A Proposal for Education Reform

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Senior USMB Moderator
Aug 12, 2009
37,810
7,317
1,140
In the center of it all
I’m a child of teachers. My parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles have all been teachers at one point or another.
I’ve spent my entire life hearing about the problems in our school systems - mostly from the perspective of AFT-member public school teachers. Combined with my own personal politic views and experiences, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the problems of our educational system.

The complexity of the problems, and the immediate barriers to reform - the opposing forces and lobbies, each with their own plans and explicit arguments against the opposition make the task of reform nearly impossible.

So I put some time into trying to think of a way to reform the education system that would both change the status quo, and still be politically feasible. (I'll be honest, this idea partially came from an episode of The West Wing, but I think it could work).

A "GI Bill" for teachers: Offer student loan forgiveness to new teachers who agree to teach in high-need areas for a certain number of years.

As I see it, that will both bring in new, young, and innovative teachers into the schools that need them the most, as well as injecting new blood into the Teacher's Unions, perhaps making them less resistant to change in the school system.

There are few ways to attack the problems with our school system that don't step on the toes of the Teacher's Union. This is one that I think could work.

Thoughts?
 
Neat post. I think I can even go so far as to say I would like the idea. Considering the state of some of our schools combat pay for teachers might be a good idea.

I hope this thread goes far
 
I have a love/hate relationship with the teaching "profession". What I love, of course, is the inherent honor it once had.

What I hate is the racket it has become. Mastery of subject matter is not even a second thought, rather mastery of a few principles of education that could be taught in maybe 24 credit hours (likely much less) that are revived, renamed, redefined, and overly redundant of each other to justify the necessity of a "major" in education.

Actual teaching of subject matter also has become a low priority with medicating, controlling diets, concern about self-esteem all over subject matter content. Those are topics for the parents.

When teachers get back to teaching and stop taking it upon themselves to parent, we may once again have a decent public education system.

On the flipside, parents need to let teachers teach.

Stop the overlap. Demarcate, don't conflate, the parent role and the teacher role.




Just for starters.
 
My reforms, do away with teacher unions, close the department of education and return all cotrol of schools to the local level and let them set their own standards. Quit teaching to the damn test.
 
I’m a child of teachers. My parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles have all been teachers at one point or another.
I’ve spent my entire life hearing about the problems in our school systems - mostly from the perspective of AFT-member public school teachers. Combined with my own personal politic views and experiences, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the problems of our educational system.

The complexity of the problems, and the immediate barriers to reform - the opposing forces and lobbies, each with their own plans and explicit arguments against the opposition make the task of reform nearly impossible.

So I put some time into trying to think of a way to reform the education system that would both change the status quo, and still be politically feasible. (I'll be honest, this idea partially came from an episode of The West Wing, but I think it could work).

A "GI Bill" for teachers: Offer student loan forgiveness to new teachers who agree to teach in high-need areas for a certain number of years.

As I see it, that will both bring in new, young, and innovative teachers into the schools that need them the most, as well as injecting new blood into the Teacher's Unions, perhaps making them less resistant to change in the school system.

There are few ways to attack the problems with our school system that don't step on the toes of the Teacher's Union. This is one that I think could work.

Thoughts?

While I like your idea, and definitely think it will attract new teachers, I don't think the problem is with not enough young teachers. I think the problem is on the parent's side. When I was a kid, if I mouthed off at school, my parents would get a call and I would get in trouble when I got home. Now if a kid mouths off at school, the parents threaten to sue because the teacher was being mean.

Positive change can happen, but it starts with parents supporting teachers again.
 

I can't agree with that proposal.

It might be because I'm a child of public schools that actually had a great public school experience (I went to some of the best public schools in the country), or it might be because I'm the child of two AFT members.

The majority of Americans don't have the resources or time to home school their kids, and even fewer can afford private school. I understand that people would be able to afford it if the government education system was completely eliminated - but even your website recognizes that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
 
I have a love/hate relationship with the teaching "profession". What I love, of course, is the inherent honor it once had.

What I hate is the racket it has become. Mastery of subject matter is not even a second thought, rather mastery of a few principles of education that could be taught in maybe 24 credit hours (likely much less) that are revived, renamed, redefined, and overly redundant of each other to justify the necessity of a "major" in education.

Actual teaching of subject matter also has become a low priority with medicating, controlling diets, concern about self-esteem all over subject matter content. Those are topics for the parents.

When teachers get back to teaching and stop taking it upon themselves to parent, we may once again have a decent public education system.

On the flipside, parents need to let teachers teach.

Stop the overlap. Demarcate, don't conflate, the parent role and the teacher role.




Just for starters.

I agree with this post 100%.

I think the way to change the "racket" that teaching has become is to flood the system with new, innovative teachers. People who don't worship the status quo.
 
I’m a child of teachers. My parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles have all been teachers at one point or another.
I’ve spent my entire life hearing about the problems in our school systems - mostly from the perspective of AFT-member public school teachers. Combined with my own personal politic views and experiences, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the problems of our educational system.

The complexity of the problems, and the immediate barriers to reform - the opposing forces and lobbies, each with their own plans and explicit arguments against the opposition make the task of reform nearly impossible.

So I put some time into trying to think of a way to reform the education system that would both change the status quo, and still be politically feasible. (I'll be honest, this idea partially came from an episode of The West Wing, but I think it could work).

A "GI Bill" for teachers: Offer student loan forgiveness to new teachers who agree to teach in high-need areas for a certain number of years.

As I see it, that will both bring in new, young, and innovative teachers into the schools that need them the most, as well as injecting new blood into the Teacher's Unions, perhaps making them less resistant to change in the school system.

There are few ways to attack the problems with our school system that don't step on the toes of the Teacher's Union. This is one that I think could work.

Thoughts?

While I like your idea, and definitely think it will attract new teachers, I don't think the problem is with not enough young teachers. I think the problem is on the parent's side. When I was a kid, if I mouthed off at school, my parents would get a call and I would get in trouble when I got home. Now if a kid mouths off at school, the parents threaten to sue because the teacher was being mean.

Positive change can happen, but it starts with parents supporting teachers again.

I don't disagree with you, but I don't know anyway to "reform" parenting...
 

I can't agree with that proposal.

It might be because I'm a child of public schools that actually had a great public school experience (I went to some of the best public schools in the country), or it might be because I'm the child of two AFT members.

The majority of Americans don't have the resources or time to home school their kids, and even fewer can afford private school. I understand that people would be able to afford it if the government education system was completely eliminated - but even your website recognizes that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Of course you cannot agree with it...Those who've bought into the omniscience of the state rarely do.

For those who like to play the disingenuous "the parents aren't involved" card, from the site:

Parents give up their rights when their children cross the threshold of the public school door. This was recently made crystal clear by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.



When a few parents in Palmdale, California learned that their children's school had permitted researchers to interview first, third and fifth grade students about such things as sexual urges and fantasies, they became outraged and took the matter to court.



The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case and concluded that when parents place their children in a public school, they forfeit any right to determine what or how their children are taught. The school may teach anything it wishes in any way it wishes. It may allow researchers, special interests, social activists, and anyone else it chooses access to students. The court's decision confirmed earlier court opinions.
 
Sorry, but that idea is at best, a minor tweak to a system that is fundamentally broken....a Band Aid on broken back as it were.

The business of educating children can be easily reformed by the simple introduction of competition. If we allow American entrepreneurs to bring capital, creativity, and efficiency into education, the results would improve and the costs would decrease dramatically.

If you're worried about poor kids getting an education, make a case for the redistribution of money for the purposes of paying for the education of the children of poor parent(s). However, it is critical that all parents have CHOICE, choice only a free(ish) market can provide. But the idea that government should run schools, from what's in the text books to how many taters tots are served for lunch is ridiculous. Just look at the skyrocketing cost of education and tanking results for all the proof in the world.
 
I have a love/hate relationship with the teaching "profession". What I love, of course, is the inherent honor it once had.

What I hate is the racket it has become. Mastery of subject matter is not even a second thought, rather mastery of a few principles of education that could be taught in maybe 24 credit hours (likely much less) that are revived, renamed, redefined, and overly redundant of each other to justify the necessity of a "major" in education.

Actual teaching of subject matter also has become a low priority with medicating, controlling diets, concern about self-esteem all over subject matter content. Those are topics for the parents.

When teachers get back to teaching and stop taking it upon themselves to parent, we may once again have a decent public education system.

On the flipside, parents need to let teachers teach.

Stop the overlap. Demarcate, don't conflate, the parent role and the teacher role.




Just for starters.

I agree with this post 100%.

I think the way to change the "racket" that teaching has become is to flood the system with new, innovative teachers. People who don't worship the status quo.
I think that's a great idea.

But, there is still that necessity of the 'major' in education. Just from personal experience, I used to be a college prof of chemistry. One student, whose final grade was a D-, and that was by a single point that she missed the F, was a education major. Her concentration was secondary ed science education.

She scared the crap out of me. She graduated, is likely teaching science in some high school, and she could barely tell the difference between an atom and a molecule. I am not kidding.

THAT is not a good thing.

If her major were any of the sciences, she either would not have graduated, actually applied herself and learned the subject matter, or changed her career goals.

But, because she had that Ed. degree, she is teaching a subject she has absolutely no business teaching.
 
Last edited:

I can't agree with that proposal.

It might be because I'm a child of public schools that actually had a great public school experience (I went to some of the best public schools in the country), or it might be because I'm the child of two AFT members.

The majority of Americans don't have the resources or time to home school their kids, and even fewer can afford private school. I understand that people would be able to afford it if the government education system was completely eliminated - but even your website recognizes that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Of course you cannot agree with it...Those who've bought into the omniscience of the state rarely do.
The "omniscience of the state"?

I don't believe "the state" is "omniscient". In fact, I think "the state" is incompetent. The system is falling apart.

But the solution presented by your website simply won't work.

For those who like to play the disingenuous "the parents aren't involved" card, from the site:

Parents give up their rights when their children cross the threshold of the public school door. This was recently made crystal clear by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.



When a few parents in Palmdale, California learned that their children's school had permitted researchers to interview first, third and fifth grade students about such things as sexual urges and fantasies, they became outraged and took the matter to court.



The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case and concluded that when parents place their children in a public school, they forfeit any right to determine what or how their children are taught. The school may teach anything it wishes in any way it wishes. It may allow researchers, special interests, social activists, and anyone else it chooses access to students. The court's decision confirmed earlier court opinions.
[/quote]
Why do all the major complaints against the public school system always boil down to "I don't want my school teaching my kids _______"?
 
I have a love/hate relationship with the teaching "profession". What I love, of course, is the inherent honor it once had.

What I hate is the racket it has become. Mastery of subject matter is not even a second thought, rather mastery of a few principles of education that could be taught in maybe 24 credit hours (likely much less) that are revived, renamed, redefined, and overly redundant of each other to justify the necessity of a "major" in education.

Actual teaching of subject matter also has become a low priority with medicating, controlling diets, concern about self-esteem all over subject matter content. Those are topics for the parents.

When teachers get back to teaching and stop taking it upon themselves to parent, we may once again have a decent public education system.

On the flipside, parents need to let teachers teach.

Stop the overlap. Demarcate, don't conflate, the parent role and the teacher role.




Just for starters.

I agree with this post 100%.

I think the way to change the "racket" that teaching has become is to flood the system with new, innovative teachers. People who don't worship the status quo.
I think that's a great idea.

But, there is still that necessity of the 'major' in education. Just from personal experience, I used to be a college prof of chemistry. One student, whose final grade was a D-, and that was by a single point that she missed the F, was a education major. Her concentration was secondary ed science education.

She scared the crap out of me. She graduated, is likely teaching science in some high school, and she could barely tell the difference between an atom and a molecule. I am not kidding.

THAT is not a good thing.

If her major were any of the sciences, she either would not have graduated, actually applied herself and learned the subject matter, or changed her career goals.

But, because she had that Ed. degree, she is teaching a subject she has absolutely no business teaching.

I certainly can agree with reforming "education" education as well.:cool:
 
Sorry, but that idea is at best, a minor tweak to a system that is fundamentally broken....a Band Aid on broken back as it were.

The business of educating children can be easily reformed by the simple introduction of competition. If we allow American entrepreneurs to bring capital, creativity, and efficiency into education, the results would improve and the costs would decrease dramatically.

If you're worried about poor kids getting an education, make a case for the redistribution of money for the purposes of paying for the education of the children of poor parent(s). However, it is critical that all parents have CHOICE, choice only a free(ish) market can provide. But the idea that government should run schools, from what's in the text books to how many taters tots are served for lunch is ridiculous. Just look at the skyrocketing cost of education and tanking results for all the proof in the world.

I don't think selling grades to the highest bidder is a good way to educate the population.
 
Why do all the major complaints against the public school system always boil down to "I don't want my school teaching my kids _______"?

Because in a free market, you can go to another school if you don't like what they're teaching. Not the case for all but the rich when government socializes markets, including the market for education.
 
Improving of our schools depends on improving of our teachers. Improving of our teachers cannot happen without weakening or disbanding the teachers unions. Teachers must be hired and maintained on a merit system. Their job security should be based solely on their performance in turning out educated students NOT on their membership in a union.

The fact that some bimbo may have been a paying member of a union for ten years has no bearing on that bimbo's qualifications as a teacher.

Test the students...grade the teachers...fire the ones that fail.
 
Sorry, but that idea is at best, a minor tweak to a system that is fundamentally broken....a Band Aid on broken back as it were.

The business of educating children can be easily reformed by the simple introduction of competition. If we allow American entrepreneurs to bring capital, creativity, and efficiency into education, the results would improve and the costs would decrease dramatically.

If you're worried about poor kids getting an education, make a case for the redistribution of money for the purposes of paying for the education of the children of poor parent(s). However, it is critical that all parents have CHOICE, choice only a free(ish) market can provide. But the idea that government should run schools, from what's in the text books to how many taters tots are served for lunch is ridiculous. Just look at the skyrocketing cost of education and tanking results for all the proof in the world.

At what point in history has a private, free-market education system ever worked?
 
Sorry, but that idea is at best, a minor tweak to a system that is fundamentally broken....a Band Aid on broken back as it were.

The business of educating children can be easily reformed by the simple introduction of competition. If we allow American entrepreneurs to bring capital, creativity, and efficiency into education, the results would improve and the costs would decrease dramatically.

If you're worried about poor kids getting an education, make a case for the redistribution of money for the purposes of paying for the education of the children of poor parent(s). However, it is critical that all parents have CHOICE, choice only a free(ish) market can provide. But the idea that government should run schools, from what's in the text books to how many taters tots are served for lunch is ridiculous. Just look at the skyrocketing cost of education and tanking results for all the proof in the world.

I don't think selling grades to the highest bidder is a good way to educate the population.

Red herring. If any school simply sold grades, their reputation as educators would soon be tarnished, sending their customers elsewhere.
 

Forum List

Back
Top