Bravo John Stossel!

[RuntheDamnBall]

Oh, I concur that parents share a great deal of responsibility in their child's education. Of that there is no doubt. I'm already teaching my daughter to read and to do simple math. But I EXPECT, nay I DEMAND that when I send myc hild to school, she should be LEARNING something rather than having to work at the pace of the least intelligent student.

 

The school system went to sh-- when they decided to allow remedial and re-tarded students into mainstream classrooms. What it meant was rather than pursuing excellence with the brightest students, the districts dumbed everything down so the slow kids could keep up. In the end, all you've done is hurt our best and brightest...and the unions went along with it merrily.

 

My fixes for education:

 

1) Link all education spending to the individual student.

 

2) Break the union and tenure structure.

 

3) Re-segregate schools so that the brightest and most promising get the best.

 

4) Re-introduce vocational education for kids who can't handle academia.

 

You do these four things and all of the sudden, you won't need minority bussing. You won't need Charter Schools. You won't need any of the band-aids of the past because the very system itself will be fixed, and fixed correctly.

570684[/snapback]

I have mixed feelings about the union structure -- it's got its strengths in protecting teachers from witch hunts that do indeed happen, but obviously it's problematic as you've detailed.

 

I think tenure's an extension of that. I think it should probably be revised, with some kind of challenge process for teachers that are not meeting the needs of their students. 3-5 challenges and you have to be reviewed, re-tenured or let go, something to that effect. But not something where one parent or a group who are influential with the school board could just have their way with any teacher.

 

Some parents actually go after the teachers who challenge their students! And that's a problem. In fact my wife's mother had that very problem -- she was too strict (!) -- and was not tenured when she went back into teaching after being a stay-at-home mother.

 

And you've said often here that anyone can make it in America. Doesn't the idea of segregating the schools run counter to that, ie you're saying some kids just aren't going to succeed? I do think that talented, bright kids need different challenges and I agree with you there.

 

Vocational education is key. It works, and I would probably include business education along with it, practical mathematics and such, so that someone who gets into a vocation like hairdressing or auto repair, which can be quite lucrative actually, is well equipped to start their own business once they make something of themselves.

 

One last thing I'd propose is some kind of valuable work experience for kids who are middle school age. Kids can be so nasty to one another at that age and no one is really comfortable with who they are and it's a tough time to learn anything at all. If they were engaged in some kind of successful team project for at least part of the school year, like working for Habitat for Humanity, it could make a world of difference and be a real supplement to an education.

[The Avenger]

They used to do it in the district where I went to school. In fact, you had to take an evaluation when you moved into the district. I sh-- you not.

 

And yes, kids were put on tracks of vocational, general or college prep education.

 

And it worked. The kids who couldn't handle academia almost always ended up in vo-tech where they could learn a useful skill.

570719[/snapback]

 

yes, but I'd venture to guess that the disparity in spending between kids on a vocational track and a higher education track is much wider in Japan than it is in the U.S. In Japan they can pretty much put those kids in a corner and not give them much - no way you're allowed to do that in the U.S. You can train somebody to to be a mechanic or a hair dresser, but you can't give them 1/10th the funds you give to the kids taking AP courses.

[X. Benedict]

yes, but I'd venture to guess that the disparity in spending between kids on a vocational track and a higher education track is much wider in Japan than it is in the U.S. In Japan they can pretty much put those kids in a corener and not give them much - no way you're allowed to do that in the U.S. You can train somebody to to be a mechanic or a hair dresser, but you can't give them 1/10th the funds you give to the kids taking AP courses.

570727[/snapback]

 

Vocational training in my district is more expensive than the college track.

There is a regional vocational training center and school districts are charged on a per student basis. Generally students are discouraged from attending because of the cost regardless of the fact that plumbers probably make more money than a private college professor.

[The Avenger]

Vocational training in my district is more expensive than the college track.

There is a regional vocational training center and school districts are charged on a per student basis. Generally students are discouraged from attending because of the cost regardless of the fact that plumbers probably make more money than a private college professor.

570733[/snapback]

 

My point exactly - there is no way in the U.S. education system to shift resources to "smart" kids and put others in a corner. You might be able to track them (and I think its great that a kid without book smarts is given skills to be a very successful mechanic), but you can't push other kids into a corner like they can do elsewhere - that's un-American!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

My point exactly - there is no way in the U.S. education system to shift resources to "smart" kids and put others in a corner. You might be able to track them (and I think its great that a kid without book smarts is given skills to be a very successful mechanic), but you can't push other kids into a corner like they can do elsewhere - that's un-American!

570782[/snapback]

 

Well, at the very least, they should take remedial and re_tarded kids out of mainstream classes.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I still say your wife, in her inner city school teaching kids of parents who nevr got an education or have low-paying jobs, comes out as a "worse teacher" over 5 years than an average teacher in Scarsdale who gets kids of doctors and lawyers. It's the quality of the student that test scores measure, not necessarily the quality of the teacher.

570721[/snapback]

 

Actually, last year my wife had a great group of kids who could handle just about anything she threw at them. This year, not so good.

[The Avenger]

Actually, last year my wife had a great group of kids who could handle just about anything she threw at them. This year, not so good.

570800[/snapback]

 

That's my point. if she was constantly judged on "merit" with merit being defined as how her kids tested or otherwise succeeded she would have been seen as a good teacher last year and as a not so good teacher this year. I seriously doubt that your wife went from being a good teacher to a fair or poor teacher in the course of a single year - she's the same good teachers she's always been.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

That's my point. if she was constantly judged on "merit" with merit being defined as how her kids tested or otherwise succeeded she would have been seen as a good teacher last year and as a not so good teacher this year. I seriously doubt that your wife went from being a good teacher to a fair or poor teacher in the course of a single year - she's the same good teachers she's always been.

570956[/snapback]

 

Which is why I'd recommend a five-year average.

[The Avenger]

Which is why I'd recommend a five-year average.

571008[/snapback]

 

But even averaged over a period of time it's a problem.

 

If your wife gets 5 years of good kids, she's a great teacher. If she gets 4 years with good kids, she's a good teacher. With 3 years of good kids she's an average teacher. With 2 years she's a poor teacher. With one year or no years with good kids she's a bad teacher and should be fired (or at least not get any sort of merit pay).

 

You know that she's the same teacher over that 5 year period whether she gets good kids or bad kids. Why should you tie her performance/pay to something over which she has no control - the quality of her students?

[ExiledInIllinois]

I still say your wife, in her inner city school teaching kids of parents who nevr got an education or have low-paying jobs, comes out as a "worse teacher" over 5 years than an average teacher in Scarsdale who gets kids of doctors and lawyers. It's the quality of the student that test scores measure, not necessarily the quality of the teacher.

570721[/snapback]

 

I agree.

 

It really starts early.

 

Did you know that verbal/linguistic studies exist for babies and children living in different homes across the social-econmonic spectrum. The results were astounding.

 

Where babies and children in low-income, working poor household were exposed to 3/4 less words per day than would a child in a high-income, professional background household.

[colin]

I agree.

 

It really starts early.

 

Did you know that verbal/linguistic studies exist for babies and children living in different homes across the social-econmonic spectrum.  The results were astounding.

 

Where babies and children in low-income, working poor household were exposed to 3/4 less words per day than would a child in a high-income, professional background household.

572013[/snapback]

 

low income households are more likely to be filled with dumb slow ignorant people.

 

it is not a politically correct thing to say, but most smart people find a way to not be low income and most dumb people are low income because they just aren't good enough to make more.

 

tire factories need workers and mcdonalds needs people to mop the floor.

 

attempting to meaningfully educate all these people together is insane.

[RuntheDamnBall]

low income households are more likely to be filled with dumb slow ignorant people.

 

it is not a politically correct thing to say, but most smart people find a way to not be low income and most dumb people are low income because they just aren't good enough to make more.

 

tire factories need workers and mcdonalds needs people to mop the floor.

 

attempting to meaningfully educate all these people together is insane.

573495[/snapback]

Why not just come out and say that you support an aristocracy? That you're an elitist? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

 

It's idiotic to condemn a child's future due to accident of birth.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It's idiotic to condemn a child's future due to accident of birth.

573582[/snapback]

 

I agree with this, but the fact of life is, there's always someone smarter, faster or better out there.

 

Different people are predispositioned to different abilities largely by their genetics.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I agree with this, but the fact of life is, there's always someone smarter, faster or better out there.

 

Different people are predispositioned to different abilities largely by their genetics.

573773[/snapback]

Possibly, but there are often people who work harder than those who are gifted. They are/should be just as likely, if not more likely, to suceed.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Possibly, but there are often people who work harder than those who are gifted.  They are/should be just as likely, if not more likely, to suceed.

573813[/snapback]

 

Not lately.

 

Hard work isn't en vogue, you know.

[RuntheDamnBall]

low income households are more likely to be filled with dumb slow ignorant people.

 

it is not a politically correct thing to say, but most smart people find a way to not be low income and most dumb people are low income because they just aren't good enough to make more.

 

tire factories need workers and mcdonalds needs people to mop the floor.

 

attempting to meaningfully educate all these people together is insane.

573495[/snapback]

By the way, sounds like you're blissfully unaware of all the people out there who are ridiculously dumb yet fabulously wealthy for some reason.

 

Your equation of smarts with wealth is dubious at best.

 

If it were the case then the whole concept of education would be worthless -- the best and brightest would NEVER agree to a career that pays as poorly as education, because smart people = rich. At the same time, we'd be educated entirely by a crop of dopes. Not the case.

 

Many people are just satisfied with a station in life, whether it's laying tile or managing a staff of hundreds, or teaching a kid to read for around $30K a year. Your equations don't add up.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Not lately.

 

Hard work isn't en vogue, you know.

573814[/snapback]

You know, I agree with you there in a sense. However, I think an inner city kid who works his ass off should not be penalized by being born there.

 

Just as I think the kid who is gifted/privileged and lazy, and will likely end up succeeding anyway, shouldn't be given carte blanche.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You know, I agree with you there in a sense.  However, I think an inner city kid who works his ass off should not be penalized by being born there.

 

Just as I think the kid who is gifted/privileged and lazy, and will likely end up succeeding anyway, shouldn't be given carte blanche.

573819[/snapback]

 

Unless one is ridiculously wealthy by birth, IMO, it's nearly impossible to completely skate through life. Sooner or later choices will ahve to be made.

[colin]

By the way, sounds like you're blissfully unaware of all the people out there who are ridiculously dumb yet fabulously wealthy for some reason.

 

Your equation of smarts with wealth is dubious at best.

 

If it were the case then the whole concept of education would be worthless -- the best and brightest would NEVER agree to a career that pays as poorly as education, because smart people = rich.  At the same time, we'd be educated entirely by a crop of dopes.  Not the case.

 

Many people are just satisfied with a station in life, whether it's laying tile or managing a staff of hundreds, or teaching a kid to read for around $30K a year.  Your equations don't add up.

573817[/snapback]

 

read my post before flashing your good guy badge.

 

i said MORE LIKELY.

 

poor households are more likely to have dumb people. wealthier house holds (wealthier than low income/poor anyhow) are more likely to have more smart people.

 

i did not state smart = rich.

 

and the best and brightest DON'T go into education.

 

have you seen how horrible many schools in north america are, particularly compared to those in europe and asia?

 

do you think this all just inspite of how smart and dedicated teachers accross the nation are?

 

teachers aren't parents or miracle workers. they are civil servants who administer lesson curricula to children and young adults.

 

it certainly doesn't take the best and brightest to teach children, but a poorly organized badly executed government boondoggle educatino of an education system can certainly make meaningful education impossible.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Unless one is ridiculously wealthy by birth, IMO, it's nearly impossible to completely skate through life. Sooner or later choices will ahve to be made.

573836[/snapback]

You should visit a frat, I mean business school.