The Current State of the American Education System.

[Kryptowhite 9]

Schools don't give you opinions. They give facts. And if they don't have facts, they give you what can be best proven.

Schools don't teach about abortion, unless they are telling you what it is. They say evolution is true because it is there duty to fill our minds with what is the most scientifically accurate information, and at this point in time there is more evidence to support evolution so that is why they teach us evolution. When in the world has a school taught us that wealthy people are always bad people? I live in a wealthy town, they don't tell us to go home and cut ourselves at night.

Now, as for schools raising a bunch of liberal communist anti-christian children....that is possibly the funniest thing I have ever heard.

[lilshortjordan 0]

Originally posted by: Kryptowhite

Schools don't give you opinions. They give facts. quote>

Schools shouldn't give opinions, but they do. Not all, and maybe not yours, but mine, and many I have attended, do. I anchor my school news. Once I had to do a story on the origins of Buddhism, which was fine. So the next day, we decided to be fair to our christian viewers (including ourselves) and we did a story on the origins of christianity. We were all given a detention for talking about christianity. Our report on both religions was strictly facts, and entirely un-biased. We didn't support one religion over another or anything. Explain to me, please, why it is okay to speak of buddhism and not christianity. The same thing happened with abortion. We told our principal we planned on doing a story on abortion. We called it "The case for and against abortion" We planned to interview both pro-life and pro-choice speakers, and let our students decide which side they wanted to "buy into" for lack of better term. The principal said we could support abortion, but we weren't allowed to say anything negative. I informed her that this was in violation of journalism and freedom-of-speech laws, and she backed down. I'd say thats pretty liberal and anti-christian, is it not?

[Danlikebooks 6]

I went to a Catholic (also Independant) High School. The teachers were mostly (if not all) liberal. Almost the entire student body was conservative (I myself am a Liberal). This led to many class arguments about Abortion, Gay rights, etc. On an unrelated note, the tuition to my school was about 15,000 dollars a year. All of the students came from wealthy backgrounds (both my parents are doctors). Someone before said something about there being an unnatural fear of Socialism in the United States. If you happened to walk into one of the classrooms at my school during a teacher-student argument, you would have witnessed first hand this hate for Socialism.

Perhaps the students were holding the common (and totally wrong) belief that many Americans have about Socialism, that the wealthy will lose all of their "hard earned" cash to pay for the "lazy" poor that just can't get a job. That does seem to be the belief in America, and it is totally false. The schools aren't teaching this belief, its ingrained into society, especially in Conservative America.

[Kryptowhite 9]

Originally posted by: lilshortjordan

Originally posted by: Kryptowhite

Schools don't give you opinions. They give facts. quote>

Schools shouldn't give opinions, but they do. Not all, and maybe not yours, but mine, and many I have attended, do. I anchor my school news. Once I had to do a story on the origins of Buddhism, which was fine. So the next day, we decided to be fair to our christian viewers (including ourselves) and we did a story on the origins of christianity. We were all given a detention for talking about christianity. Our report on both religions was strictly facts, and entirely un-biased. We didn't support one religion over another or anything. Explain to me, please, why it is okay to speak of buddhism and not christianity. The same thing happened with abortion. We told our principal we planned on doing a story on abortion. We called it "The case for and against abortion" We planned to interview both pro-life and pro-choice speakers, and let our students decide which side they wanted to "buy into" for lack of better term. The principal said we could support abortion, but we weren't allowed to say anything negative. I informed her that this was in violation of journalism and freedom-of-speech laws, and she backed down. I'd say thats pretty liberal and anti-christian, is it not?quote>

Perhaps that was because you were assigned to learn about buddhism, and not christianity. The school doesn't cover christianity because most americans are Christian and already know that stuff. Pretty much every American knows the basic story of Christianity, Jesus being the son of god, being crucified, and rising to heaven. But how many Americans know the basics of Hinduism? or Buddhism? Heck, some Americans don't even know the basics of Judiasm, and its nearly the same thing as christianity.

In my school when we covered religions we did a quick brush up unit on christianity incase there were a few people who may not have known it, everybody got high grades, then we moved on to cover in depth Hinduism, Buddhism, Judiasm, and Islam. There is a distinct difference between learning a religion and practicing it. I don't see why there is a problem with your teacher asking you to learn about buddhism? He's not asking you to preach it. After all, Christianity preaches peace, and how can there be peace and tolerance if we do not take the time to learn and understand other peoples?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Wait, what were we talking about again?

Mods! We need 50 CCs of post move over to the global warming thread! Stat!

I'll comment moe on the matter of indoctrination/brainwashing (or, as it's euphemized "teaching opinions") once that's sorted out.

quote>

Realignment is underway.  Please standby.

Posts that pertained more towards global warming were moved to the Official Global Warming Thread.  They can be read there for those who are interested.

Please keep in mind that some of the posts that remain in this thread were influenced by posts that have since been moved to the global warming thread, so the wording of some comments might seem out of place.  Finally, this thread is for the purpose of discussion the education system in the US and its related facets.  If you wish to make a comment about global warming, please do so in the proper thread.

[lilshortjordan 0]

Originally posted by: Kryptowhite

Perhaps that was because you were assigned to learn about buddhism, and not christianity.

quote>

Its a news show, not a class, and the request for the story was sent in by a student and our sponsor told us to run it.

 I don't see why there is a problem with your teacher asking you to learn about buddhism?

quote>

There is no problem, I enjoyed learning about the other culture when we were doing the story, and I don't beleive one religion is "better" than another. We just wanted to do christianity as well.

Pretty much every American knows the basic story of Christianity quote>

True, you are right, we didn't need to run the story on christianity, we knew most of it, but we did learn a bit, and that was good.

[Duke87 1,070]

Some of this stuff I'm responding to has been transthreadded. Be aware.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

I see the last 3 post have shown us the true reasons we need education reform, and the type of reform we needquote>

And that type is...?

now I know how my education system has failed to give me a pre-set opinion and belief on this important matter  How dare they not tell me what to think quote>

Believe it or not, there are people who accept things you deny for reasons other than having been indoctrinated into the belief.

Though, as we established in the other thread, when you denied global warming, we took it to mean you were denying that the earth is warming (which is a blatant denial of reality), not merely denying that humans cause it (which is not outrageous, since it has happened naturally before). So it was a misunderstanding that set all that off.

Originally posted by: lilshortjordanBut I will tell you, most schools will give you a pre-set opinion on everything!quote>

Bias in teaching is a problem. It leads to brainwashing. A smart person can see it for what it is and overcome it. The idiot masses generally cannot.

And it is usually a liberal, communist, and anti-christian opinion.quote>

!

Liberal, yes. Anti-Christian... somewhat, although other minority religions also get hit, so "secular progressive" would be a more accurate description.

But communist? Now we're just hurling insults.

They will tell you abortion is okay,quote>

I don't recall ever having been told that in school by any teachers. And I live in a blue state!

evolution is true and creations is not,quote>

Evolution is taught in science class. Creation is not (because it's not science...). While this may seem to be stacked against Christianity, that's not the intent. The only reason Creation is never taught is because we don't have religion classes in public school (but there's sunday school for that, anyway). The school is not teaching that Creation isn't true, they're just not teaching about it, period.

That said, the bigger picture here is a separate debate...

Wealthy people are always bad peoplequote>

I don't recall ever having been taught that, either. Then again, considering the median income of the area I live in, it'd be pretty odd if I was. The school would be teaching kids that their parents are evil!

Originally posted by: lilshortjordan

I anchor my school news. {...}. I'd say thats pretty liberal and anti-christian, is it not?quote>

It is. Then again, your principal there was probably just a bleeding heart liberal who was defying logic and distorting reality to fit her worldview (some people have a nasty tendency to do that...). I wouldn't take your experience in that one school as representative of schools across the nation. That'd be a very hasty generalization.

[lilshortjordan 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

 "secular progressive" would be a more accurate description.

quote>

Very true.

I don't recall ever having been taught that, either. Then again, considering the median income of the area I live in, it'd be pretty odd if I was. The school would be teaching kids that their parents are evil!

quote>

Well I have teachers that do make these statements, all the time. I live in one of the wealthiest school districts in the state, however, most teachers, live outside the district. But, it sounds like my teachers are a lot more opinionated than most.

 I wouldn't take your experience in that one school as representative of schools across the nation.

quote>

I guess that is true, while my posts are representitive of my own school, they may not be of the whole nation. I'm simply speaking of my own experiences.

[chris0101 8]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

chris0101: You do make many points in that large large post you made. However, it's very hard to read it when it has a very anti-business, anti-conservative, and anti-free market tone about it. Do you really think the issues facing our system can be traced to the fact that were more right-wing than other nations?

Take a look at http://www.oclc.org/reports/escan/images/edpercent.swf, as well other data ive seen. We spend more on Education than many European countries, yet our system still sucks. In 2001 we spent $1,780 per capita on education, second highest in the world, we also spend  $8,701 per student these days, and many still fail, we spend, we spend, we spend, we spend, well here's something obvious, just spending aint working.

quote>

Do I think that the way American politics is run is responsible for this situation? Yes I do.

Clauswitz once wrote that war is an extension of politics. Education is merely an extension of politics as well. How you teach your children is intensely controversial, and the ciriculum is set by political organizations, save in private schools, where the private schools set their own cirriculum (which is problematic, as there is often a lack of consistency, making it harder to standardize and measure quality). When any reforms are hostile opposed for political and ideological reasons, along with a dislike of intellectualism altogether, quality of education inevitably suffers.

How much the US spends on education does not dictate quality of education. Do I think that increasing the education budget will radically improve qualiry of education? The answer is mixed. On one hand, many schools are in a state of disrepair, increasing salaries of teachers will attract better talent (in Finland for example, the top 25% of university students compete to be teachers, in the US, I am afraid that you'll find quite a few people from the bottom 25%), and will provide greater funding for things like scientific equipment, textbooks, etc. Competing with this is that there are widespread cost overruns in the system. Why does the US spend so much? Where does the money go? Compared to other nations, what is spent so much on per capita? Where does it get so few returns? Cuts should be made in those areas. If education budgets are raised, more money will end up being wasted as well per capita per year.

Spending does not always work as you say. Why does it not work? Where did it fail? Where did it suceed? Nobody asks these questions. It is true that spending more is always a matter of diminishing returns at some point, but like it or not, you have to spend. Public spending mean that the rich will pay a bigger share, which helps the poor get better educated and may help them become from poor to something wealthier than before. The net result is good for the nation as a whole. True there will be people that will have to fill in those gaps, however, I would imagine that liberalizing the immigration policies and eventually replacing such undesired jobs with automation (when technology allows) will put an end to that.

Recall what I said when politics is a problem. All reforms need money and time. In states like California, I would not be surprised, despite the budget problems, if there were more propositions calling for even more cuts to budgets that passed with clear majorities. Nobody likes taxes, but Americans in particular seem to resent paying such taxes, and raises, especially now could prove politically impossible. Add into the fact that to be conservative means that you wish to preserve the status quo no matter how flawed, and you have very serious barriers.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Clauswitz once wrote that war is an extension of politics. Education is merely an extension of politics as well. How you teach your children is intensely controversial, and the ciriculum is set by political organizations, save in private schools, where the private schools set their own cirriculum (which is problematic, as there is often a lack of consistency, making it harder to standardize and measure quality). When any reforms are hostile opposed for political and ideological reasons, along with a dislike of intellectualism altogether, quality of education inevitably suffers. quote>

I agree with that statement for the most part.

Nobody likes taxes, but Americans in particular seem to resent paying such taxes, and raises, especially now could prove politically impossible. quote>

I know about that. Many Americans (not most, but a strong number) don't want to pay taxes, even if they get any benefit from it. They should be made aware of the fact that if you want something, it has to be paid for (and preferably not with debt or money-printing).

Schools shouldn't give opinions, but they do. Not all, and maybe not yours, but mine, and many I have attended, do. I anchor my school news. Once I had to do a story on the origins of Buddhism, which was fine. So the next day, we decided to be fair to our christian viewers (including ourselves) and we did a story on the origins of christianity. We were all given a detention for talking about christianity. Our report on both religions was strictly facts, and entirely un-biased. We didn't support one religion over another or anything. Explain to me, please, why it is okay to speak of buddhism and not christianity. quote>

You were imprisoned (i.e. detained or held) in your school because you talked about Christianity, on a school news channel? And I will not explain why it is okay to talk about Buddhism over Christianity, because I happen to not think it is alright to permit someone to do stories about Buddhism and imprison them for Christianity. This is in my opinion a violation of freedom of the press to imprison anchors for doing stories their boss does not like in order to intimidate them (which is probably what happened). Instead, if she did not like it, she should have fired you.

The same thing happened with abortion. We told our principal we planned on doing a story on abortion. We called it "The case for and against abortion" We planned to interview both pro-life and pro-choice speakers, and let our students decide which side they wanted to "buy into" for lack of better term. The principal said we could support abortion, but we weren't allowed to say anything negative. I informed her that this was in violation of journalism and freedom-of-speech laws, and she backed down. I'd say thats pretty liberal and anti-christian, is it not?quote>

The points of view expressed may be construed as liberal, but her practices are more totalitarian than liberal, and I would agree that her actions do adequately demonstrate that it is anti-Christian.

Perhaps that was because you were assigned to learn about buddhism, and not christianity. The school doesn't cover christianity because most americans are Christian and already know that stuff. Pretty much every American knows the basic story of Christianity, Jesus being the son of god, being crucified, and rising to heaven. But how many Americans know the basics of Hinduism? or Buddhism? Heck, some Americans don't even know the basics of Judiasm, and its nearly the same thing as christianity.

quote>

From the information given to me, I don't believe the anchor was under the impression that the school press was under that much of a grip of the ruling powers. Still, it does not explain imprisoning someone for it (as opposed to dismissing them from the job).

Bias in teaching is a problem. It leads to brainwashing. A smart person can see it for what it is and overcome it. The idiot masses generally cannot.

quote>

I agree. To use my motto for teaching evolution in the Creationism vs. Evolution thread, "Teach the facts, not the controversy".

[chris0101 8]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I agree. To use my motto for teaching evolution in the Creationism vs. Evolution thread, "Teach the facts, not the controversy".quote>

Unfortunately, that is not so easy. Religious groups view their religious writings as fact while the scientific community will view evolution, biology, and the general laws of physics (which prove the 4.5 billion year age of the earth) as fact. Indeed, the reason why controversy exists is because both sides view their facts as utterly irreconcilable with each other.

For my part, being an agnostic, I view the science as fact until proven otherwise, which does not appear likely in the forseeable future.

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: chris0101

Do I think that the way American politics is run is responsible for this situation? Yes I do.

Clauswitz once wrote that war is an extension of politics. Education is merely an extension of politics as well. How you teach your children is intensely controversial, and the ciriculum is set by political organizations, save in private schools, where the private schools set their own cirriculum (which is problematic, as there is often a lack of consistency, making it harder to standardize and measure quality). When any reforms are hostile opposed for political and ideological reasons, along with a dislike of intellectualism altogether, quality of education inevitably suffers.

How much the US spends on education does not dictate quality of education. Do I think that increasing the education budget will radically improve quality of education? The answer is mixed. On one hand, many schools are in a state of disrepair, increasing salaries of teachers will attract better talent (in Finland for example, the top 25% of university students compete to be teachers, in the US, I am afraid that you'll find quite a few people from the bottom 25%), and will provide greater funding for things like scientific equipment, textbooks, etc. Competing with this is that there are widespread cost overruns in the system. Why does the US spend so much? Where does the money go? Compared to other nations, what is spent so much on per capita? Where does it get so few returns? Cuts should be made in those areas. If education budgets are raised, more money will end up being wasted as well per capita per year.

Spending does not always work as you say. Why does it not work? Where did it fail? Where did it succeed? Nobody asks these questions. It is true that spending more is always a matter of diminishing returns at some point, but like it or not, you have to spend. Public spending mean that the rich will pay a bigger share, which helps the poor get better educated and may help them become from poor to something wealthier than before. The net result is good for the nation as a whole. True there will be people that will have to fill in those gaps, however, I would imagine that liberalizing the immigration policies and eventually replacing such undesired jobs with automation #when technology allows) will put an end to that.

Recall what I said when politics is a problem. All reforms need money and time. In states like California, I would not be surprised, despite the budget problems, if there were more propositions calling for even more cuts to budgets that passed with clear majorities. Nobody likes taxes, but Americans in particular seem to resent paying such taxes, and raises, especially now could prove politically impossible. Add into the fact that to be conservative means that you wish to preserve the status quo no matter how flawed, and you have very serious barriers.

quote>

Why not answer some of your own questions before blaming the situation on unwillingness to take a tax increase, or on conservatives?

I mean, I don't know exactly where the money goes. Though most of it goes to K-12 schools, etc. But there are something to look at.

 

-Between 1950, and 1994 Education spending went up 212%.

-The United States spends around 11K per Student, tied for first with Switzerland.

-Education spending is expected to hit 1.2 Trillion by sometime between 2014-2015.

-Washington D.C. spends 12.5K on students, and there test scores are one of the worst in the country.

-Public School Teachers make 50% more than Private ones.

-Teaching Jobs account for less than half of the jobs in the U.S. education system.

-Education Spending accounts for +6% of GDP

 so, I think we need more spending, I want that number to be 10% of GDP, only then will our suddenly uncaring and failing students realize that they can go far and wide with a good education.

[/sarcasm] But really, we do need to cut the administrative positions, and hire more teachers. While those teachers need to take a paycut, nothing to big, but bring them down to a level were it's viable for both district and teacher is good. Just look at California, they on average payed there teachers 63K, along with other things, and now there deep in the red.

There could also be more in school discipline, as well the big need to watch were are money goes, and better use the money we are spending, not spending more money.

But then. People keep forgetting you can't teach someone who refuses to learn. Systems which put a lot less money into there schools still manage to have amazingly high success rate, such as Japan. Thats because of there culture's high importance on learning. Even in a crappy system, or a rundown shack kids can still learn amazingly a lot if they try at some level, or go above and beyond. Thats not something I would like to happen, but it could still happen. However, many in America do not put that importance on Education, especially in Minorities. I went through a sub-urban school, and it's sad for me to say that most of the African American children there did not give a crap about there education, or really learning. And really, the fail rate would be even higher if it was not for rampant lowering of standers in many schools. I see the same in many others as well.

There is only so much money can do, even if, in many places, that money is needed. The will to learn, and ability to learn still rest on the kids that go through the system. Which the school system's can't change how a kid grew up, or what he learned, it's not the teachers job to turn him into a leaner. That rest on the Parents, and no doubt, a lot of Parents have failed. No amount of money could make up for that.

[lilshortjordan 0]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I happen to not think it is alright to permit someone to do stories about Buddhism and imprison them for Christianity. This is in my opinion a violation of freedom of the press to imprison anchors for doing stories their boss does not like in order to intimidate them

quote>

Thank you!!!!

From the information given to me, I don't believe the anchor was under the impression that the school press was under that much of a grip of the ruling powers

quote>

Yes, I wasn't. This was the first time in 2 years any of us have ever been punished for anything on the show!

[Danlikebooks 6]

In Syria (or at least in my parents time), at the end of 9th grade, you take a big test, to determine your academic future. Depending on how well you do and depending on how well you do in which subjects, that decides what you focus on during high school, whether you go to college, or whether you finish high school at all. If you do poorly, you go to a sort of vocational school. Sort of like, they weed out the best and the rest get screwed.

[lilshortjordan 0]

Dan, I'm glad you like books! I do to! What you said is true of many countries today. Most agree that our education system is a little screwed up, but at least everyone gets a shot! Those who do poorly, more often than not, do poorly because they don't try hard enough and don't have the encouragement and disciple at home that they need to do so. This isn't always the case, but usually, it is. Like I stated a few weeks ago. America is one of very few countries where everyone is educated.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I happen to not think it is alright to permit someone to do stories about Buddhism and imprison them for Christianity. This is in my opinion a violation of freedom of the press to imprison anchors for doing stories their boss does not like in order to intimidate them

Thank you!!!!quote>

Your thanks is appreciated.

From the information given to me, I don't believe the anchor was under the impression that the school press was under that much of a grip of the ruling powersquote>

Yes, I wasn't. This was the first time in 2 years any of us have ever been punished for anything on the show!quote>

To clarify, were you on the show for 2 years, or is that the last time you and the crew were punished? In either case, I can see how you were not under the impression that the school press was the principal's personal press.

I agree. To use my motto for teaching evolution in the Creationism vs. Evolution thread, "Teach the facts, not the controversy".quote>

Unfortunately, that is not so easy. Religious groups view their religious writings as fact while the scientific community will view evolution, biology, and the general laws of physics (which prove the 4.5 billion year age of the earth) as fact. Indeed, the reason why controversy exists is because both sides view their facts as utterly irreconcilable with each other.quote>

What I meant was to not teach the controversy (i.e. "there's a lot of controversy concerning evolution"), despite the fact that among scientists (the people that practice science), there is little controversy over the underpinnings of the theory. Instead of indoctrinating them in a nonexistent controversy just to appease creationists, schools should first and foremost inform the students of the observed facts, and then the theory which concerns these facts. And it is not an observed fact that God created the Earth in 6 days (or in any timeframe for that matter).

Also keep in mind it is a motto I once used as a rebuttal of "teach the controversy" in the Creation vs. Evolution thread. It is a summary of my ideas, not the idea itself.

But then. People keep forgetting you can't teach someone who refuses to learn.quote>

Correct. Someone who is forced to be taught against their will will not be taught. It is as difficult a task as getting an al-Qaeda member to love the United States by imprisoning and torturing him in a US prison. It doesn't work.

It was John Holt's general idea (I believe) that children's natural desire to learn should be cultivated by educators (not suppressed as the status quo does), and that they would learn more that way. It is a general idea I agree with as the one that would work best.

America is one of very few countries where everyone is educated.quote>

Hmm, I'm not too sure about that. The American masses that I have come in contact with over the years don't seem to be educated that much.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Hmm, I'm not too sure about that. The American masses that I have come in contact with over the years don't seem to be educated that much.quote>

Compared to some underdeveloped countries, we have decent scores. We do, however, lead the world in "OMG! OMG! LOOK AT THAT FAMOUS PERSON!!"

Seriously, you are correct. IMO hard education (the basic fundamentals) has been all but abandoned in favor of A) a curricula heavy on political indoctrination like multiculturalism and self-esteem building, and B) jumping on every novel, soft approach like student-led learning, where the teacher is there only to keep order and provides almost no guidance to the students. It's as if some educators are afraid of making the child learn something. Parents are apathetic and selfish, or overworked and burned out, across all demographics.

I went to a top-notch public school for most of middle and high school, and there were excellent opportunities for those who got in. Those who didn't got 20 year old textbooks, or pull-down maps that still showed 48 states. There were racial and other political tensions (created and perpetuated by faculty in some cases), which can be very disruptive to learning. In a lot of ways, the school system was torn between taking care of the outer edges of the spectrum (gifted and special-ed) and trying to serve the other 90%.

In the Chicago Public Schools, the teachers also went on strike every year or every other year throughout a great deal of my school years; the constant bickering did no one any good. In order to get anything done to turn the education system around, the unions on both the local and national level need to be dealt with. Good luck with that!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Parents today simply suck, IMO.quote>

 

Can we make that "Some parents today simply suck"?  or even "Many parents today simply suck"?

That said, I do agree with your main point.   The whole "bubble wrap" generation thing is ridiculous. 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[lilshortjordan 0]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

To clarify, were you on the show for 2 years, or is that the last time you and the crew were punished?

quote>

i had been with the show for 2 years. 3 years now.

Hmm, I'm not too sure about that. The American masses that I have come in contact with over the years don't seem to be educated that much.quote>

Let me clarify, they have the option to get an education, for free (up to 12 grade that is). Whether or not the pay attention and actually become educated is up to them. Unfortunately, a great number pay no attention in school and grow up to be complete know-nothings. But, education is available.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

 We do, however, lead the world in "OMG! OMG! LOOK AT THAT FAMOUS PERSON!!"

quote>

LOL that's great!! I pretty much agree with your entire post.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

 I know it sounds bad, especially to fellow Americans, but if your kid sucks at something, you either need to be up front about it and turn them toward what they are good at, or determine if they are not learning the material in manner that fits their nature. 

quote>

I agree 100%

If you wish to include more information but no one has posted after you, please use the Edit button.  There is no need for 3 posts in a row.--hym

[Easy Bakes 253]

Time to Pop the bubble wrap Generation ! !

[Ntq€310 1]

It's already destroying itself lol, once they reach the real world all things go down the drain

[chris0101 8]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

Why not answer some of your own questions before blaming the situation on unwillingness to take a tax increase, or on conservatives?

quote>

Why do I blame them? To be conservative means that you wish to preserve that current situation. Very simply, the attitude of preserving the status quo is dangerous. I expect clashes too with libertarians as such people believe that runaway individualism is the solution, which it cannot be as this is a problem that affects everyone and everyone must work together if a good solution is to be implemented. Sometimes change is necessary. Change for the sake of change itself is not good, but change for the sake of trying to improve society is good.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

I mean, I don't know exactly where the money goes. Though most of it goes to K-12 schools, etc. But there are something to look at.

 

...

 so, I think we need more spending, I want that number to be 10% of GDP, only then will our suddenly uncaring and failing students realize that they can go far and wide with a good education.

quote>

I did indeed mention that spending more will not assure high quality. Let us consider why state a or state b does better with a given amount per head. Accountability here is the solution. Test what works and implement it on a large scale.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

But then. People keep forgetting you can't teach someone who refuses to learn. Systems which put a lot less money into there schools still manage to have amazingly high success rate, such as Japan. Thats because of there culture's high importance on learning. Even in a crappy system, or a rundown shack kids can still learn amazingly a lot if they try at some level, or go above and beyond. Thats not something I would like to happen, but it could still happen. However, many in America do not put that importance on Education, especially in Minorities. I went through a sub-urban school, and it's sad for me to say that most of the African American children there did not give a crap about there education, or really learning. And really, the fail rate would be even higher if it was not for rampant lowering of standers in many schools. I see the same in many others as well.

quote>

Why do they refuse to learn? Political, social, and cultural attitude/values are the answer. That is another reason why I consider ideology to be a problem and blame people who refuse to embrace a change. Encouraging students to learn requires changes in our social values, something that will be met by great resistance by such people. If you want to encourage students to learn, emulate the cultures that foster such behaviour. For this reason, I disagree with people who attempt to resist efforts to change and make society a better place.

Of course there will always be those who don't care about education. The objective is to change their perception. Why don't they care? Do they feel that they are always going to be entrapped? Analyze and address. What "other priorities" do they have? (For example low income family students will be needed to earn money and will have troubles paying for tution - make it more accessible) We need to bring down the percentage of the people who don't care.

Although true that not everyone was meant for tertiary or higher level education, generally speaking, in a post-industrial economy, more is better, espeically at this point. With manufacturing uncompetitive, something else needs to replace it. It's either going to be low skillled and low wage service jobs or the very high skilled (which require facilities and training that developing nations cannot provide to their own citizenry in large quantities). Like it or not the high skilled jobs all require a burden, but the long term returns on investment justify the costs.

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

Time to throw my hat in the ring.

As someone who is still in the American Education System, I can say that things are pretty bad. The quality of the school often depends on the quality of the neighborhood. Out here in the Chicago suburbs most of the public schools are new or freshly refurbished. They are on large plots of land, with large outdoor recreational areas, sports fields, and other things. On the inside, the rooms are clean, the books and technology are somewhat new, and the crime and security in the school is low.

At the other hand at the spectrum, lets look at an inner-city school.

At Division and Western Avenues, just minutes from downtown Chicago, sits Roberto Clemente High School. The building is the marvel of 70's architecture, complete with bare concrete walls and barred windows. The students, mostly African American or Hispanic, are often from violent, broken households, and it shows. I was inside there last year. Tight hallways, dozens of bashed in lockers, gang signs drawn on the walls, its just not a friendly-feeling place. The rooms are missing ceiling tiles, have water stains all over the place, stock outdated text books, and are wholly inadequate for the amount of sudents passing through them every day. The small neighborhood is so prone to violence that the Chicago Police often wouldn't respond to calls that came from the area unless they came in force. Its better now, but you still wouldn't want to walk down the street there at night.

The stark difference if all because of funding. Public high schools in the richer, whiter town of Arlington Heights get more funding per student than inner city schools in Chicago, even more so with the major cuts Chicago has made to its budget recently. The No Child Left Behind Act seems to have made the situation worse, due to how it, according to what I understand, cuts funding for schools with below-average test scores.

Another difference is in the teaching staff. My aunt is a teacher at a Chicago public elementary school. She can testify to how the city often moves better teachers to better schools, and worse ones to poorer schools.

Let it be known that I am possibly wrong on some of what I just said. Some is also just opinion, but most of it is true.

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: chris0101

Why do I blame them? To be conservative means that you wish to preserve that current situation. Very simply, the attitude of preserving the status quo or libertarianism is dangerous. Sometimes change is necessary. Change for the sake of change itself is not good, but change for the sake of trying to improve society is good. quote>

well then maybe you don't know American politics very good because Everyone agrees something needs to be done, Both conservatives in this country, and liberals in this country think something needs to be done on the Education system. Using the book definition of things for the sake of blaming one side is just stupid.

I did indeed mention that spending more will not assure high quality. Let us consider why state a or state b does better with a given amount per head. Accountability here is the solution. Test what works and implement it on a large scale.quote>

I agree. Trainguy gave a major reason, poorer schools and areas don't receive enough funding, so obviously looking at how much is already being spent, we need to start accounting, and moving the money safely to the needed areas.

Why do they refuse to learn? Political, social, and cultural attitude/values are the answer. That is another reason why I consider ideology to be a problem and blame people who refuse to embrace a change. quote>

Could you please mention what type of change, and which side refuses to change? 

 Encouraging students to learn requires changes in our social values, something that will be met by great resistance by such people. If you want to encourage students to learn, emulate the cultures that foster such behavior. For this reason, I disagree with people who attempt to resist efforts to change and make society a better place. quote>

Easier said than done, though we may be able to start once we know where we want to go. So again, what type of change? Change for the sake of change is bad, just like you've said, which it seems your just mentioning change for the sake of changing the system and politics.

Of course there will always be those who don't care about education. The objective is to change their perception. Why don't they care? Do they feel that they are always going to be entrapped? Analyze and address. What "other priorities" do they have? (For example low income family students will be needed to earn money and will have troubles paying for tution - make it more accessible) We need to bring down the percentage of the people who don't care.

Although true that not everyone was meant for tertiary or higher level education, generally speaking, in a post-industrial economy, more is better, especially at this point. With manufacturing uncompetitive, something else needs to replace it. It's either going to be low skilled and low wage service jobs or the very high skilled (which require facilities and training that developing nations cannot provide to their own citizenry in large quantities). Like it or not the high skilled jobs all require a burden, but the long term returns on investment justify the costs. quote>

If you want to get a high skilled job, or high income job, you get the education, and you work your butt off. Even those who don't want to go to the sky still get the basic education for a well paying job that can support themselves. In the case of many students, they don't care, they probably won't care even if the teacher and system try's to de everything to make themcare. In the case of some of the minority students at my school, they didn't care, even when the teachers tried everything possible to make them try, they still didn't.

Just saying we need to change there perception, isn't going to do it, we can analyze all we want, we can try this, and that, it still probably won't work. Because the value, the culture, and the home life of those students defines them, there parent's values are moved onto them. It's a cycle of cultural undervaluing. It's going to take a lot in order to change that culture to value education, and it will take multiple generations in order to improve. The question is still how we start the change.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Why do I blame them? To be conservative means that you wish to preserve that current situation. Very simply, the attitude of preserving the status quo or libertarianism is dangerous.quote>

For the most part, yes. However, I do not understand why you lumped libertarianism with preserving the status quo. Often libertarians are against the status quo, and want change. Different change or perhaps not the best change possible, but they still want change.

Sometimes change is necessary. Change for the sake of change itself is not good, but change for the sake of trying to improve society is good.quote>

I am a follower of the ideal of you should not attempt to improve a system that already works to a great degree. Unfortunately, the American "education" system is not one of these near-perfect systems. There are many reforms which will benefit individuals tremendously and which will recognize that not everyone can fit in a state-created mold, or follow the conventional path of schools. I am not interested in improving society, because society is a large collection of people. Improve the individuals' situations, and a better society will be a side effect.

Why do they refuse to learn? Political, social, and cultural attitude/values are the answer. That is another reason why I consider ideology to be a problem and blame people who refuse to embrace a change. Encouraging students to learn requires changes in our social values, something that will be met by great resistance by such people. quote>

I cannot argue with that statement. However, culture is the sum of the beliefs and attitudes of the people. Only people can change the culture, and changing people's attitudes such as that would require effort, time, and consent.

If you want to encourage students to learn, emulate the cultures that foster such behaviour. For this reason, I disagree with people who attempt to resist efforts to change and make society a better place.quote>

Americans shouldn't imitate areas which provide good educations in all aspects. What Americans need to do is take the best aspects of the culture (relative to our goals), and attempt to imitate that, rather than the whole thing, which includes the good and the bad.

Of course there will always be those who don't care about education. The objective is to change their perception. Why don't they care? Do they feel that they are always going to be entrapped? Analyze and address. What "other priorities" do they have? (For example low income family students will be needed to earn money and will have troubles paying for tution - make it more accessible) We need to bring down the percentage of the people who don't care.quote>

Firstly, it is a noble goal but exactly how is that done by a government? It is very hard, if not impossible, and certainly inadvisable, to make a top-down collectivist solution work.

My solution is a simple one -- those who do not care about education should not be forced to get one. A person cannot be forced to learn or be interested in anything, anyway. If they turn out adverse later in life because of it, then they can educate themselves (in some sort of program avaliable). Only this works for some people to stimulate interest.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: trainguy4449

At Division and Western Avenues, just minutes from downtown Chicago, sits Roberto Clemente High School. The building is the marvel of 70's architecture, complete with bare concrete walls and barred windows. The students, mostly African American or Hispanic, are often from violent, broken households, and it shows. I was inside there last year. Tight hallways, dozens of bashed in lockers, gang signs drawn on the walls, its just not a friendly-feeling place. The rooms are missing ceiling tiles, have water stains all over the place, stock outdated text books, and are wholly inadequate for the amount of sudents passing through them every day. The small neighborhood is so prone to violence that the Chicago Police often wouldn't respond to calls that came from the area unless they came in force. Its better now, but you still wouldn't want to walk down the street there at night. quote>

In '91- '93 I lived a short walk from Clemente (Maplewood and North Ave, just steps from the old 3 Stooges liquor store)  in Humboldt Park. For an idea of the time and place, watch History's Gangland profile of the Maniac Latin Disciples, who took over the neighborhood. In my experience, there was no point doing anything for that school. Everybody was armed and looking for a fight, the teachers were scared to death, and security was on-duty cops who were overwhelmed. Money can not fix many of the problems of inner-city schools, especially that one. Even the Communists*,  which are surprisingly plentiful in that 'hood, have given up trying to change that school.

My personal opinion was the people themselves, parents (not always single) share plenty of blame. There were many who denied their kid was a criminal, even when the kids wrote on their own bedroom walls with gang graffiti. Everything bad in their life was someone else's fault, or the white racist government, even while 3 generations of the family were selling crack on the corner. They let their 12-13 year olds run the streets late at night, and take no responsibility for raising a kid properly. If the kid gets arrested for murder, it's mistaken identity by those stupid white racist cops again. Then, when the news crews show up... "My kid ain't no gangbanger, they just tryin' to keep us down".

An interesting unrelated side note, that 3 Stooges liquor store was eventually busted for taking food stamps for tobacco and liquor, and the guys outside would sell you drugs for them as well. The proceeds for the store owners went partially to Islamic terrorists, according to the Federal case. I lost many a game of chess to Ali, never knowing what he was up to.

* Communists? Yes. In fact, the park itself has a statue of Pedro Campos, a Marxist terrorist who led and/or planned attacks on both Blair House and the US House of Reps in the 1950s. Who paid for the statue? The taxpayers.

[saltandsauce 0]

by the way, i would like to point out that schools do not need new textbooks, or even that many of them, to provide a decent education system

look at India, the slum schools might have classes of about 40, a teacher a blackboard,chalk and a stick yet these schools teach better english than we do.

Discipline is the first thing you need in a classroom if you have a hope in doing anything

a teacher who is knowledgable and isn't afraid to say "your child is a lazy little brat! smack him and get him to do his homework for once" to their parents or to the child themself

a blackboard with at least one textbook (teacher's edition). the teacher writes questions on the board and then does the answers afterwards. the pupils can take a peice of paper and use that for the day and put it in a binder.

to be honest, post industrial society is the worst place to be if you are in a low class or if you're stupid, you have no chance of getting out of there and also you don't have much choice of having a respected job either, an engine driver was a low paid but respected job along with factory work. you can't have that anymore

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

by the way, i would like to point out that schools do not need new textbooks, or even that many of them, to provide a decent education systemquote>

The need for new textbooks is relative to the field of study you're pursuing.  My field of study requires up-to-date textbooks, so fairly new textbooks is a must.

look at India, the slum schools might have classes of about 40, a teacher a blackboard,chalk and a stick yet these schools teach better english than we do.quote>

That is debatable.  As an engineering student, I spend a considerable amount of time around individuals that have come from India to pursue a degree in the US.  Most of them have horrible English skills.  The only one that I know that speaks English beyond a middle school level was raised in America.  (Actually, it's possible he was born here, meaning he'd be a native American.)