A Proposal for Education Reform

[asaratis]

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?

Colleges do quite well...have done well for hundreds of years. It is the government run schools that are screwed up.

 

[Si modo]

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. Now, will the racket designers ever allow that?

That would be the union. (ETA: in collusion with the Department of Education.)

 

[eflatminor]

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?

At what point has it ever been tried? You meddling central planners who think you know what is best for others have been with us forever.

That said, we had no Federal involvement in education for the majority of our country's existence. Since then, and billions of dollars later, results have tanked and costs have gone through the roof. You think MORE central planning the answer? That lacks logic and reason.

 

[Oddball]

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 gubmint schools exist by, of and in the name of proactive force...That and the general "if you don't like it, you can lump it" attitude that you get from virtually any given monopoly.

Why is it almost all arguments by the state educrats boil down to "the parents are too stupid, bigoted, disinterested, and generally incompetent, so we need to tell the chilluns how to live"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I have a mixed view of Teacher's Unions. On one hand, I support organized labor in general, and both of my parents and half my extended family are AFT members.

On the other hand, I agree with many of the points that you've made. Teacher's Unions are one of the biggest obstacles to reforming the system.

The reality of the situation is that Teacher's Unions aren't going anywhere.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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'm not even getting in to that yet. I'd be happy with people not making teachers the enemy.

If you don't respect teachers, why do you think your kids would?

 

[Oddball]

I'm not even getting in to that yet. I'd be happy with people not making teachers the enemy.

If you don't respect teachers, why do you think your kids would?

Yet state educrats are still completely free to make the parents the enemy.

If you don't respect the parents, why would they respect you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

Colleges do quite well...have done well for hundreds of years. It is the government run schools that are screwed up.

Colleges work in a free-market system because going to college isn't required, and not everyone goes.

You're not going to be able to convince me that we should have an optional education system in the country.

 

[eflatminor]

"Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive." CL

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm not even getting in to that yet. I'd be happy with people not making teachers the enemy.

If you don't respect teachers, why do you think your kids would?

Yet state educrats are still completely free to make the parents the enemy.

If you don't respect the parents, why would they respect you?

I would love to hear you give an example of teachers making the parents out to be the enemy,

 

[eflatminor]

You're not going to be able to convince me that we should have an optional education system in the country.

Nobody said it should be optional, just not run by government bureaucrats. If a state wants to force children to receive an education, as many do, that's fine.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not even getting in to that yet. I'd be happy with people not making teachers the enemy.

If you don't respect teachers, why do you think your kids would?

Yet state educrats are still completely free to make the parents the enemy.

If you don't respect the parents, why would they respect you?

I would love to hear you give an example of teachers making the parents out to be the enemy,

The entire "the parents aren't involved" rubric....I just posted a 9th Circus decision that says the schools can do whatever the fuck they want, no matter how involved the parents make themselves.

Face it, the state has zero respect for the wishes of the parents, insofar as how and what their kids are taught.....ZERO.

 

[eflatminor]

I would love to hear you give an example of teachers making the parents out to be the enemy,

Debbie Squires Michigan Education Testimony Taken Down From Internet | Parents Don‘t Know What’s Best | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[Si modo]

Yet state educrats are still completely free to make the parents the enemy.

If you don't respect the parents, why would they respect you?

I would love to hear you give an example of teachers making the parents out to be the enemy,

The entire "the parents aren't involved" rubric....I just posted a 9th Circus decision that says the schools can do whatever the fuck they want, no matter how involved the parents make themselves.

Face it, the state has zero respect for the wishes of the parents, insofar as how and what their kids are taught.....ZERO.

Then those parents should home school. I don't think the 9th Circuit outlawed that.

Parents are parents. Teachers are teachers. If the parents fail doing their part, it's a crying shame, but that role should NEVER have been adopted, even in part, by any educator in a regular public school. If the parents feel that the teachers are failing in teaching, or they don't like what teachers are teaching, then they can home school.

But, IMO, A huge problem is when teachers started taking it upon themselves to parent rather than concentrating on subject matter and parents started trying to control teaching of subject matter. It's a freaking mess, now.

 

[eflatminor]

If the parents feel that the teachers are failing in teaching, or they don't like what teachers are teaching, then they can home school.

True, but shouldn't they also be free to go to another school...or start one of their own? Can't do that (unless you're rich) when government monopolizes the K-12 educational system.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If the parents feel that the teachers are failing in teaching, or they don't like what teachers are teaching, then they can home school.

True, but shouldn't they also be free to go to another school...or start one of their own? Can't do that (unless you're rich) when government monopolizes the K-12 educational system.

You're ignoring the reality of the situation.

The public school system isn't going anywhere. I understand that you don't agree with it. In some ways, neither do I. But it's not going anywhere.

The only realistic way to reform the system is to change it from within, not tear it down to nothing and rebuild.

 

[Oddball]

If the parents feel that the teachers are failing in teaching, or they don't like what teachers are teaching, then they can home school.

True, but shouldn't they also be free to go to another school...or start one of their own? Can't do that (unless you're rich) when government monopolizes the K-12 educational system.

You're ignoring the reality of the situation.

The public school system isn't going anywhere. I understand that you don't agree with it. In some ways, neither do I. But it's not going anywhere.

The only realistic way to reform the system is to change it from within, not tear it down to nothing and rebuild.

Translation: If you don't like it, you can lump it.

 

[eflatminor]

The public school system isn't going anywhere.

I suspect the Soviet farmers previously referred to felt exact the same way.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

True, but shouldn't they also be free to go to another school...or start one of their own? Can't do that (unless you're rich) when government monopolizes the K-12 educational system.

You're ignoring the reality of the situation.

The public school system isn't going anywhere. I understand that you don't agree with it. In some ways, neither do I. But it's not going anywhere.

The only realistic way to reform the system is to change it from within, not tear it down to nothing and rebuild.

Translation: If you don't like it, you can lump it.

Pretty much. That's how the world works.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're not going to be able to convince me that we should have an optional education system in the country.

Nobody said it should be optional, just not run by government bureaucrats. If a state wants to force children to receive an education, as many do, that's fine.

Are you arguing for a State-controlled education system instead of a Federal one?

Or are you arguing for an entirely free-market system?