Jump to content
Science Forums

What is the role of public education?


Fishteacher73

Recommended Posts

Oh me oh my, Erasmus and Fish, you both skirted that darn "S" word when talking about homeschoolers. For shame, for shame....

 

And both of you - do you think we keep our kids in closets? sheesh :hihi:

.

 

Forgive me if you think I meant that you weren't doing a good job. I'm sure there are homeschoolers who are socially well adjusted, and from reading your posts, I'm sure you are doing a wonderful job educating your children.

 

I just wanted to point out my reservations about scrapping public education in favor of homeschooling. I mean, imagine what a hardship that would be on single parents, for instance.

-Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Were the kids there by their choice or did their parents force them into the situation? I also find it interesting that you were even aware of which kids of the 20 were homeschooled. How did that come up? Are you sure there wasn't bias on your part and on the part of the other kids toward the home school kids? I don't applaud the parents of those home school children for putting them into that position. If they chose to be there and were excited by what they would learn, that would be a different story.

 

I have no idea if the kids chose to be there or not. The reason I know the children where homeschooled is that when I noticed problems at the begininng of the summer, I would often request to talk to the parents, and for many (certainly not all) of the social problem children, their parents told me they were homeschooled. I know how many children were homeschooled because we were given the number of children from each school district we would be getting in our class. (but not names or ages, I guess because its law?)

 

This certianly could not have been bias on my part, as I had no idea before I requested to speak with parents, and it probably wasn't bias on the part of the other children, because they were from many local area schools. The division wasn't the one set of kids who all attended school together and one set who were homeschooled.

 

Oh, please. Will, I thought you were on the road to becoming a scientist? You assume that those top minds are products of the system. I'd assume that they achieved that in spite of the system, not because of it. Incidentally, the insanity that was the former Soviet Union was based upon the exact same fallacies as is our public education system and had at its root the same rediculous image of a human being. Not a very large leap at all, Will.

 

I don't understand why you insist that top minds that come out of America's system must have prospered "in spite" of the system. If America's public education system was as faulty as you claim, I would think that such bright people would have been squelched and kicked to the curb long before reaching university. And what does the soviet union have to do with anything?

 

Please don't tell me that those roadblocks are there to maintain quality. They are there to make sure nobody can compete with the in-house system which has already drained 'the people' to pay for itself. Talk about a stacked-deck. Are these the failures of which you speak?

 

You do realize that we have private schools all over the country. I cannot talk about private grade schools, but the private high schools, at least, aren't much better than the public ones. Most of them have similar curriculums, but offer less honors, AP, and IB courses.

-Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erasmus: I don't understand why you insist that top minds that come out of America's system must have prospered "in spite" of the system. If America's public education system was as faulty as you claim, I would think that such bright people would have been squelched and kicked to the curb long before reaching university. And what does the soviet union have to do with anything?
Well, I was perhaps being a little extreme there. Maybe. There are good teachers that do cause wonderful things to happen, I don't mean to imply that nothing good happens in the public system. I, myself, had at least 3 good teachers that compensated for a less than intellectual environment at home and gave me something that was sorely needed. But it wasn't by design, and that's my point. It was an accident and happened because they were really good people or I was really hungry for what they had or a combination of both.

The connection between the soviet union and our public schools is a shared concept of 'human'. It is the idea that society is responsible and not the individual. That always means that society decides and the individual doesn’t. Any system we create has an underlying view of a human that drives it to be what it is.

Public schools must teach to the lowest kid in the class. And, rather than find ways to accelerate those that can accelerate, the teachers can turn a blind eye and let them sit and wait. I suspect that they are not rewarded for accelerating students. The system is set up to receive money per kid if their attendance is good enough, at least in this area it is. Here, there has been great concern about losing enrollment to bigger and 'better' schools (sports) in a large city nearby. If they lose kids, they lose their budget in a downward spiral. Accelerating a child out of a grade is not going to be acceptable.

A private school (and yes I'm aware that there are private schools) competes for children of families that have enough money to both pay property taxes and pay for sending their kids to the private school. Unless something has changed in the last 5 years, a private school cannot get money for a child from tax revenues. So they don't have a very large base to compete for. I suspect that they are not much better than the public schools although, I'm sure there are exceptions to that. I highly doubt that any public school is better than the best private school and if that is true, considering the ratio of public schools to private schools that would argue against the public system.

If the money for public schools was made available to private schools and they were allowed to compete in an unregulated environment , we'd see big improvements because there'd be money to be made for a better product. And the product is the skill, the speed with which it is acquired and the quality of the end result. Time and quality are very important when it comes to teaching.

Now you say that the reason for public schools is to develop social skills. Can you tell me what, exactly, constitutes the set of skills we’d call ‘social skills’? Reading is a skill. I’ve already shown in a previous post how easy it is to teach and how quickly it can be done. I expect that any other skill could be taught in a similar fashion (that is, quickly and with quality). So if we can identify precisely what the social skills are we could teach those specifically. Today we treat teaching social skills like we treat the concept of becoming an adult: we let time be the teacher. We have no objective criteria for determining what an adult is and that’s pretty much the same thing with respect to social skills. In both cases, it isn’t what you do or think, it’s what you don’t do. Like ‘crying in baseball’. It’s not appropriate. So, if ‘socials skills’ is a list of things that one does not do, why can’t that be taught in much less than 12 years?

Here’s where I’m coming from: We need to objectively define what it means to be an adult and that means we need to have a clear understanding of what it means to be a human being. That ultimately results in choosing a symbol which is a hell of a lot easier to understand than a dissertation. In my mind that symbol is Leonardo da Vinci. But we also need the dissertation to nail down and define the qualities that a ‘Leonardo’ created in his own character; the qualities that transcend time and the things about him that we’d like to see cultivated in our children.

The corollary to that is the implied image of the human being that we could build based upon the identity of the current system. In other words, how are children ‘viewed’ from the systems supporters and creators? The term ‘worker bees’ or ‘sheep’ are images that come to my mind. But implied in either of those is also the ‘Queen Bee’ or the ‘shepherd’. In other words, the aristocracy. Our factories needed workers that can get by and we didn’t necessarily want them to think and become a threat to the status quo. I think that we bought the concept because we wanted a quality learning environment for our children. But when you regulate something it ends up getting carved in stone and very quickly becomes obsolete, especially if it was based upon a fallacy. The more fallacies, the quicker it goes to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think that most things-education, business, personal life,and society in general has similar

aspects. if not influenced by artificial means, human activity tends toward merit. we are rewarded by acheivement. business rewards the hard worker, or clever thinker by money and other perks. personal life rewards the hard or intelligent worker by self satisfaction, prestige, money, and social status. education is not geared toward merit. it is geared toward mediocrity. the reason is because we don't have a consensus on what encompasses a good education and the system is run by incompetents. public education tries to be everything to all and therefore fails all. should well behaved kids who want to learn be forced to go to school with disruptive kids who don't want to learn? should parents of disruptive kids be allowed to inject their kids into a learning environment?

should teachers who speak ebonics or poor english be allowed to teach at all? should kids who have no desire to learn be in the same class with those who want to learn? should professors who have a political agenda be allowed to indoctrinate children and enjoy tenure? schools should be geared toward merit. aim for the best and pay the best teachers. there should be special schools for the disruptive and special needs. do not hold the achievers back because of political correctness.

this is why parents are home schooling. the problem with this is their kids do not have the exposure to the diversity of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is why parents are home schooling. the problem with this is their kids do not have the exposure to the diversity of society.

Oh, there is so much to say to this. You had me, right up until your very last statement. But as I homeschool my kids, and we never stop to take breaks (not for summer, not for holidays, not after 3pm, because I want them to understand that there is ALWAYS time to learn!), and we are off to the amusement park today, where there will be plenty of chances for them to be exposed to the diversity of society, I really don't have time to properly answer this right now.

But one question... do you think homeschooled children live in closets or something? My 4 year old is able to have conversations with adults. They are all very outgoing, and very 'social' children. They had no problem meeting and talking with strangers from another country just a few months ago. They are exposed to the diversity because they are continually forced to take part in normal, 'every day' things that constitute life. Grocery shopping, a trip to the dry cleaners, book clubs, errands, oil changes, they see it all, and are not afraid of it. I don't know what else there is to getting them exposed to the diversity of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay - late to the thread, as usual.

 

Public education, as funded by the public and administered by the State, servers two purposes:

 

1) To create potential taxpayers.

2) To create potential voters.

 

Therefore, according to (1), any skills a kid might pick up in school, must be sellable in order for the kid to become a good contributor to the King's Purse. Thus, good subjects like ancient history and philosophy, becomes redundant in public schools. There's no profit in knowing about the ancient Ionians.

According to (2), any party in charge of the budget, will dispense funds to schools in such a way as to benefit itself in, say, ten to twenty years from now. It's not obvious at first, but the incentive is there. Once again:

 

It's all about the buxxx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irish, under current conditions, i would probably homeschool my kids also . however, in a

more perfect situation i would prefer my kids to have the company of their peers and to participate in team sports, which i think are great character builders. it may be that you are in perfect harmony with your kids and giving them the best of everything, yet i have met many parents that i would not trust to homeschool my kids. are kids better off being in the presence of their parents 24/7, or is it better for both parents and the kids to participate in the broader society? i would say this depends upon the quality of the parents, and the quality of the society they live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the assets of public education is also one of its largest albatoses (sp?). The fact is that it is public and anyone (outside of extreme discipline issues) is allowed to enter. You have schools packed with children with special needs (underscored even more in districts with low-income families). These sudents require more resources, and by law they MUST be met. There are no laws that mandate ap biology classes or adequate teaching aids. The budget is consumed by this and many other "extras" (ie paper for the copier, adequate staff, etc.) are not met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irish, under current conditions, i would probably homeschool my kids also . however, in a

more perfect situation i would prefer my kids to have the company of their peers and to participate in team sports, which i think are great character builders. it may be that you are in perfect harmony with your kids and giving them the best of everything, yet i have met many parents that i would not trust to homeschool my kids. are kids better off being in the presence of their parents 24/7, or is it better for both parents and the kids to participate in the broader society? i would say this depends upon the quality of the parents, and the quality of the society they live in.

questor,

How many homeschooling families do you know? Are you around them for extended lengths of time? I'm asking because I think you have a few misconceptions about what it's like.

My kids do have the company of peers. They are allowed to spend large amounts of time with other kids very often. But I am very picky about who the younger ones associate with. I think it's my job as a parent to expose them to people that will be good for them. I try to keep them away from others until they are a bit older.

The older 5 all participate in sports. All 5 of them have played either soccer, football, or gymnastics since they were 5 years old. The youngest can hardly wait til she gets to play as well. Also, as I pay my taxes, they are more than welcome to play on the school leagues when/if they want. However, I'm hoping that they will not play in school leagues, as I'd rather them enjoy themselves and the game without the ridiculous pressures that are put on children in organized competitive sports - unless that is something they want.

You've met many parents you would not trust to homeschool your kids? Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Each parent should have the right to homeschool their own children. I wouldn't want to homeschool someone else's child. And I really don't trust anyone else with my kids either. That is exactly why I am doing it myself.

As for the school setting, where 30 kids of the same age are in a room together all day, how exactly is this realistic, or in keeping with the way things are in the 'real world'? Do you only work with other people your exact same age? Might you have benefitted from being exposed to older and younger students while you were learning?

And I don't spend 24/7 with my children, but I spend as much time as I can with them. I want them to know, understand, and believe that they are important to me, and that their education is important to me. I realize that they need time away from me, and I from them, and it happens. But I like my kids, which is much different from just loving them. I enjoy spending time with them. They teach me things all the time. They are not the only one's that are getting something out of the homeschooling situation, but I wouldn't have believed that 5 years ago.

Sorry for the long reply, I just have some very strong feelings about this. And I always enjoy the chance to discuss homeschooling v. public education. Maybe I should start another thread on that, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irish, good post. your kids will most probably do well under your guidance. i know a few home schoolers and i have no bad comments about them. there is no doubt the public educational system is an abysmal failure. my point is that not all people are equally qualified to provide education. since 50% of marriages end in divorce, there must be some strife ridden families. i know that a lot of kids are mistreaten at home, and many don't

get proper nourishment at home. public school can be a haven for them. i would think that the large majority of parents are

emotionally or culturally unfit to have children, much less home school them. our system is the problem, not the idea of public education. being as this is the current (and probably

future ) of American ed., i think you are wise to do what you are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

questor:i would think that the large majority of parents are emotionally or culturally unfit to have children, much less home school them. our system is the problem, not the idea of public education. being as this is the current (and probably

future ) of American ed.,.

The difference between a well designed system and a poorly designed system is that one has change built in whereas the other doesn't. It is also important to know precisely what it is that you want it to do.

The problem with having it designed by committee at the public level is that you can never get them to agree on what the goals are so the end result will be a frankenstein's monster representing the ideals of the individuals on the committee. We can pretend that they'll come up with a good design, but that's all it will be; a pretense. It will dissolve into arguments about curriculum and you'll get the worst of all worlds - kind of what we have now. At best it will be grey. They'll try for politically correct, which means, "let's not offend anyone".

I doubt anyone is foolhardy enough to say that isn't what has happened to the current system. I have worked at the government level and know first hand what goes on.

But it does serve one purpose: people believe it's doing the job, for the most part, and since they cannot imagine anything better there isn't enough momentum to get rid of it. And pretense is the name of the game in today's politics.

It has to get voted out and that won't happen any time soon. What I think will happen is that things will have to get a lot worse before they get better, IF they ever get better.

We dominate on the momentum of the respect for human ingenuity that was represented by what the founding fathers did. I don't know how much longer we can suck on that momentum, sooner or later it'll run out.

Any advances in education will come from the private sector, not from public. Although we can pretend otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...