Education In America

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Even before the current issues with the economy, the American schooling was very poor.  Compared to Canada, Japan, and Western Europe, the average school here is bordering on piss poor.  There are plenty of statistics I've seen at least comparing Japan and US performance, although most of what I'm basing this on is not statistically based, just things I've seen and that are generally considered correct.  The US school system is worse, not only than most developed countries, but many developing countries as well.  It is a huge concern for America IMO.

Now, under Dubya who is the second coming of the "Education President" he stressed No Child Left Behind.  Yet when state budget difficulties caused huge cuts in the school's ability to teach, he has done absolutely nothing.  He seems to be following the strategy, Every Child Left Behind.

Here in Colorado they recently passed a law that will allow students who are in low-performing schools to be given money (taken from the school) to attend a private school.  While this is great for a few individual students, it is worse for students as a whole because what is left is a school less capable of teaching than it was before.  It is largely a conservative push to privatize education.  Education is something that shouldn't be privatized though.  Everyone needs an education, and unless the government is going to see fit to pay completely for everyone's private educations, then they should only see fit to pay for public education.

With rising costs of college educations, the American education problem is also there.  The amount of people in America with college educations is much lower than many other developed nations.

Those of us here are probably the lucky ones, we go to the better schools (perhaps private), we have personal finances to allow for attending college, but we are hardly the average in this forum.  Just like I doubt anyone's parents here are making the average, $25k/year.

I simply think the country needs to actually focus on improving the education, not just making empty promises like certain presidents.

[tasty]

The Bush administration pushing private school vouchers is like NORML pushing medicinal marijuana - it seems like they have honest intentions, but their real goal is far different (go NORML!). No Child Left Behind is just empty rhetoric that does nothing to help our kids or teachers, who are grossly underpaid. This is an area that needs far more money if it is expected to improve or succeed. We need to keep our public schools strong, well-funded, unbiased (church and state separation and the like), and filled with qualified, intelligent teachers. It is absolutely imperative to the upkeep of a strong civilization. The Bush administration has already invoked two of Big Brother's three mottos from 1984: "War is Peace", and now "Ignorance is Strength". Scary.

btw 500th post. w00t0r

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Here in Colorado they recently passed a law that will allow students who are in low-performing schools to be given money (taken from the school) to attend a private school.  While this is great for a few individual students, it is worse for students as a whole because what is left is a school less capable of teaching than it was before.

I can't wait for either of you to pay your school taxes.  Really I can't.

The voucher system was proposed here a few years ago, and I'm all for it.  Why should I pay for a public school if I'm sending my kid to private school?  All it does is give me part of the money I paid for public schools back, to spend on the private education.  

Oh, and it's actually better for public schools, not worse.  They do get to keep some of the money I paid in the school taxes and they have one less student to teach with it.  That is a net profit.  Helps solve some of that over crowding that is a big issue.  Think about it, they will have slightly more money per student, so every student that takes advantage of it gives a better student to money ratio.

Tasty, this is another case of I don't care if he does the right thing for the wrong reasons.

[tasty]

I think vouchers can be an OK deal, I just don't think the voucher plans that are proposed are. I think its fine - as long as the private schools have no religious affiliation. I don't want any more government money going to religion than already does. The theocrats are angry that they can't teach the bible in schools so this was their next best deal. All education is social programming - and I don't want the next generation of kids growing up in a government funded religion because their parents wanted to escape failing inner city schools.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Tasty, at least in Colorado it is the parent's perrogative of if they use the voucher to send to a religious or secular private school.  So I'm not sure how valid the religion argument is.  I of course worry more about giving parents too much rights over their kids.  Many kids I know are forced into being more religious than they wish by parents and thus would go to a religous school they have no desire to attend.

Bucc, your argument that you shouldn't have to pay for a public school when you are sending your child to a private school is somewhat like saying you shouldn't have to pay for any public services you don't intend to use.  But if only those using it pay for it, the point of having public goods is defeated.  The point of public goods is that everyone pays for it and everyone can use it.  You have the choice not to but are not excused from supporting it because of that choice.

Additionally, are you sure that the vouchers are less than the school taxes paid.  If that is the case I really don't get the point of vouchers because the amount paid for the public schools is less than most private schools I know of (the one my friend went to is more than my college).  If the purpose is to help students in poor schools (which tend to be in poor neighborhoods) even with the voucher they won't be able to afford a private school.  I assume the private schools that are affordable are the religious ones that probably get subsudized by either corresponding churches or other religious people who want to make religious indocrination as cheap as possible.  In this case, tasty's fear would be more real.

[Cossack]

Bush is no education president, you shoulda seen the stupid shits they produced (like Pyrex) outta those schools. Bush's Texas did not have a good education system.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Well, you know politicians, they don't need to show results to make claims about their policies.  Aparently both Bushes were given the title education president because in their campaigns they made it one of the key issues.  That they have done almost nothing to show that they are committed to education doesn't bother them or many others apparently.

[Mr. Lothario]

Bucc, your argument that you shouldn't have to pay for a public school when you are sending your child to a private school is somewhat like saying you shouldn't have to pay for any public services you don't intend to use.  But if only those using it pay for it, the point of having public goods is defeated.  The point of public goods is that everyone pays for it and everyone can use it.  You have the choice not to but are not excused from supporting it because of that choice.

     But a school is only weakly comparable to other public services. Electricity is electricity is electricity, all that matters is if the lights go on when you flip the switch. An education is an entirely different ball of wax, since a given education can be considered better or worse than other educations, both objectively and subjectively. Vouchers appeal to the Libertarian in me, in that it forces the schools to compete for students (that is, for money). Competition among suppliers of a good or service is, in almost every case, good for the consumers and for the industry as a whole.

     All schools should be better-funded and all teachers should be better-paid. But that's not going to happen, because Americans can't visualize or plan more than five years ahead. Any positive effects of changes to school funding will take longer than five years to be apparent, and therefore are invisible to taxpayers and legislators. All they see is funnelling money into a system to no effect. Therefore, procuring across-the-board funding increases will never happen. Therefore, a system such as vouchers is needed, to get the money to where the [tax]paying consumers (parents and students) want to put it. Vouchers will hurt the worst schools. They will be forced to become competitive or die. That is a good thing. Vouchers will greatly help the best schools. That is a good thing. Bring on the competition.

[jn.loudnotes]

Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers.  What a disturbing idea.

First off, I have one thing that may be a misconception, so I'd appreciate if anyone knows for certain.  As you know, there are tax incentives for donating to charities and the like - basically a way for you to decide where you want your tax/societal improvement dollars to go without the government deciding for you.  Now, am I correct in thinking that a donation to a private school counts for these credits?  In that case, there would be no need for vouchers. . .Anyway, if I'm wrong there, it doesn't matter because:

1.  Many tax funds are not earmarked, and for good reason.  Every person in a society shares some of the burden to pay for it's upkeep.  If we all paid only for the services we personally used, many things wouldn't be able to sustain themselves.  
2.  Furthermore, many of the poorest people would shoulder the largest burden.  If other services were taxed by need, those who used the services most - often those who need them - i.e. the poor - would be paying for them.  Most of them cannot afford any greater taxation.  Vouchers really are just a disguised form of regressive taxation.  It's a great idea if you're at the top of society, but not for the other 90% of people.  
3.  If the government is providing vouchers, the schools will either suffer or the parents of public-schoolers will have to pay more.  The loss of each child won't save the school much money since its primary costs come from teacher salaries, supplies, and simple utility costs.  
4.  Thus the cost is about the same, but the group of people paying the taxes is smaller - and less affluent at that, since the people remaining in public school would be the poorer ones who could not afford private school.
5.  Keep in mind that voucher plans either do not completely pay for private school (i.e. only refund the estimated cost of a public school education) or they pay for all of it, which ultimately costs the school even more money.
6.  Finally, everyone has an interest in education, just as everyone has an interest in the other things tax money goes to, like roads, health care, and the like.  (See # 1).  It's in the best interest of society for children to be educated, and short of sending everyone to private school - an unrealistic idea financially - there must be a solid education system available to the public.  Shortchanging that system by allowing people to opt out harms everyone.  Even old maids with no children arguably have an obligation to the school system, since education provides the framework to society itself.  Thus they too pay taxes, as should all parents.  Furthermore, the school system could be looked at a generation different - as being paid for by those who went through it.  No matter what your children do - you could theoretically be paying for your own education.

Tasty's points about religion are equally important - and good reasons why the current plans are so bad.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Loth, here is my issue with what you said...you say public schools should compete or die.

What happens if they choose the latter, something that is probably more likely when funding is lowered.  Well then, you lose a public school and have a large number of people without a school.  Now either they all go to private schools, or they re-district and are added to other schools.  This creates overcrowding at other schools and kills them off.  One by one, public schools are killed off until there are none left.  Now the voucher program only basically cuts the taxes to the person so that they can spend it on private school, it does not actually give them money.

In the new private only system, only the richer portion of kids will be able to afford private schools leaving the poorer ones uneducated and damning them to be poor forever.  Now if you suggest that all students be subsudized to go to private school, then the costs are so great it will be just like having public schools again, only now you have the issues of religion, unlicensed teachers, lack of educational standards, etc that go with private schools (not that the educational standards are great at public schools, as was the point of this thread).

Hehe, odd that we are talking now about the public vs. private issue, I just started reading Jennifer Government, the book by the guy who runs nationstates.  It is largely about how the US and its affiliated nations are completely privatized whereas Europe and China are quite nationalized.  A very fun read so far for anyone who was curious.

Oh and about the public goods thing...while electricity is either there or not, many other public goods like police services, medical services, etc do get better with more funding and even though I may never need a police officer (I really don't need them pulling me over giving me $250 fines) I wouldn't say I shouldn't have to pay for them.  This goes to Jennifer Government again where emergency services are privatized and check for your ability to pay before providing service resulting in problems.  Anyway, I think clearly some public services need to be paid for (whether school is or isn't one of those is obviously up for debate) and you can't just charge based on use.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Read this article...

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=24471

Not endorsing it or anything, just bringing another view into the argument. The author makes arguments for privatizing education and the effects it would have.

[Ace]

"Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]SQL Server does not exist or access denied.

/news/includes/globals.asp, line 21"

I see you got some real computer geniuses over there in Westwood. Can't play football, can't play basketball, can't use a computer... can you do anything right?




But enough of bashing FUCLA and back on topic. I think that while I may agree with the voucher system conceptually (ie you can send your kids where you want with your education taxes), it is not a practical system. Many schools have problems with funding already, so taking their money isn't going to help things. You say that a small portion of the money still goes to the school if you use your voucher elsewhere, but this isn't enough. A school with more students will have to find space for them, but on the whole they will have more cash for stuff like computer labs and other types of facilities that aren't relative to the number of students in a class.

Loth, you mention electricity as a fairly constant public good, while the quality of education can be more varied. I think we should strive to have high quality education for everyone. This doesn't mean there still won't be some better schools and some worse, but we should have a minimum level of acceptability so that any education can be given a certain amount of credibility.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Hmm, I wonder what happened, the site worked when I checked it when I started my reply, but it doesn't now and didn't when you checked Ace.  Stupid dipshits at UCLA I guess

The one thing I definately agree with in the article, is about the piece of paper thing.  It irks me that many universities are more set up to graduate and thus be more attractive to employers than to actualy educate and improve the mind.  I wrote an essay about this subject that I'll post below (once again, no need to criticize my writing skills, just discuss, this wasn't even an essay for school, just a ranting type of thing).

One thing though, I think most people would agree that education is something people should have, and that it would be horrible to deprive people based on economic reasons, to keep poor people less educated and thus poor.  That is where I disagree with his/her attitude of just letting it be.

An F For Grades In College

As many people come out saying that college is not appropriate for all high-school students, the colleges become less appropriate for any students.  Of the large number of students who go to college there are two main groups.  There is the majority who is there for the only reason of using their degree as a launching pad for a future career.  The other group that makes up probably a lonely tenth are the people who actually want to learn.

If a teacher were to say to his class the first day that everyone signed up for the class would get an A in the class without completing any work and without any worry about attendance, how many students would you expect to find in the rest of his lectures?  Maybe a half dozen?  This is where the problem lies.  Most of the students are only there to get a grade to show that they would be valuable employees in the future.  Therefore the teacher is forced to require grunt work such as tests and other assignments to show that the students are ?learning? the material.

It is scientifically proven that a stressed mind is often an ineffective mind.  By putting grade requirements on these students as well as large time consuming course work, the students are so pressured that they can no longer think cleanly and slowly put more impersonal responses with no personal attachment to the work.

The extent of this learning is shortsighted.  Most students do as little work as is possible to get the grades they want because this work is neither interesting, nor important in their minds.  Once they finish a test they forget this information and may never think about it again in their lives.  This kind of force-fed learning benefits no one.  With this system the majority students accomplish their goal of showing off their worth, but they really haven?t learned enough to succeed.  When they show up at their new jobs they will still need an in depth education of how to operate in that specific system, making their four-years of higher learning strictly a filtering device.  Even the ?better? schools such as those in the Ivy League don?t escape from this.  In fact they are possibly even more likely to be used for resume purposes; being a more impressive, more costly reference.  The students interested in learning are limited in their efforts because they are overwhelmed with the same meaningless work that doesn?t use the minds they want to strengthen.

What needs to happen is that we must return to the age when workers were taught the skills needed for a job as part of job training, apprenticeships or at separate vocational schools.  This would allow the universities to take the form of places where those that are truly interested in learning deeper, extra-vocational skills can avoid the pressures of the ?resume? education and focus on thought.  In this new university concept, it would truly be like the teacher?s introduction earlier.  No grades, no tangible work to be completed, no mandatory attendance.  In these classes the professors and students would be allowed to discuss and debate theories and opinions relating to any topic that they wanted to cover (presumably within some general topic).  With this new system there is no pressure to get good grades, there is no reason to cheat.  All thought would be from the person and not from a different source (other than as a secondary). This would enhance the capabilities of these students to respond to any question, not just those that they have answered.  This type of education is more like learning to think than it is learning specific abilities so these students are fit for almost any position, where as only learning abilities limits their reach.

In the end any decision must be left up to the individual student.  He must decide whether he wants or is capable of this education and he shouldn?t be forced or even encouraged to attend college.  Only a truly dedicated and intelligent student can succeed in this training while the majority of students should only be learning what they need to succeed in life.  Not only does this allow students to be better educated in what they are capable of learning; it saves parents and students? money and time that they would have wasted on unnecessary and unsuccessful education.

Amended note: I use the sexist he because I'm male, no implication of sexual discrimination implied.  Secondly, there would still be lower level broad education at lower levels, some of that is important to everyone.  Thirdly, in some part, this education plan works like some in social democracies where enrolment in higher education is based on ability to handle the given education.

[jn.loudnotes]

Haven't gotten to the essay yet, but just wanted to clarify about my vouchers post -

I didn't say public schools should compete or die; I said that's what will happen if the money is going to private schools.  While arguments toward education privatization can be compelling, it seems pretty much a given that a public school system is necessary if people of all economic levels are going to be a given a chance toward success.  Therefore, if there has to be a public school system, it ought to be a good one - and not have its funding siphoned away by vouchers.

Also, Loth had a good point about the electricity.  The cost of educating a child isn't only reflected in books and the like - there are many costs just toward running a school (i.e. electricity) which remain constant no matter how many children leave and go to private schools, and it becomes unaffordable to run a public school if there aren't enough funds coming in.  The loss of students does come with a loss in funding, through vouchers.  The money has to come from somewhere.

As for the tax argument, any dissent?  As citizens, don't you think you should have to pay for even the services you do not use?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I didn't say public schools should compete or die; I said that's what will happen if the money is going to private schools.

Hmm, I actually think that was Loth I meant to be replying too, misapplied my response.  Sorry.  *Goes and edits*

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I don't want any more government money going to religion than already does.

It's not the government's money, it's a refund of my money.  

[tasty]

It would be your money if the vouchers laws pass. However, they have not passed yet and thusly it is government money, which it hopefully remains. If people look at the facts, vouchers will not pass. The vast majority of private schools do not outperform public schools anyway. The government also has a duty to try to prevent people from miseducating their children, which in my opinion sending them to a religious school is tantamount to.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Tasty, here in Colorado (but no where else) school vouchers HAS passed.

I agree about the religious education being miseducation though.  It takes away from real education.  I mean, religious private schools are free not to teach Darwin, one of the most important evolutions (pardon the pun) of thought in the past few centuries.  Religious reasons are not a reason to keep kids ignorant.

Also, one girl I know is homeschooled in a group where all the parents are complete fundamentalist Christians, the whole, if you aren't Christian you go to hell, if you have sex before marriage you go to hell, if you are gay you go to hell.  Anyway her self-esteem is for shit, she's a cute girl but thinks she is ugly (typical puritan denial of the body), her parents scare me more though, they are close to preventing her from chatting with me because in me is sinful thoughts and ideas.  Religion is straight out ruining her life due to being applied poorly.

Kind of a side note, my girlfriend told me that her school board (up in Canada you know) is planning to change the format of the school.  Until now they have been an unothodox style where it isn't based around classrooms so much but rather small seminars and it is self-paced so you turn things in and take tests when you are ready...and can take 5 years to graduate.  Anyway, they want to change it to a normal high school despite it being the top school in the province.  Just goes to show that being educational fuckwits is not limited to the US...but still, the education is better there on average.  (Lets just hope the protests by pretty much everyone other than the school board stops the change).

[kami]

Bondo, you smooth talk that religious girl into a secret rendezvous now man, only right thing to do

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bondo, you smooth talk that religious girl into a secret rendezvous now man, only right thing to do

She's 14, which according to CO law is too young for me even.  I have to wait for her to turn 15 for that  Yay for CO law letting me get excited about 15 year olds until I turn 26.

Ahem, anyway, what with me having a girlfriend, it is out of my hands...so to speak.