Steven Crowder: Obama's proposal for longer school days

Ironslave · Oct 8, 2009

Love this guy's stuff, he's usually right on the money in an entertaining way

Ryeland · Oct 9, 2009

Ironslave said:
Love this guy's stuff, he's usually right on the money in an entertaining way

That is pretty freaking funny. I love the one muppet freaking out, I think we should have more angry violent muppets on tv.

I think he misses the boat entirely on the extra time spent in school. I agree that kids should still have a childhood, but if the extra time were devoted to actually allowing kids to complete homework in class with the help of a teacher or devoted to a physical fitness regime the benefits could be enormous. I am not entirely sure what the Obama administration is recommending be done with the extra time, but devoting it to doing individual work at school instead of at home would helpful for many students as it would provide structure that they need to get it done.

School choice would almost certainly be a good thing. Teachers get far too sweet a ride. The problem that we in north america experience is the distance issue, our populations are so spread out that transportation to and from the "good schools" could be financially prohibitive. Overall he made some awesome points on this subject. However it does not address the inequality between the private and public school systems. One has to look at systemic barriers for the underprivileged to get ahead. Vouchers wouldn't necessarily help in getting rid of these barriers. As a voucher would likely only cover the cost per student already allocated, and if the school tuition is greater than that it poses the same old issue for the poor. I believe everyone deserves the same opportunities to succeed, what they do with those opportunities is up them.

Tech · Oct 9, 2009

how about we just cut out the middle man (public schools) and just send the kids directly to Afghanistan to fight the war.

Ironslave · Oct 9, 2009

Ryeland said:
I think he misses the boat entirely on the extra time spent in school. I agree that kids should still have a childhood, but if the extra time were devoted to actually allowing kids to complete homework in class with the help of a teacher or devoted to a physical fitness regime the benefits could be enormous. I am not entirely sure what the Obama administration is recommending be done with the extra time, but devoting it to doing individual work at school instead of at home would helpful for many students as it would provide structure that they need to get it done.

No, he doesn't miss the boat at all, the US test scores are falling seemingly every year, how is forcing them to stay in school, which is already failing at teaching them, going to help them? The kids already don't want to be there at all, neither do a large part of the teachers want to be there at all. So you know making the teachers stay longer won't sit well with them.

Let's do some math. The average elementary school size in the US us is around 500 kids probably for grades 1-5. So, you have probably 100 kids in each grade, lets divide that up and say each grade has 4 homerooms of 25 kids.

I normally think you make many great points Ryeland, but I find this one to be wayyyy off base. You think that a student would get more benefit more by being in school, where they don't want to be, with teachers that don't want to be there, with probably a 25-1 student-teacher ration, than they would being home getting 1 on 1 instruction from their parents? :umwtf:

..... Whose job is it to raise kids, the parents, or the governments?

How about the cost of this? Assuming a teacher makes around $30 an hour (who knows, you might need to consider this overtime pay and make it $40), on average let's say it costs an extra $140 per teacher salary per grade... multiply this by 5 (5 grades), you're looking at an extra $700 a day in teacher cost alone. Multiply that by 180 days (average # school days in the US), you're looking at a whopping extra $126,000 per school per year JUST for teacher salaries!

How about the salaries of the many other people associated with running the schools? Principals, VP's, secretaries, custodians, general maintenance costs, whatever else... not unreasonable to think that overall would raise the figure of $700 per day to close to $1000 per day (things always cost more than they are in the proposals).

Who is going to pay for this? The US is broke, the last thing in the world it needs to do is keep spending, ESPECIALLY on policies which are getting worse over time, it's like giving an alcoholic higher and higher doses of alcohol and hoping that it makes him sober up.

School choice would almost certainly be a good thing. Teachers get far too sweet a ride. The problem that we in north america experience is the distance issue, our populations are so spread out that transportation to and from the "good schools" could be financially prohibitive. Overall he made some awesome points on this subject. However it does not address the inequality between the private and public school systems. One has to look at systemic barriers for the underprivileged to get ahead. Vouchers wouldn't necessarily help in getting rid of these barriers. As a voucher would likely only cover the cost per student already allocated, and if the school tuition is greater than that it poses the same old issue for the poor. I believe everyone deserves the same opportunities to succeed, what they do with those opportunities is up them.

You know what is the single biggest barrier for providing everyone with the same opportunities? Life.

The thing about a voucher based system is that it allows more choice, which could provide opportunities to open up other schools and give them incentive to do a better job teaching so that people want their kids to go there! Competition between schools, like in every other service, is a good thing. At the same time, if I can afford to go to a prestigious school or send my kids to one, it's my right in a free society to do so. Just like if I have the money and desire to buy a Ferrari I can do it, rather than getting a Honda Civic.

Further, I am a strong, strong believer that school just gets in the way of your education. You don't need to go to the best schools to succeed in life. Of course you do need degrees, and going to prestigious schools does help you get your foot in the door, but once it is in the door, what you do in that field is infinite times more important for getting ahead.

Ryeland · Oct 9, 2009

Ironslave said:
No, he doesn't miss the boat at all, the US test scores are falling seemingly every year, how is forcing them to stay in school, which is already failing at teaching them, going to help them? The kids already don't want to be there at all, neither do a large part of the teachers want to be there at all. So you know making the teachers stay longer won't sit well with them.

So you are saying that kids don't want to go to school? Explain to me how this is a new phenomenon or one that isolated to the US? I never wanted to go to school. You are saying people don't want to go to work? Again this is nothing new, all one has to do is look at modern art and cinema to see the view society has on going to the rat race. While I agree that a new way should be found to motivate students and teachers I don't think the students desire to be there is all that important, as most kids don't like going to school.

Ironslave said:
Let's do some math. The average elementary school size in the US us is around 500 kids probably for grades 1-5. So, you have probably 100 kids in each grade, lets divide that up and say each grade has 4 homerooms of 25 kids.

Alright, that makes sense

Ironslave said:
I normally think you make many great points Ryeland, but I find this one to be wayyyy off base. You think that a student would get more benefit more by being in school, where they don't want to be, with teachers that don't want to be there, with probably a 25-1 student-teacher ration, than they would being home getting 1 on 1 instruction from their parents? ..... Whose job is it to raise kids, the parents, or the governments?

Yeah thats assuming that your parents aren't both working until 6 or 7pm and then not tired when they get home. I do think they would get more benefit in school learning study skills. The material you learn in elementary school is very important, reading, writing, basic math, these are all skills you very much need in life. I am not saying it is the governments job to raise kids, thats a terrible prospect. I am saying it is the teachers job to teach kids in the academic sense.

Ironslave said:
How about the cost of this? Assuming a teacher makes around $30 an hour (who knows, you might need to consider this overtime pay and make it $40), on average let's say it costs an extra $140 per teacher salary per grade... multiply this by 5 (5 grades), you're looking at an extra $700 a day in teacher cost alone. Multiply that by 180 days (average # school days in the US), you're looking at a whopping extra $126,000 per school per year JUST for teacher salaries!

With all the questionable military and other government spending that goes on this is nothing.

Ironslave said:
How about the salaries of the many other people associated with running the schools? Principals, VP's, secretaries, custodians, general maintenance costs, whatever else... not unreasonable to think that overall would raise the figure of $700 per day to close to $1000 per day (things always cost more than they are in the proposals).

Who is going to pay for this? The US is broke, the last thing in the world it needs to do is keep spending, ESPECIALLY on policies which are getting worse over time, it's like giving an alcoholic higher and higher doses of alcohol and hoping that it makes him sober up.

Take money out of an extremely wasteful military and this could easily be paid for. I agree that frivolous spending is always a bad idea but this is not frivolous.

Ironslave said:
You know what is the single biggest barrier for providing everyone with the same opportunities? Life.

And that means that we of a free and evolved society shouldn't attempt to make it better for everyone?

Ironslave said:
The thing about a voucher based system is that it allows more choice, which could provide opportunities to open up other schools and give them incentive to do a better job teaching so that people want their kids to go there! Competition between schools, like in every other service, is a good thing. At the same time, if I can afford to go to a prestigious school or send my kids to one, it's my right in a free society to do so. Just like if I have the money and desire to buy a Ferrari I can do it, rather than getting a Honda Civic.

Like i said, i agree with the first part of this. Competition between schools would be good. However this doesn't address the fact that if poorer people are getting a worse education the problems of our society won't get any better. You talk about giving alcohol to alcoholic to make him sober, well this is the exact same thing. Kids are unable to provide for themselves. So just because their parents may have not worked as hard as they should the kids education should have to suffer? It is certainly your right to send your kid to the best school you can. Any parent would and should do that.

Ironslave said:
Further, I am a strong, strong believer that school just gets in the way of your education. You don't need to go to the best schools to succeed in life. Of course you do need degrees, and going to prestigious schools does help you get your foot in the door, but once it is in the door, what you do in that field is infinite times more important for getting ahead.

As much as I love good will hunting, school in no way gets in the way of your education. As an engineering grad there is no way I could have learned everything I need anywhere other than school. I agree that your education at your job is usually more important, but school especially in the younger years is undeniably important. Learning to read and write are by far the most important skills one can ever learn. Followed by basic numeracy.

You're right you don't need to go to the best schools to get ahead, you need to be smart and motivated. But unfortunately in today's world without that piece of paper and a few letters behind your name you are going to quickly find a glass ceiling.

Finally education is most important because it teaches you whats out there. It teaches you there is something look for, you can be something. You know the biggest difference between poor families and rich ones? Children from the poor families drop out far more often than those from the rich families. Ingrained in the social conscience of those worse off is that education is useless and they are just going to be stuck at the bottom anyways.

There is a lot more to this than dollar signs and statistics.

Ironslave · Oct 9, 2009

Ryeland said:
So you are saying that kids don't want to go to school? Explain to me how this is a new phenomenon or one that isolated to the US? I never wanted to go to school. You are saying people don't want to go to work? Again this is nothing new, all one has to do is look at modern art and cinema to see the view society has on going to the rat race. While I agree that a new way should be found to motivate students and teachers I don't think the students desire to be there is all that important, as most kids don't like going to school.

It's not new, but it's getting worse and worse over time. The US public schools now are doing an awful job, they aren't learning there now, what else can be accomplished with an extra hour there?

Yeah thats assuming that your parents aren't both working until 6 or 7pm and then not tired when they get home. I do think they would get more benefit in school learning study skills. The material you learn in elementary school is very important, reading, writing, basic math, these are all skills you very much need in life. I am not saying it is the governments job to raise kids, thats a terrible prospect. I am saying it is the teachers job to teach kids in the academic sense.

Again, the schools already aren't teaching them the skills. They have more than enough time to teach basic fundamentals of learning already, but are doing a lousy job of it.

With all the questionable military and other government spending that goes on this is nothing. Take money out of an extremely wasteful military and this could easily be paid for. I agree that frivolous spending is always a bad idea but this is not frivolous.

While I completely agree with all of the military and otherwise government spending, let's do more math. There are approximately 90,000 schools in the US. multiply 90,000 schools, by 126,000 per school, means this will cost an extra 11,340,000,000, so this program would cost over 11 BILLION dollars per year... even though they already are doing a lousy job? :umwtf:

Come on, when you're dealing with these kind of figures, there's no way this can be considered rational.

And that means that we of a free and evolved society shouldn't attempt to make it better for everyone?

Of course we should, people should always help their fellow man when they can. But the issue isn't making things better for everyone, it's taking away the ability in a free society to spend the fruits of your labor as you please. I like the voucher program idea for education and health care, because it does allow some form of care for the extremely under privileged (so, nobody is getting left out in the streets), yet it allows those who have more to do as they want with it, and it cuts down on the massive wasteful spending of government. Should the government hire Johnny Cochran for all those accused of crimes but can't afford a lawyer on their own?

However this doesn't address the fact that if poorer people are getting a worse education the problems of our society won't get any better. You talk about giving alcohol to alcoholic to make him sober, well this is the exact same thing. Kids are unable to provide for themselves. So just because their parents may have not worked as hard as they should the kids education should have to suffer? It is certainly your right to send your kid to the best school you can. Any parent would and should do that.

There is absolutely no reason to think that the difference between the schools would be overly massive, especially today in the age of technology when you can essentially find everything for free on the internet. (I personally have tens of thousands of dollars worth of ebooks on my computer). If we lived in a world where this wasn't available and schools couldn't purchase reading materials, maybe this would make sense, but we don't. At the same time, just like if I get accused of a crime and I have the money to hire Johnny Cochran, I should sure as hell be able to do it.

As much as I love good will hunting, school in no way gets in the way of your education. As an engineering grad there is no way I could have learned everything I need anywhere other than school. I agree that your education at your job is usually more important, but school especially in the younger years is undeniably important. Learning to read and write are by far the most important skills one can ever learn. Followed by basic numeracy.

You get and need some basic foundation, sure, especially at the younger ages, but again, everything is out there, and being spoon fed cookie cutter nonsense in the classrooms is NOT the way to get educated. I've essentially learned everything in my field of physiology on my own, through books and journals, all of which are at a far higher level than what I would be exposed to in classes.

Getting back to the topic of elementary schools, again, they have much more than enough time already to teach the kids basic fundamentals, but they aren't doing it. THAT is the problem, not insufficient time.

You're right you don't need to go to the best schools to get ahead, you need to be smart and motivated. But unfortunately in today's world without that piece of paper and a few letters behind your name you are going to quickly find a glass ceiling.

As I said, in my last sentence "Of course you do need degrees, and going to prestigious schools does help you get your foot in the door, but once it is in the door, what you do in that field is infinite times more important for getting ahead."

The Harvard grad is going to have major advantages in getting their foot in the door immediately after graduation, absolutely, and maybe they might start a bit higher on the ladder because of it. But once they're in there, the fact that they went to Harvard means absolutely nothing. Someone who went to community college, started off lower on the ladder and did an amazing job is going to rise faster than the Harvard grad who isn't producing.

Finally education is most important because it teaches you whats out there. It teaches you there is something look for, you can be something. You know the biggest difference between poor families and rich ones? Children from the poor families drop out far more often than those from the rich families. Ingrained in the social conscience of those worse off is that education is useless and they are just going to be stuck at the bottom anyways.

No it doesn't, education today through federal and state/provincial governments is about providing cookie cutter resources where kids read the same books, meet the same standards, and so on. That is essentially teaching kids how to be mindless zombies who were all educated the same. More competition would allow more diversity in being exposed to different educational resources, which is a great thing.

If the poor kids are already dropping out of school, how is the extra hour at the school they dropped out of going to help them anyways? LOL... the problem is that these kids are just a statistic at larger schools and they get lost in the shuffle, don't get any personal attention, and get frustrated and give it up. If the government opened up much more competition there would be more schools popping up all over the place, where kids could get more attention in smaller class sizes.

There is a lot more to this than dollar signs and statistics.

There is, and unfortunately like the dollar signs and statistics, they don't make sense either.

Ryeland · Oct 11, 2009

Ironslave said:
It's not new, but it's getting worse and worse over time. The US public schools now are doing an awful job, they aren't learning there now, what else can be accomplished with an extra hour there?

They are learning. But the extra hour could allow for more individual work in a structured setting. The benefit of an hour of individual work is that it forces the student to learn how to solve problems and study. I, for one, have never much benefited from lectures, but given time in class to study without the distraction of the internet, tv and other influences i was always effective at learning the material. I agree that curriculums are screwed up, however more time to do individual work in a less distracted setting would be highly beneficial.

Ironslave said:
While I completely agree with all of the military and otherwise government spending, let's do more math. There are approximately 90,000 schools in the US. multiply 90,000 schools, by 126,000 per school, means this will cost an extra 11,340,000,000, so this program would cost over 11 BILLION dollars per year... even though they already are doing a lousy job? Come on, when you're dealing with these kind of figures, there's no way this can be considered rational.

The war in iraq costs an estimated (according the washington post) 12 billion a day. The article is herehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html. While I not arguing $11 billion a year is trivial, compared to cost of an illegal, fruitless and just downright stupid war, its nothing. If the american taxpayer can be expected to pay for that, why not education? Not saying that paying for this war is a good idea or even just in any sense. $11 billion a year spread over almost 400 million people is $27.50/year. I don't think thats an unreasonable amount.

Ironslave said:
Of course we should, people should always help their fellow man when they can. But the issue isn't making things better for everyone, it's taking away the ability in a free society to spend the fruits of your labor as you please. I like the voucher program idea for education and health care, because it does allow some form of care for the extremely under privileged (so, nobody is getting left out in the streets), yet it allows those who have more to do as they want with it, and it cuts down on the massive wasteful spending of government. Should the government hire Johnny Cochran for all those accused of crimes but can't afford a lawyer on their own?

Again what you are saying makes some sense. But this program does nothing to change the status quo. We are not talking about people who can provide for themselves. Elementary and Highschool students do not have the means to put themselves into the best schools. Because someone's parents are poor they should be disadvantaged from the get go? Listen, I agree with some conservative ideology on supply and demand and free markets, but like I have said in previous threads, some markets simply do not obey these rules. Look at Universities. I will use Ontario as an example because I am a student here. As the government has laxed tuition freezes on the schools the costs have been climbing every year without fail. While Industry opinion on the quality of education (the only true measure of efficacy in my opinion) of university graduates has been falling. I was on a provincial board of engineering students tasked with meeting with industry to go over issues, and this was the biggest one this year. As the university market has become increasingly privatized the quality of education has not improved. Its a captive market because they hold all the cards. They know people need a degree and they hold all the keys. Increased privatization will not automatically improve quality of education. I am not saying the government is the best supervisor for the schools, but private industry may not be either.

Ironslave said:
There is absolutely no reason to think that the difference between the schools would be overly massive, especially today in the age of technology when you can essentially find everything for free on the internet. (I personally have tens of thousands of dollars worth of ebooks on my computer). If we lived in a world where this wasn't available and schools couldn't purchase reading materials, maybe this would make sense, but we don't. At the same time, just like if I get accused of a crime and I have the money to hire Johnny Cochran, I should sure as hell be able to do it.

Provided you are computer literate and understand the value of the internet as more than a porn finder. The difference between schools already is quite large, and we already have the internet. I too have done almost all of my learning on my own through text books and the internet, but without a place to sharpen your information sorting skills you are useless. The main benefit of a teacher in my opinion is their ability to help you focus your studies. The internet provides too much information if you are not adept at sorting it and judging its validity. There are a million and one articles on the internet describing how to take a derivative, however not all of them are good, without someone showing helping you focus on the important parts it could be hard to get a clear and concise picture. A trial is a different matter, if you can afford Cochrane, go for it. But children are unable to provide for themselves, and shouldn't be expected to. Especially in the case of orphans or foster kids, what happens to them?

Ironslave said:
You get and need some basic foundation, sure, especially at the younger ages, but again, everything is out there, and being spoon fed cookie cutter nonsense in the classrooms is NOT the way to get educated. I've essentially learned everything in my field of physiology on my own, through books and journals, all of which are at a far higher level than what I would be exposed to in classes.

I learn in the same way you do, on my own. But it took me a while to learn how i learn, if you follow me. Cookie cutter learning is stupid, you will get no argument from me. But many people need guidance to learn. You and I have a very similar way of learning, that most don't share. We are talking on a bodybuilding forum and are therefore likely to be very determined and self-motivated. Many people are not like that.

Ironslave said:
Getting back to the topic of elementary schools, again, they have much more than enough time already to teach the kids basic fundamentals, but they aren't doing it. THAT is the problem, not insufficient time.

Spending extra time developing individual study skills with an extra hour a day would be extremely useful. I would argue that insufficient time is devoted to allowing children to learn proper study skills is the problem with the education system. One could argue, other than literacy and numeracy, the content learned at school is irrelevant, all that matters is the ability to study and learn. Giving more time for this could have a significant improvement.

Ironslave said:
As I said, in my last sentence "Of course you do need degrees, and going to prestigious schools does help you get your foot in the door, but once it is in the door, what you do in that field is infinite times more important for getting ahead."

The Harvard grad is going to have major advantages in getting their foot in the door immediately after graduation, absolutely, and maybe they might start a bit higher on the ladder because of it. But once they're in there, the fact that they went to Harvard means absolutely nothing. Someone who went to community college, started off lower on the ladder and did an amazing job is going to rise faster than the Harvard grad who isn't producing.

I agree but a disadvantaged person needs to get in that door quicker, cause they don't have the resources to kick around at some crap jobs before getting their shot. And like it or not, there is still and element of a "boys club" so to speak in business. The harvard guys will take care of the harvard guys, i have seen this first hand. That said, I want to reiterate that I do agree with you that past the foot in the door stage it is 99% up to the person to succeed.

Ironslave said:
No it doesn't, education today through federal and state/provincial governments is about providing cookie cutter resources where kids read the same books, meet the same standards, and so on. That is essentially teaching kids how to be mindless zombies who were all educated the same. More competition would allow more diversity in being exposed to different educational resources, which is a great thing.

I don't know what schools you went to, but for me I had all sorts of options about what books to read, what subjects to study. I was given all sorts of leeway on papers, research, projects. I went to public schools in Ontario. I had a great educational experience. More diverse learning opportunities will of course lead to a better education. I don't think privatization will guarantee diversity. Once a school develops a "successful" curriculum they generally stick with it. While school to school things would differ, the variance within a school cannot be assumed to increase. So individual students may not see an increase in variety. Schools don't create zombies, and certainly not anymore than kids being out of school would do. Imagine your life without all the friendships you developed at school. Schools do teach you about the career options open to you. Having rich and poor students in the same schools also helps break down social barriers and classism.

Ironslave said:
If the poor kids are already dropping out of school, how is the extra hour at the school they dropped out of going to help them anyways? LOL... the problem is that these kids are just a statistic at larger schools and they get lost in the shuffle, don't get any personal attention, and get frustrated and give it up. If the government opened up much more competition there would be more schools popping up all over the place, where kids could get more attention in smaller class sizes.

That point was addressed towards the voucher system and the value of the public school system, not towards extra time. However the benefit of extra time again that statistically each student will have greater odds each day of spending one on one time with a teacher. It also keeps kids off the streets and out of trouble for another hour, which in poorer areas is a factor contributing to drop out rates. I am not sure more schools would be created in the long run. Schools run as a business are bent on making profit. So the schools would eventually become like the schools of today, the cheapest way possible to get it done, this would allow the most profit. This would not be the case with all schools, as some would take the opposing approach and market themselves to higher income families, but these would be in the minority, just as they are now.

This is about more than just individual rights and fiscal ideologies. Schools are an indication of the state of our society. They are also a key way to improve our society. Public schools have greatly reduced the amount of racism in america today by the integration of white and black students. While I am certainly not comfortable with the government telling me when what isn't the best for me is the best for society, cases like the integration of races certainly prove the results can be positive. Separating schools based on class will only take us backwards.

lifterdead · Oct 11, 2009

I have yet to read all of Ryeland's comments, but as a public school teacher in New York City I feel I should weigh in on this one.

Extended day is not the answer. Nor has Obama properly framed the question.

Although I work at a public school, I have never doubted that a private education is better than a public one. The public school system is a massive, out-dated state run enterprise that does more harm than good.

This is a lengthy debate, but I will sum up my view as succinctly as possible:

Private education always trumps public education.

There are many reasons why. Perhaps the biggest reason public education is so screwed up is the cumbersome bureaucracy that controls it. Don't get me started on this.

There are other reasons, but the above should be reason enough to shut it all down and let private enterprise take over. A hundred little schools competing against each other is much preferable to a single monoculture that squashes everything daring and original.

Ryeland · Oct 11, 2009

lifterdead said:
I have yet to read all of Ryeland's comments, but as a public school teacher in New York City I feel I should weigh in on this one.

Extended day is not the answer. Nor has Obama properly framed the question.

Although I work at a public school, I have never doubted that a private education is better than a public one. The public school system is a massive, out-dated state run enterprise that does more harm than good.

This is a lengthy debate, but I will sum up my view as succinctly as possible:

Private education always trumps public education.

There are many reasons why. Perhaps the biggest reason public education is so screwed up is the cumbersome bureaucracy that controls it. Don't get me started on this.

There are other reasons, but the above should be reason enough to shut it all down and let private enterprise take over. A hundred little schools competing against each other is much preferable to a single monoculture that squashes everything daring and original.

It is interesting to hear the opinions of a public school teacher. Certainly there is a good measure of truth and insight in what you say.

I strongly agree that the way public schools are run is terrible, the bureaucracy is ridiculous. However I have never seen any 100% private school system in place in any country.

The public schools I went do did not squash daring and original thought, I was often encouraged to do things well outside of the norm.

Please justify how the public school system does more harm than good. That is a large blanket statement to make without any measure of qualification.

I am interested to hear your opinions on the contribution of teachers unions to the decline of the public education system. In my experience I have had some terrible teachers (bullies, physically and emotionally) who were impossible to get rid of.

I am open to more discussion, but at the moment I am unconvinced that a 100% privatized system is best for education, especially in the younger years.

lifterdead · Oct 11, 2009

Please justify how the public school system does more harm than good. That is a large blanket statement to make without any measure of qualification.

I am interested to hear your opinions on the contribution of teachers unions to the decline of the public education system. In my experience I have had some terrible teachers (bullies, physically and emotionally) who were impossible to get rid of.

I am open to more discussion, but at the moment I am unconvinced that a 100% privatized system is best for education, especially in the younger years.

Sure, I'd love to expand on this.

I'll address the issue of unions first. I belong to a union, of course. The union does some great things for teachers, but it also is a business with its own aims. I have seen the union throw its weight into politics with frightening results. It's a very powerful organization. At best, the union is a bureaucracy fighting another bureaucracy. Fighting fire with fire. Unlike many public school teachers, I've spent some time working in private education companies. I did not belong to a union during those years and did just fine.

A union is there to protect teachers from lousy administration. In private industry, however, lousy administrators don't stay in business long. Companies that abuse employees usually don't last very long. A perfect example is NOVA, an language company in Japan that at one time dominated the market. They started mistreating employees, made several bad policies, and presto! They went bankrupt.

Public schools aren't subject to laws of competition. Inept administrators can stay in control of school systems for an amazing amount of time. In sum, private enterprise tends not to need unions as much as public systems.

More harm than good is long explanation, but I'll start with this:

By attempting to satisfy everyone, the public school system ends up doing a disservice to everyone. It's a bit difficult to word this in a general statement, but that's the gist of it.

Before I go into listing examples in my next post, I want to make the following disclaimer

rivate ownership of education may be the best, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been success in some public schools.
Good teachers and good administrators can still make a difference, despite the system, NOT because of it.

MuscleMecca Crew

Ironslave · Oct 11, 2009

Ryeland said:
They are learning. But the extra hour could allow for more individual work in a structured setting. The benefit of an hour of individual work is that it forces the student to learn how to solve problems and study. I, for one, have never much benefited from lectures, but given time in class to study without the distraction of the internet, tv and other influences i was always effective at learning the material. I agree that curriculums are screwed up, however more time to do individual work in a less distracted setting would be highly beneficial.

Ryeland, it's a nice thought, but it won't work. So now the 11 billion dollars is so kids can have a 1 hr study hall? It's not going to force the kids to study. University and maybe some mature and motivated high school students might benefit without the distractions, but kids are just going to get bored, restless, talk to the kids beside them, and so on.

The war in iraq costs an estimated (according the washington post) 12 billion a day. The article is herehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html. While I not arguing $11 billion a year is trivial, compared to cost of an illegal, fruitless and just downright stupid war, its nothing. If the american taxpayer can be expected to pay for that, why not education? Not saying that paying for this war is a good idea or even just in any sense. $11 billion a year spread over almost 400 million people is $27.50/year. I don't think thats an unreasonable amount.

No arguments from me on the Iraq war, I'm as anti-war as they come. Compared to that, it's nothing, sure.... but Ted Bundy killing 100 people is trivial in comparison to Stalin killing millions. The big issue is that it is wasteful spending, which could be used towards something else. Hazlit said the best economic quote ever in saying:

The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.

so, while it doesn't seem like that much per person, it could be spent in a lot better other ways.

Again what you are saying makes some sense. But this program does nothing to change the status quo. We are not talking about people who can provide for themselves. Elementary and Highschool students do not have the means to put themselves into the best schools. Because someone's parents are poor they should be disadvantaged from the get go? Listen, I agree with some conservative ideology on supply and demand and free markets, but like I have said in previous threads, some markets simply do not obey these rules.

You're right, it does nothing to change the status quo, it just reinforces it, which is awful. It is an unfortunate reality that children of poor parents are disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean you should hold back the children that are advantaged/skilled from getting ahead. This is why I like the voucher based system, poor children aren't left out on the street, but done so in a way which promotes more schools, more competition, more diverse thinking, and rewards schools which do a good job by allowing parents to send their kids there, rather than the government forcing them to go to a particular school because of the zoning they live in.

Look at Universities. I will use Ontario as an example because I am a student here. As the government has laxed tuition freezes on the schools the costs have been climbing every year without fail. While Industry opinion on the quality of education (the only true measure of efficacy in my opinion) of university graduates has been falling. I was on a provincial board of engineering students tasked with meeting with industry to go over issues, and this was the biggest one this year. As the university market has become increasingly privatized the quality of education has not improved. Its a captive market because they hold all the cards. They know people need a degree and they hold all the keys. Increased privatization will not automatically improve quality of education. I am not saying the government is the best supervisor for the schools, but private industry may not be either.

The Canadian University system is in no way privatized at all. It's all SO heavily subsidized that the universities have monopolies, and government regulations and restrictions are what keeps the status quo, you said it yourself, "they hold all the cards." That's what happens with crony-capitalism, you essentially get the worst of both worlds.

Provided you are computer literate and understand the value of the internet as more than a porn finder. The difference between schools already is quite large, and we already have the internet. I too have done almost all of my learning on my own through text books and the internet, but without a place to sharpen your information sorting skills you are useless. The main benefit of a teacher in my opinion is their ability to help you focus your studies. The internet provides too much information if you are not adept at sorting it and judging its validity. There are a million and one articles on the internet describing how to take a derivative, however not all of them are good, without someone showing helping you focus on the important parts it could be hard to get a clear and concise picture. A trial is a different matter, if you can afford Cochrane, go for it. But children are unable to provide for themselves, and shouldn't be expected to. Especially in the case of orphans or foster kids, what happens to them?

You're getting way off track... this is about teachers in elementary schools. Schools no longer need to purchase hundreds of expensive text books, teachers can simply get every bit of information they would ever need for free, put it up on a projector for their class to see, and can print out readings for assignments or whatever.

Again too, this argument is about is it worth it to lengthen school days? None of these points are valid to this particular topic, since we were essentially discussing if it was worth it for kids to have an extra 1 hour glorified study hall.

Spending extra time developing individual study skills with an extra hour a day would be extremely useful. I would argue that insufficient time is devoted to allowing children to learn proper study skills is the problem with the education system. One could argue, other than literacy and numeracy, the content learned at school is irrelevant, all that matters is the ability to study and learn. Giving more time for this could have a significant improvement.

That's up to the parents to parent their kids, watch them and study with them at home, not the government's. Schools provide the very basics of foundation, then parents do their jobs and help kids learn, help them with their reading/writing, and so on.

That's all for me on this, I'll leave the floor to lifter.

Ironslave · Oct 11, 2009

lifterdead said:
Good teachers and good administrators can still make a difference, despite the system, NOT because of it.

Exactly, it doesn't matter if a kid goes to a less prestigious school if the school is fortunate to have a great teacher. More schools would make it easier for new teachers who will be great teachers to get their start as well.

lifterdead · Oct 12, 2009

My mantra will continue,

"By trying to satisfy everyone, no one gets what they need."

Point 1: Tests

Everyone hates to see low test scores. It doesn't look good to politicians and seems embarrassing when compared to test scores abroad. The solution? Demand higher scores! Mandate certain exams, punish schools that don't meet certain expectations, remove funding, threaten teacher jobs. Conversely, reward schools that meet or exceed demands.

Sounds like a good idea?

No Child Left Behind instituted this. As a result, I've been forced to spend an entire year on test prep, drop entire units from my curriculum, and seen students told by administration not to worry about science, social studies, art, and PE, because those test scores aren't counted.

This mistaken assumption behind this action is that standardized test reflect learning. They don't.

Even worse, No Child Left Behind makes all kinds of unreasonable demands. Special Education, for example, receives no accommodation on these tests. This means all children are held to the same standard tests, regardless if they are blind, autistic, disabled, etc. Can you seriously expect a mentally retarded child to perform on the same level mathematically as an average 16 year old? Should schools be punished if they don't?

Threatening schools to get higher test scores is not the answer. Government control of schools, however, leaves education at the mercy of political whims.

:deadhorse:

Ryeland · Oct 20, 2009

lifterdead said:
My mantra will continue,

"By trying to satisfy everyone, no one gets what they need."

Point 1: Tests

Everyone hates to see low test scores. It doesn't look good to politicians and seems embarrassing when compared to test scores abroad. The solution? Demand higher scores! Mandate certain exams, punish schools that don't meet certain expectations, remove funding, threaten teacher jobs. Conversely, reward schools that meet or exceed demands.

Sounds like a good idea?

No Child Left Behind instituted this. As a result, I've been forced to spend an entire year on test prep, drop entire units from my curriculum, and seen students told by administration not to worry about science, social studies, art, and PE, because those test scores aren't counted.

This mistaken assumption behind this action is that standardized test reflect learning. They don't.

Even worse, No Child Left Behind makes all kinds of unreasonable demands. Special Education, for example, receives no accommodation on these tests. This means all children are held to the same standard tests, regardless if they are blind, autistic, disabled, etc. Can you seriously expect a mentally retarded child to perform on the same level mathematically as an average 16 year old? Should schools be punished if they don't?

Threatening schools to get higher test scores is not the answer. Government control of schools, however, leaves education at the mercy of political whims.

I too hate no child left behind. You will get no argument from me that this policy is terrible.

"By trying to satisfy everyone, no one gets what they need."

I also agree with that statement. Punishing schools with low test scores in the dumbest thing I have ever heard, these are the schools that need more help, not less.

However, I am not convinced that private industry would do a better job with education (K-12) on a nation-wide scale. Education will always be at the whim of politics, whether private or public. Private industry is just as susceptible to public demand as the government.

I don't wanna delve too deeply into the whole funding issue and privatization argument until I do some further research. Some very good arguments have been made in this thread that I must investigate. If anyone can recommend any good reading on the subject I would be appreciative.

However I will close with the statement that while i do believe complete privatization is not the answer, some sort of hybrid system may prove to be effective.

lifterdead · Oct 20, 2009

Thanks for the discussion Rye!

Looking forward to more debate.

Ironslave · Oct 21, 2009

Ryeland said:
However I will close with the statement that while i do believe complete privatization is not the answer, some sort of hybrid system may prove to be effective.

I agree, which is why I like Friedman's proposals. It's not complete privatization, but it certainly encourages it to a large degree and allows school choice, promotes competition, and gets the government out of the way and cuts back on the massive red tape spending, while at the same time doesn't leave anybody on the street.

Ryeland · Oct 21, 2009

Ironslave said:
I agree, which is why I like Friedman's proposals. It's not complete privatization, but it certainly encourages it to a large degree and allows school choice, promotes competition, and gets the government out of the way and cuts back on the massive red tape spending, while at the same time doesn't leave anybody on the street.

One of my biggest concerns with private education is the lack of a "standard" so to speak. There isn't mandatory (in canada at least) accreditation for these places. While standardized testing is a way to make sure the students have learned something even it leaves something to be desired.

I agree with you both on the need to reduce bureaucracy and red tape while simultaneously abandoning no child left behind and increasing educational diversity. I guess my point is that I don't believe that the private sector has shown itself to be the definitive solution here.

My other concerns lie in the idea that education is for more than the scholastically gifted. I am a nerd, I love science and math, I love reading up on the latest research. And for my field, engineering, these are assets. However for those who are going to be mechanics, carpenters or plumbers they may be more hands on. It is my experience (correct me if i am wrong) that most private schools cater more to the academics among us compared to the hands on. While there could certainly be more technical education schools set up, one then runs the risk of less diverse learning environments. One of the big advantages of the public school system is the forced interaction among a wide variety of people.

Thoughts?

Ironslave · Oct 21, 2009

Ryeland said:
One of my biggest concerns with private education is the lack of a "standard" so to speak. There isn't mandatory (in canada at least) accreditation for these places. While standardized testing is a way to make sure the students have learned something even it leaves something to be desired.

Who decides the standard? Government? Their standards suck. Look at University classes, professors essentially have something called "academic freedom" where they are free to create and modify what they want to teach as they please (so long as it isn't anything like racist, hateful or anything else). If the standard of the school sucks, don't send your kids there.

I guess my point is that I don't believe that the private sector has shown itself to be the definitive solution here.

It hasn't been given the chance.

My other concerns lie in the idea that education is for more than the scholastically gifted. I am a nerd, I love science and math, I love reading up on the latest research. And for my field, engineering, these are assets. However for those who are going to be mechanics, carpenters or plumbers they may be more hands on. It is my experience (correct me if i am wrong) that most private schools cater more to the academics among us compared to the hands on. While there could certainly be more technical education schools set up, one then runs the risk of less diverse learning environments. One of the big advantages of the public school system is the forced interaction among a wide variety of people.

Thoughts?

Simple, don't waste the time of those who want to be engineers or scientists, and as you said, allow more schools which cater to those in trades and other areas and let them go there.

But, I'm not sure that anybody really knows what they want to do as a career for 100% certainty in high school, nevermind in middle and elementary schools, so I can't see there being too many, if any trades schools opening up for students in high schools and below.

Ryeland · Oct 22, 2009

Ironslave said:
Who decides the standard? Government? Their standards suck. Look at University classes, professors essentially have something called "academic freedom" where they are free to create and modify what they want to teach as they please (so long as it isn't anything like racist, hateful or anything else). If the standard of the school sucks, don't send your kids there.

Increasingly "Academic Freedom" doesn't truly exist. As more professional organizations (Engineering, Business, Law, Medicine etc) are beginning to put accreditation standards on universities. Engineering has gotten to the point where all schools learn almost the exact same thing in each program across canada. Certain programs defy this, such as the social sciences and what not. However should professional organizations certify elementary and high school education? I don't thinks so. Its not about whether or not the standard of the school sucks is about knowing where they stand.

Ironslave said:
It hasn't been given the chance.

A fair enough statement.

Ironslave said:
Simple, don't waste the time of those who want to be engineers or scientists, and as you said, allow more schools which cater to those in trades and other areas and let them go there.

But, I'm not sure that anybody really knows what they want to do as a career for 100% certainty in high school, nevermind in middle and elementary schools, so I can't see there being too many, if any trades schools opening up for students in high schools and below.

These are getting one response since I view them as interrelated. The trades education I got in high school led me to engineering. I loved my autoshop courses enough to want to design cars. Without access to those facilities I would not have found that. The beauty of a broad educational facility is that it allows you experience a wide variety of education easily. If you start super specializing schools you run into a problem.

To quote Robert Heinlein:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects

Privatization without some sort of standardization or guarantee of services offered would undoubtedly lead to earlier and earlier specialization. Which is a problem as people often don't know what they want to do even in to their 20's.

Ironslave · Oct 22, 2009

Ryeland said:
Increasingly "Academic Freedom" doesn't truly exist. As more professional organizations (Engineering, Business, Law, Medicine etc) are beginning to put accreditation standards on universities. Engineering has gotten to the point where all schools learn almost the exact same thing in each program across canada. Certain programs defy this, such as the social sciences and what not. However should professional organizations certify elementary and high school education? I don't thinks so. Its not about whether or not the standard of the school sucks is about knowing where they stand.

Is it a good thing though that the government is progressively increasing the cookie cutter information provided by a variety of schools, or a bad thing? I'd argue the latter, since the quality of schools is already decreasing on the government's watch. It's an awful idea to restrict skilled teachers and prevent them from teaching the things they wish to emphasize in favor of giving us all the same crap to just regurgitate back? If a teacher does a good job, send your kid there, if they do a lousy job, send your kid elsewhere.

These are getting one response since I view them as interrelated. The trades education I got in high school led me to engineering. I loved my autoshop courses enough to want to design cars. Without access to those facilities I would not have found that. The beauty of a broad educational facility is that it allows you experience a wide variety of education easily. If you start super specializing schools you run into a problem.

Ryeland, it is pretty naive to think there would be specialty schools for elementary/high schools, that's exactly my point. There is no way the elementary/high school schools are going to change to the point where they become pre medicine or pre engineering classes, or anything similar. First and many second year university classes don't even do this! Besides, again, if you don't like the school, don't send your kids there. But, I would think it would be pretty expected/encouraged that schools at the elementary level focus on an academic approach, and of course allow for other classes typically electives like shop, music, home ec, and whatever else (which, if anything, are the ones that get cut when the government makes program cuts, so more private schools would probably mean more of these, not less).

Steven Crowder: Obama's proposal for longer school days

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.

Tech

Ron Paul FTW

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.