? If there are three public schools in a city and one private school, how would having the option to attend X school or Y school change the fact they are receiving services from the same school district? And if they all choose to attend the private school, how is the private school going to be able to support all those students (books, technology, classrooms, teachers, etc.), when they do not receive financial support from the government?The middle class is faced with public school or the same double situation at a severe dent in the family budget.
The people who keep advocating this never bother to think this through. How would school vouchers help? Let's say I'm a troublemaking student from a poor family. Do you think I'm going to willingly go to a "bad" school? School vouchers would not change a single thing about the educational system, except enhance the shift towards educating those with money and leaving behind those without it.Try school vouchers. All benefit from choice
Nothing is stopping you from doing that right now.
That's bull. Schools would fight each other to be the most profitable, however that can be accomplished.
I know that seeing as the Federal Government is not given the power to meddle with education, and that allows the state to assume that power, the Constitution though does state that the Federal Government has the power to do things that will provide for the general welfare. Would you support such a measure to nationalize schools? Feel free to explain your vote!
The states and local districts have totally failed, so I'm for trying something else.
This is false, choices exist. The choices may not be ideal or possible, but they do exist.
They also don't have a choice in where they live...it's either a trailer or no home. They don't have a choice on food...it's either unhealthy food or no food.
The problem isn't the educational system, but rather the income status. So instead of trying to change a symptom, change the cause.
Which is their choice. They do not have to.
How would that change? If there are three public schools in a city and one private school, how would having the option to attend X school or Y school change the fact they are receiving services from the same school district? And if they all choose to attend the private school, how is the private school going to be able to support all those students (books, technology, classrooms, teachers, etc.), when they do not receive financial support from the government?
The people who keep advocating this never bother to think this through. How would school vouchers help? Let's say I'm a troublemaking student from a poor family. Do you think I'm going to willingly go to a "bad" school? School vouchers would not change a single thing about the educational system, except enhance the shift towards educating those with money and leaving behind those without it.
Schools don't CHOOSE to be bad. Most schools will do the best with what they have. Some schools have much better financial resources than others. Some schools exist in better neighborhoods than others. Some schools have a student population which place a lower value on education than others. These factors determine quality of education. The idea that "competition" will improve schools is false, as long as school attendance is compulsory. All you would be doing is adding to the problems.
It isn't a failre of the states or local districts. It's a failure of families and culture. You can lead a horse to water..........
That's very true that the individuals are also to blame, but there is something amiss when, for example, Detroit public schools try to bribe parents with a random car giveaway so that they get the kids in on the day the state records attendance. Then they end up with like 12% graduation rate, but they got their funding, so who cares. The fed simply has more resources and, hopefully, people who could run the system with more common sense.
It works in the same way I mentioned before about the "choice" a family has in homes.Interesting that you believe that a choice that is not possible is a choice. How does that work?
No, I'm telling you the competition for the student would have nothing to do with education. I can't make a student learn 4x5=20 if they don't want to learn it. No matter how much competition there is, it's not going to change the CULTURE of the student. All "competition" would do would change the way schools advertise, that's it.You are making an assumption that with a sudden influx of funds from school vouchers in the low income areas that there would be no competition for the student.
I agree completely. But offering them a choice in school isn't going to change their mentality on education. You are operating under the false assumption all students want to come to school and want to learn. This is unequivocally false. No matter where certain children go to school, they are not going to want to be there and they will not be interested in learning.The best way to get people, especially kids out of the ghettos and into a more productive life is through education.
But I bet if you'd go to those schools, there would be very few who'd come away saying those schools are not doing the best they can.There are few that would make the case that inner city schools are now doing the best job of education.
The bolded is what's important. There are FAR too many parents who DON'T care if their child gets educated. Indeed, there are far too many parents who don't WANT their child to become educated. It's these students and families which drag down education. The choice of schools has absolutely nothing to do with.I am an optimist. I believe that there are still caring parents with less funds that would take the time and trouble to get their kids a better education. If not, then I don't see what will work.
Where are you going to put the bad students when the "bad schools" fail? Other schools will not have the resources nor the space for them and these bad students aren't going to improve simply because they are going to another school. You would have EXACTLY the same problem you have now, just with fewer schools available to serve.With competition, schools would need to be better or they would cease to exist.
The public school system should be good enough quality that those who can afford private schools still opt for public, if it isn't there is a problem.
It didn't stop mine. Our child got a good education for almost no money, relatively speaking. It's the parent's time and the community's inclusion that matters. If parents are involved in the schools it ends up being a good system. If the community cares about the schools it ends up being a good system.Then it would be up to the parents to make sure that the most profitable would also be the best place for their child to get an education.
What is stopping the middle class from exercising their desire to get the best education for their child is funds. These same middle class will research ballet schools to determine those with the best program and that is where the kids go. In education the middle class have no choice. At $10,000/child, combined with need to still pay their taxes, that straps the family budget.
Exactly!It isn't a failre of the states or local districts. It's a failure of families and culture. You can lead a horse to water..........
For many years, the nation of JAPAN was held up as the standard of excellence against which US school were measured and found lacking. In the 1990's I studied the Japanese system and was sent to Japan to observe their schools. One major reason for their success is they have a NATIONAL system with one standard curriculum that applies to the entire nation from Sapporo down to Okinawa. An office in Tokyo is responsible and everything in the schools has a uniformity and sameness in terms of course outlines, text materials, timelines, testing tools and other components. Teachers have individual discretion and ability to adapt these to their own style and methodology and they are not robots. National tests are perfectly dovetailed into that curriculum.
The result is a system which produces a very highly educated population across a very broad swath of society. The result is a system in which kids excel at achieving the test scores which make us look bad here.
The USA has a decision to make. Are we one nation with one people or are we something much less than that? The answer is steeped in politics, immersed in ideology and hamstrung by history and tradition.
We badly need a national curriculum which would apply to the entire nation. I suspect America is NOT ready for nationalization of schools and still would want to retain some local control. But a nation wide curriculum is a badly needed and necessary component to achieving the results here that are normal and expected in Japan.
An activist post if I ever saw one. What is their teachers union like? What's their multicultural agenda like? Our problem isn't money or nationalism, it's attitude and politics.
National tests are worse than useless in painting a picture of education progress in America if we do not have a national curriculum. They test kids on things they may not have learned and fail to measure kids knowledge of what they might have learned.
Consider this: for 33 years I taught Government and American History with an occasional elective or two thrown in. Right next door to my room was another teacher who did the same thing. Let us say that we both had three Government classes for a semester. There is no one semester Government text. All the publishing companies make a book designed for a year - two semesters. As a result, each of us is handed a 850 page text designed for two semesters of work and are told to turn it into a one semester course. We are told to teach only a portion of it. Each of us has the authority to design our own course.
It is entirely possible that we each will design a very very different course but both using the same book. It is very very possible that the material my neighbor opts to cover will NOT be the material I cover and vice versa. Two teachers in the same school system, teaching in the same school, teaching the same Government subject, in rooms right next to one another teaching from the same book can and do teach two completely different courses.
Now what happens when some outside group from California or Iowa or Minnesota writes up a standardized test of what they think high school Government kids should have learned and applies it to the kids in these classes?
In Japan, this DOES NOT HAPPEN as they have a national curriculum and the tests are dovetailed perfectly to the materials and lessons taught all over the nation in every single school. In America, we do not even teach the same class in the same building sometimes.
And until we do, national standardized tests are worse than useless.
The get rid of the national standardized test. Education at the state level is appropriate in our society and culture. Where there are poorly performing schools, then the community should rise up and demand better of their representatives. I can understand them seeking help from the Feds but that's not one of the items that my tax dollars should be supporting in another state. Those tax dollars should support my nearby basket case--Philadelphia where even non-Catholics would rather send their children to Catholic school than the bloated public school.
As for Japan, is there anything about that society we want to emulate? I believe diversity is a stupid concept, but I do appreciate variety.
We can learn from others and that includes the Japanese who have much to offer our society. And education would be near the top of that list.
So if we do not like the contents of the message, then we get rid of the messenger? Standardized tests are now so ingrained into the system that any effort to get rid of them is doomed and DOA. It is most likely only going to get worse.
Are we one nation or are we not? This is the central question at the core of this discussion.
Once upon a time in a bygone America which no longer exists, people considered themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers but those days are gone with the wind. Today somebody is born in New York, moves to Maine as a child, finished high school in Pennsylvania, attends college in Michigan, does grad work in California, gets a job in Washington, marries somebody with experiences in other different states, resides in Florida for 12 years, relocates to Alabama, and then retires to Arizona.
Those old regional loyalties are as out of date and as quaint as Daniel Webster proclaiming he is a Massachusetts man in the 1800's.
Today the kid poorly educated in Chicago might rob your house in Milwaukee because he cannot get a job. The kid who failed to learn in Oregon might move to California for better social service benefits and cause your taxes to soar. The guy who screws up your household repair in Iowa causing a leak or fire down the road because of poor schooling in Kansas costs you and costs society.
We can no longer afford to draw a line in the sand at the city limits or state line.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?