Should education be based on test scores, rather than attendance?

[middleagedgamer]

I taught in public schools for 11 years and every year I saw administrators and teachers "suggest" that the "dumb" kids be sick on standardized test day, so that they would not drag the schools score down.

Aw!

In that, case, easy fix: Those who are absent from the standardized tests, and don't make them up promptly, get automatic zeros.

Problem solved.

I have seen the trouble makers "suspended" for three days immediately before testing days.

Suspension is supposed to warrant automatic zeros, without the possibility of making them up.

I have seen numerous methods used to artificially enhance a schools score on the standardized tests

If it is found that they only do so to artificially enhace test scores, they should be sanctioned.

Can you imagine how much greater the temptation would be to cheat the system if the schools funding was tied to the test scores?

That's why sanctions need to be increased.

and who is going to pay for all the extra investigators needed to enforce this?

Easy. The schools will. If they loose the case, they will have to reimburse the state their expenses... and expert witnesses (including investigators) are included.

What would be served if those schools with the poorest test results got the least money? Seems back-asswards.

How is it ass backwards? You give less results, you should get less money. It's that simple.

Let private enterprise take over schools.

So, should we reserve education for those who can afford it?

problem students who are taking up space in the classroom,

I don't see how letting them simply drop out early is going to "fix" that problem. School is not just academic education. It also teaches discipline. Forcing kids to go somewhere they don't want to be, but have to be (like a job) is a key part of the whole "discipline" thing.

bullying the students who actually want to learn,

Punish them more severely.

A suspension is just a vacation to those kids. Give them punishments that you normally see in boot camp.

and agree to let schools stop being babysitters.

Don't want to learn? No problem. Get out.

No, how about this, instead:

Don't want to learn? Tough. Learn anyway, or you'll be scrubbing the entire cafeteria with your toothbrush.

I have personal, first hand experience with earning the respect of otherwise rebellious kids by taking respect from them. If they won't give it to me, voluntarily, I will pry it from their cold, dead fingers.

I substitute taught, before. I still do, on occasion, though I do so part time. So, let me give you some examples of how I forced them to respect me.

If some rebellious teen is texting in class, I won't just tell her to put the phone away. I will snatch it from her hand, smash it on the ground into a dozen pieces (all two hundred dollars worth of it), and get within an inch of her face, like a boot camp drill sergeant, and say "Text your friends, now! TEXT YOUR FRIENDS, NOW!"

If I see two people passing notes in class, I will snatch the note from them, without any prior warning, and read it aloud to the class, expecting everyone to laugh at them, kind of like Snape did in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (although I forget the exact chapter).

Two people are getting in a fight, I will forcefully break them up, and follow them to the office, with my body arching over their heads, and yell at them "Suspended? SUSPENDED?! You'll be lucky if you don't got to JAIL, you little brat!"

I soon became the substitute that students feared, and the substitute that teachers asked for (because I actually take charge).

More examples are available upon request.

THAT is how you teach kids respect.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Is there any specific reason why no on is responding, anymore?

 

[samsmart]

It is time
to stop pushing the square peg into the round hole and take these
successful schools and recreate them across our nation.

I disagree.

When it comes to public education, I think the only things that need to be centralized are administrative processes, such as computer programs and student tracking numbers, and decentralize educational procedures.

I have a friend who's a public school teacher. She was telling me how she was forced to teach a certain way in her classroom. She has to have all her students pair up and whenever she asks a question she has to let both students in a pair discuss the answer with each other before they give an answer. Once they do, she has to call on them both to answer.

She doesn't like being told to teach this way to her kids. Why does she have to, though? Because it worked in some other school district.

However, just because it worked in some other school district doesn't mean it'll work in ALL school districts. Different areas have different cultures and so requires different educational needs and methods.

So I say let our teachers teach the kids. They know their kids better than ANY kind of administrator or politician - and that includes on the local, state, and government levels, and from both the left and the right.

 

[middleagedgamer]

I disagree.

When it comes to public education, I think the only things that need to be centralized are administrative processes, such as computer programs and student tracking numbers, and decentralize educational procedures.

I have a friend who's a public school teacher. She was telling me how she was forced to teach a certain way in her classroom. She has to have all her students pair up and whenever she asks a question she has to let both students in a pair discuss the answer with each other before they give an answer. Once they do, she has to call on them both to answer.

She doesn't like being told to teach this way to her kids. Why does she have to, though? Because it worked in some other school district.

However, just because it worked in some other school district doesn't mean it'll work in ALL school districts. Different areas have different cultures and so requires different educational needs and methods.

So I say let our teachers teach the kids. They know their kids better than ANY kind of administrator or politician - and that includes on the local, state, and government levels, and from both the left and the right.

I agree in part and disagree in part.

You seem to think that teachers should be given little to no overhead. I disagree. The state has just as much a vested interest in the kids getting a good education as the counties and cities do.

The state should oversee the RESULTS. I agree that they should not oversee the methods of obtaining said results, but they should reward teachers for having the kids obtain good grades, and punish those who's classes make majority F's. Plain and simple.

 

[samsmart]

Most public schools, K-12, get their funding from the government based on how many days each student comes to school. Theoretically, everyone could pass with straight D's, and, as long as everyone has perfect attendance, the school board is all happy.

Shouldn't it be based on test scores, instead?

No, it shouldn't.

One reason why giving funding to schools based on test scores because schools will try to kick out those students who don't perform as good as other students. This means that those kids who need help the most will be denied it. This is no way to run a public education system in which we make school mandatory.

Rather, I think the best reform in our public education system we can implement is to start paying students who perform well in class. The higher grades a student makes, the more he gets paid from a government fund set up solely for that purpose. 10% of what a child makes goes into his pocket. The rest is set up in an private interest-bearing account that the child can withdraw when he turns 18. He can spend that money however he wishes.

So instead of spending more money on teachers or on equipment, we can start spending money directly on students, and do so to provide them incentives to do well in school and apply themselves.

 

[middleagedgamer]

No, it shouldn't.

One reason why giving funding to schools based on test scores because schools will try to kick out those students who don't perform as good as other students. This means that those kids who need help the most will be denied it. This is no way to run a public education system in which we make school mandatory.

Abolish their right to do that.

That's like saying that employers will sooner fire a disabled person than accommodate the disability, despite the fact that disabled persons need the money for their medicine.

The government realized this, and so, they made it ILLEGAL to discriminate on the basis of disability, and that includes failure to provide reasonable accomodations.

All we have to do is take that, and apply it to school.

Rather, I think the best reform in our public education system we can implement is to start paying students who perform well in class. The higher grades a student makes, the more he gets paid from a government fund set up solely for that purpose. 10% of what a child makes goes into his pocket. The rest is set up in an private interest-bearing account that the child can withdraw when he turns 18. He can spend that money however he wishes.

What's to stop teachers from bumping grades up? They already do it too much, anyway. We need to have standardized tests that are administered by impartial parties to prevent that.

So instead of spending more money on teachers or on equipment, we can start spending money directly on students, and do so to provide them incentives to do well in school and apply themselves.

I agree with one thing: The students should be paid for their work. That's one of the biggest gripes that kids, nowadays, have about school.

However, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The kids can be as motivated as they want, but if the teachers are not equally motivated, or they don't have the resources needed to teach, then it's just not gonna happen.

"Mrs. Smith, can you teach us about the General Theory of Relativity?!"
"... arrrrrrrrgh!"
"That's ok!"
"Look it up on the f*cking Internet when you get home! I'm not being paid to teach you crap like that!"

Or, how 'bout this:

"Mrs. Brown, I don't understand that math problem. Can you do another one, more slowly?"
"Sorry, Timmy, but we're on a budget cut, and I have to save dry-erase ink."

Are you starting to see how a chain is only as strong as its weakest link?

 

[middleagedgamer]

Besides, kids don't have to be paid to be motivated. If the teacher can make learning FUN, then we are more likely to be motivated to learn, just on the sheer enjoyment of the classroom project.

Here's some examples: Having a lesson on city planning? Everybody plays Sim City on the Super Nintendo (or the Wii Virtual Console, nowadays).

Doing a unit on Greek Mythology? Play a tabletop game, similar in gameplay and concept to Dungeons & Dragons, but, instead of exploring a dungeon and fighting dragons, you're exploring Dadylus' labyrinth and fighting Greek Mythology monsters like Polythemus and the Sphinx!

Are you teaching your kids about simple machines? Great! Have them create a working mad cap machine (taken from the cartoons of Ruth Goldberg), a series of simple machines that, ultimately, take a mundane, everyday activity and dragging it out to the point of near ridiculousness.

I once had a teacher like that, many many years ago, and EVERYBODY passed his class with a solid A. Every single last one of them. Nobody made a B.

 

[OscarB63]

Besides, kids don't have to be paid to be motivated. If the teacher can make learning FUN, then we are more likely to be motivated to learn, just on the sheer enjoyment of the classroom project.

Here's some examples: Having a lesson on city planning? Everybody plays Sim City on the Super Nintendo (or the Wii Virtual Console, nowadays).

Doing a unit on Greek Mythology? Play a tabletop game, similar in gameplay and concept to Dungeons & Dragons, but, instead of exploring a dungeon and fighting dragons, you're exploring Dadylus' labyrinth and fighting Greek Mythology monsters like Polythemus and the Sphinx!

Are you teaching your kids about simple machines? Great! Have them create a working mad cap machine (taken from the cartoons of Ruth Goldberg), a series of simple machines that, ultimately, take a mundane, everyday activity and dragging it out to the point of near ridiculousness.

I once had a teacher like that, many many years ago, and EVERYBODY passed his class with a solid A. Every single last one of them. Nobody made a B.

Have you actually ever been inside an inner city school? You keep laboring under the assumption that every student can be motivated to learn in a school setting. It just isn't true.

just as everyone doesn't have the potential to become a brain surgeon, not every kid can be motivated to learn. especially in High school. by the time they get to 9th grade, their patterns are set.

 

[RosieS]

C'mon now, you're both pretty. Poor performing students can be motivated to learn, ya just gotta reach 'em to teach 'em. I've also taught in the inner city and have earned a Master's in Urban Ed. Truth is, it's easier in the inner city. They don't have cable, they don't have Wii, it's easier to keep their attention. And I never had, like I did teaching in a private school, a parent demand 3 weeks of lessons in advance because their kid was going to be in Paris.

What really worked is when an interdisciplinary approach was used. Downtown started the Inner City Marine Project one summer. We prepared kids for work for and on cruise lines. The Art teacher, me as Science Specialist, the Media Specialist and Tech. Ed. all planned lessons where each would contribute every time to each lesson. We all loved it and so did the kids. Plus our school won the trophy for the biggest mahi-mahi caught out on the ocean. My brattiest kids were the sea-sick ones, too.

Kids and teachers are all motivated by creativity, no matter where the school is.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Are you kidding me - schools get funding based on attendance?
That's stupid.

I never quite understood the basics of attendance policies for the younger kids to begin with.
Like you point out, if the student is doing well then does it matter if they went often enough?

We went to a school meeting (elementary, K-4) last week and the principle gave a little presentation about goals they were trying to meet - or areas they were going to focus on improving. And attendance was one. She said that they had an attendance rate of 94% - and it should be higher - like 96 or 97%. . . . and she urged parents to bring their kids to school.

But at the same time they urge you to keep your kids at home when they're sick.

So are they really trying to tell us people keep their kids home for NO reason at all? - Just because Mom didn't feel like dropping them off or Dad slept in late?

THAT makes sense for older kids who can actually make the choice to SKIP. But the younger kids - ??? Seriously?

 

[OscarB63]

Kids and teachers are all motivated by creativity, no matter where the school is.

Regards from Rosie

then we will have to agree to disagree. you will never convince me that there are not kids who simply cannot be motivated. I saw too many of them first hand.

 

[MaggieD]

Or else you will get the same problem when you vouncher shift the population out of the public school and into the private one. You are just moving the problem from A to B. Private schools sometimes do better only because they have much stricter entrance standards and service a small population. Trying to put problem kids with bad home lives into an elite private school won't do anything but drag down the private school with quantity and difficult students. If you try to mass educate in a private school system, the private school will suffer many of the same problems of a public system, and thus you will lose the advantage.

No, you put the problem kids in with other problem kids. What we do now is put problem kids, and I do mean problem kids, in with those who want to learn -- who are desperate to learn. And they suffer. Private schools with rules. Don't follow the rules? Well, then, PS58's for you. Nobody there follows 'em either. Warehouse the gangsta's, the bullies, the ones who have no interest in learning, and let the rest learn! What we do now in inner-city schools is lump 'em all together and nobody learns.

A private system can only ever service a small minority. How is that an educational system?

Why? If we had vouchers, private schools would spring up everywhere.

Again, think of a hospital that only admitted patients it knew it would have zero problem treating. You wouldn't say that's a great hospital vs one that takes everyone, even if it drags down the latter hospital's average score. You cannot have a health system function like that any more than you can have a public education system function like that.

Excellent analogy. With one major flaw. Public schools aren't working NOW in inner cities. Because of problem students. Get rid of them one way or another and give the rest of the kids a chance. You cann't learn in an environment of fear and disruption.

How is it ass backwards? You give less results, you should get less money. It's that simple.

The "you" you're talking about is the Administration. I'm talking about serving the kids. Just because the system isn't working at a particular school doesn't mean that the students should be punished by taking away money.

So, should we reserve education for those who can afford it?

The voucher system would apply to everyone. Look at this ridiculous statistic:

The average tuition for all private schools, elementary and secondary, is $3,116, or less than half of the cost per pupil in the average public school, $6,857.

What Would A School Voucher Buy The Real Cost Of Private Schools

A suspension is just a vacation to those kids. Give them punishments that you normally see in boot camp. Don't want to learn? Tough. Learn anyway, or you'll be scrubbing the entire cafeteria with your toothbrush. I have personal, first hand experience with earning the respect of otherwise rebellious kids by taking respect from them. If they won't give it to me, voluntarily, I will pry it from their cold, dead fingers.

You are apparently not well-versed with the problems of inner-city schools. These kids simply wouldn't do these things. And, as to your toothbrush idea? Prepare yourself to have that toothbrush stuffed up side-wize after school. In the inner city schools, teachers are afraid of many of their students for very good reason.

If some rebellious teen is texting in class, I won't just tell her to put the phone away. I will snatch it from her hand, smash it on the ground into a dozen pieces (all two hundred dollars worth of it), and get within an inch of her face, like a boot camp drill sergeant, and say "Text your friends, now! TEXT YOUR FRIENDS, NOW!"Two people are getting in a fight, I will forcefully break them up, and follow them to the office, with my body arching over their heads, and yell at them "Suspended? SUSPENDED?! You'll be lucky if you don't got to JAIL, you little brat!" I soon became the substitute that students feared, and the substitute that teachers asked for (because I actually take charge). More examples are available upon request.

THAT is how you teach kids respect .

No, my friend. That is how you get killed in Chicago Public Schools.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

then we will have to agree to disagree. you will never convince me that there are not kids who simply cannot be motivated. I saw too many of them first hand.

I was a craptacular student in elementary, junior high and high school.
I couldn't care less whether I flunked or made an A.

Not a single approach that my parents took (which were endless) fixed this - I didn't even mind attending summer school and repeating the 3rd grade.

I dropped out mid 11th grade - couldn't have cared less.
Eventually got my GED - barely.

But now that I've matured, gone through a lot of bull**** because I was a ****ty student and I dropped out, I'm very focused and determined to fix those problems. So far I've maintained a 4.00 and plan to keep it that way.

This would never have been possible in highschool - or in my early 20's . . . I'm 30 now and finally I give a damn and see the need :shrug:

I know I'm not the only kid/teen/adult like that.

 

[Technocratic]

No, you put the problem kids in with other problem kids. What we do now is put problem kids, and I do mean problem kids, in with those who want to learn -- who are desperate to learn. And they suffer. Private schools with rules. Don't follow the rules? Well, then, PS58's for you. Nobody there follows 'em either. Warehouse the gangsta's, the bullies, the ones who have no interest in learning, and let the rest learn! What we do now in inner-city schools is lump 'em all together and nobody learns.

When I spoke of "problem students" I am not talking about ones that only have behavioural issues and disrupt. I am talking about ones who just aren't smart, who have bad homelives, and thus, have no parents able to help them learn. Putting kids so far behind, or those who are stupid, into a private school and expecting them to "achieve" because the private school has a high test score rating, is naive. You can take the kid out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of him.

We've already had bussing experiments that did virtually nothing. Students from bad areas were moved into good areas, and it did not appreciably change their behaviour or performance. This should have been obvious long before the proposal, but no one has common sense.

Why? If we had vouchers, private schools would spring up everywhere.

There's no reason to assume they would spring up everywhere. Frst off, it takes a long time to build a new school, then to hire new staff. Second, private schools only work well because they admit a tiny number of people. There isn't enough time or space to do that.

Second, the fact that parents have vouchers doesn't mean private schools will accept them, because that's the function of private school cherry picking. That's how they get high scores. They cherry pick the good students. If you bum rush private schools with a large influx of poor students, they aren't going to want them, because they will ruin the school's reputaton and scores.

Excellent analogy. With one major flaw. Public schools aren't working NOW in inner cities. Because of problem students. Get rid of them one way or another and give the rest of the kids a chance. You cann't learn in an environment of fear and disruption.

The point of the analogy was to counter the typical argument that private school are "so good" without analyzing why that's the case. People would scoff if we applied that standard of "good performance" to hospitals that cherry picked patients to inflate their success rate. A school isn't really "better" than another, if the secret to its success is it picks only good students, from good backgrounds, who have money, to attend it. We cannot mass educate in a private school system, because the strengths of that system are its elite selectivity, cost deterrance, and small scale.

A private school with the same students will usually have the same problems. Inner city schools get some of the best qualified teachers and the best spending and resources as it is, and they can't even fix the problem. Asbury Park, a **** school, just built a beautiful community resources school with excellent, HQTs. When the kids get out of school, they will still go back to the ghetto, to the same streets, to the same homes, to the same parents. They will have the same attitudes, and the parents won't care any more or less, because they still aren't any better, nor are they really footing the private school bill.

All you are doing is rearranging the chairs on the titanic.

There already have been vouncher programmes tested, and at best, they give mixed results. THere isn't a lot of concrete data that they are very effective any more than bussing stupid kids from the ghetto to good suburban schools (which also failed).

 

[middleagedgamer]

Have you actually ever been inside an inner city school?

Yes, I have.

You keep laboring under the assumption that every student can be motivated to learn in a school setting. It just isn't true.

It depends on how you define "school setting."

just as everyone doesn't have the potential to become a brain surgeon, not every kid can be motivated to learn.

Yes, they can. You just need to realize the methods upon which they learn best.

especially in High school. by the time they get to 9th grade, their patterns are set.

That's what DISCIPLINE is for. I've already explained how to instill discipline into the kids.

 

[MaggieD]

When I spoke of "problem students" I am not talking about ones that only have behavioural issues and disrupt. I am talking about ones who just aren't smart, who have bad homelives, and thus, have no parents able to help them learn. Putting kids so far behind, or those who are stupid, into a private school and expecting them to "achieve" because the private school has a high test score rating, is naive. You can take the kid out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of him.

We've already had bussing experiments that did virtually nothing. Students from bad areas were moved into good areas, and it did not appreciably change their behaviour or performance. This should have been obvious long before the proposal, but no one has common sense. There's no reason to assume they would spring up everywhere. Frst off, it takes a long time to build a new school, then to hire new staff. Second, private schools only work well because they admit a tiny number of people. There isn't enough time or space to do that.

Second, the fact that parents have vouchers doesn't mean private schools will accept them, because that's the function of private school cherry picking. That's how they get high scores. They cherry pick the good students. If you bum rush private schools with a large influx of poor students, they aren't going to want them, because they will ruin the school's reputaton and scores.

The point of the analogy was to counter the typical argument that private school are "so good" without analyzing why that's the case. People would scoff if we applied that standard of "good performance" to hospitals that cherry picked patients to inflate their success rate. A school isn't really "better" than another, if the secret to its success is it picks only good students, from good backgrounds, who have money, to attend it. We cannot mass educate in a private school system, because the strengths of that system are its elite selectivity, cost deterrance, and small scale.

A private school with the same students will usually have the same problems. Inner city schools get some of the best qualified teachers and the best spending and resources as it is, and they can't even fix the problem. Asbury Park, a **** school, just built a beautiful community resources school with excellent, HQTs. When the kids get out of school, they will still go back to the ghetto, to the same streets, to the same homes, to the same parents. They will have the same attitudes, and the parents won't care any more or less, because they still aren't any better, nor are they really footing the private school bill.

All you are doing is rearranging the chairs on the titanic.

There already have been vouncher programmes tested, and at best, they give mixed results. THere isn't a lot of concrete data that they are very effective any more than bussing stupid kids from the ghetto to good suburban schools (which also failed).

I simply do not believe that children who want to learn, who understand its importance, who are trying to better themselves -- should be forced to attend school with bullies, slackers and gangsters. It is a sure recipe for failure -- and we are witnesses to that. Neither should bright students be held back as classrooms are dumbed down to accommodate a lower common denominator.

You say private schools will not solve lack of parental involvement. I say baloney. Instead of courts sending troubled youth to jail, they should be sent to private learning institutions of the bootcamp variety -- at half the cost of jail time. Ya' takes yer pick. Jail? Or Boot Camp Learning? In that setting, parental involvement is not even desirable. Education = decent job = passport out of Ghetto Land.

You are deadset against the private school voucher idea -- what is your solution? Same old/same old? The definition of insanity.

 

[samsmart]

I simply do not believe that children who want to learn, who understand its importance, who are trying to better themselves -- should be forced to attend school with bullies, slackers and gangsters. It is a sure recipe for failure -- and we are witnesses to that. Neither should bright students be held back as classrooms are dumbed down to accommodate a lower common denominator.

You say private schools will not solve lack of parental involvement. I say baloney. Instead of courts sending troubled youth to jail, they should be sent to private learning institutions of the bootcamp variety -- at half the cost of jail time. Ya' takes yer pick. Jail? Or Boot Camp Learning? In that setting, parental involvement is not even desirable. Education = decent job = passport out of Ghetto Land.

You are deadset against the private school voucher idea -- what is your solution? Same old/same old? The definition of insanity.

Personally, I don't think those most of those slackers don't want to learn, and so should be sent to boot camp.

Rather, I think we should have more personalized curriculum for those kids. Most of those types of kids aren't interested in academics. However, they tend to excel at athletics or technical skills, such as mechanics.

If someone isn't interested in history or science, teach them about the things they are interested in. Teach them how to build things or how to farm things. Let them actually do stuff instead of sitting in a desk and doing nothing. My family has an old saying - "You learn by doing." So let these kids learn by doing things. Keep them engaged. That way, they won't be interested in being sociopaths because they're more interested in positive things that they're allowed to do.

 

[Technocratic]

You are deadset against the private school voucher idea -- what is your solution? Same old/same old? The definition of insanity.

I think we ought to adopt a system similar to Singapore or Germany. Germany only marginally has private schools. They have a robust public school system that is multi-tiered, like Singapore.

 

[middleagedgamer]

I think we ought to adopt a system similar to Singapore

You mean, where we BEAT kids with kendo sticks?

No thank you.

 

[Technocratic]

You mean, where we BEAT kids with kendo sticks?

No thank you.

No, where we have a multi-tiered tracking system, where students are siphoned off to specialized types of schools and programmes. In Germany specifically, only about a third go to college. Many go to a primary school up until a certain level until they are tracked off via specialized testing. Some go to Gymnasium, some do not. Singapore has a similiar system of tracking.

Singapore, and most Asian countries, have high levels of achievement compared to the U.S.. Even Germany's public schools are better.

 

[middleagedgamer]

No, where we have a multi-tiered tracking system, where students are siphoned off to specialized types of schools and programmes. In Germany specifically, only about a third go to college. Many go to a primary school up until a certain level until they are tracked off via specialized testing. Some go to Gymnasium, some do not. Singapore has a similiar system of tracking.

So... only one third of the kids would even be ALLOWED a college education?

What about those who want to go to college, but won't be allowed to?

College is already optional.

Singapore, and most Asian countries, have high levels of achievement compared to the U.S.. Even Germany's public schools are better.

But, that doesn't motivate kids. It makes it harder for the kids who are motivated.

East Asian cultures tend to place a high emphasis on honor. Anything that would disgrace your family is avoided at all costs, and that motivates kids to study hard.

 

[Technocratic]

So... only one third of the kids would even be ALLOWED a college education?

Everyone is allowed in, if they have the academic aptitude. Only students who demonstate minimum achievement standards for the University track school attend it, and then get their admittance to University upon passing stringent oral and written examinations.

THe restriction of who can go to college via this system has many benefits and fixes most of the proble of the U.S. Model. For example, Universities are practically free in Germany with a tuition only about 5% of that of the American counterparts. It can afford to do this, because the barriers to entry knock down subsidizaton costs of the public system. The United States actively encourages most people to go to college, even though this is harmful or counterproductive to their economic interests. For instance, allowing basically anyone to go to college has created a system wherein people who are not actually ready for, or able to, go to college, get useless degrees that aren't applicable to anything. THus, people attain watered down pieces of paper that aren't worth the ink used to print them.

Another problem of the American system that the Singapore and German models fix is a glut of degrees in the market, which depresses worker bargaining power, and consequently, wages and benefits. If hordes of schlubs all come out of college with degrees, the value of the degree goes down, and everyone suffers. It doesn't help that most of these people who graduate probably don't belong there in the first place. A history degree used to be worth something when admittance was "elite." Now, every joe blow can go, and now, History degrees are practically worthless.

In Germany and Singapore, large numbers of people do not have the college debt Americans have, because most don't go, don't need to go, and cannot pass the entrance requirements.

What about those who want to go to college, but won't be allowed to?

Anyone who wants to go, and has the aptitude, can go. And the German model is actually easier for those who deserve to be there to get there, due to it being so cheap.

College is already optional.

College is optional, but the United States encourages too many people to go to college, and the standards are very low. Colleges operate on a business model and encourage this to generate lots of money, even if the degrees they're handing out are useless. Even the American B.Sc is inferior to the German equivalent.

But, that doesn't motivate kids. It makes it harder for the kids who are motivated.

East Asian cultures tend to place a high emphasis on honor. Anything that would disgrace your family is avoided at all costs, and that motivates kids to study hard.

This wasn't intended primarily to motivate students, but to siphon them away where they are better off and to segregate them from the others without destroying the public model with privatization. I do think that being where you ought to be and getting the attention you need relative to what you're actually capable of doing will motivate people. It's much more motivating for a student who doesn't belong in a college track to go to a technical track.

Many of them cannot be motivated in the current system, because they don't have the skills to be where they are.

 

[MaggieD]

No, where we have a multi-tiered tracking system, where students are siphoned off to specialized types of schools and programmes. In Germany specifically, only about a third go to college. Many go to a primary school up until a certain level until they are tracked off via specialized testing. Some go to Gymnasium, some do not. Singapore has a similiar system of tracking.

Tech!!! Where students are siphoned off to specialized types of schools and programs? You mean like the ones I'm talking about? That's EGZAKLY what I'm saying. Except government financed schools that cost twice as much as the private sector simply arenn't going to do it. Haven't so far. What's changed?????

 

[MaggieD]

Everyone is allowed in, if they have the academic aptitude. Only students who demonstate minimum achievement standards for the University track school attend it, and then get their admittance to University upon passing stringent oral and written examinations.

THe restriction of who can go to college via this system has many benefits and fixes most of the proble of the U.S. Model. For example, Universities are practically free in Germany with a tuition only about 5% of that of the American counterparts. It can afford to do this, because the barriers to entry knock down subsidizaton costs of the public system. The United States actively encourages most people to go to college, even though this is harmful or counterproductive to their economic interests. For instance, allowing basically anyone to go to college has created a system wherein people who are not actually ready for, or able to, go to college, get useless degrees that aren't applicable to anything. THus, people attain watered down pieces of paper that aren't worth the ink used to print them.

Another problem of the American system that the Singapore and German models fix is a glut of degrees in the market, which depresses worker bargaining power, and consequently, wages and benefits. If hordes of schlubs all come out of college with degrees, the value of the degree goes down, and everyone suffers. It doesn't help that most of these people who graduate probably don't belong there in the first place. A history degree used to be worth something when admittance was "elite." Now, every joe blow can go, and now, History degrees are practically worthless.

In Germany and Singapore, large numbers of people do not have the college debt Americans have, because most don't go, don't need to go, and cannot pass the entrance requirements.




Anyone who wants to go, and has the aptitude, can go. And the German model is actually easier for those who deserve to be there to get there, due to it being so cheap.



College is optional, but the United States encourages too many people to go to college, and the standards are very low. Colleges operate on a business model and encourage this to generate lots of money, even if the degrees they're handing out are useless. Even the American B.Sc is inferior to the German equivalent.

Tech, now I think I understand. You are not from the United States. Don't mean to denigrate your opinion, but now I see that you have no idea how our public schools are run today, what kinds of students attend in the inner city. No offense.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Tech, now I think I understand. You are not from the United States. Don't mean to denigrate your opinion, but now I see that you have no idea how our public schools are run today, what kinds of students attend in the inner city. No offense.

Failing inner-city schools suffer from cultural and social issues which affect every level of schooling: parent's perceptions and concern, student perceptions and concerns, school board decisions and approaches . . . and so on.