public schooling

[TMA_1]

I want to make one thing clear first.

My family is pretty poor. my mom is the only one that works and she right now is  making about 20,000 a year, it used to be worse.  we have a family of 5 so yikes. How do I haev a computer? well you will find that most people spend things on cars, clothes, social accessories. Whenever we as a family get spending cash, we get stuff that we like. (like my art supplies, computer stuff and so on.)

anyways.

I was reading The Screwtape Letters and talks about how democracy can be tainted. That even though it is probably the most failproof system at this time, it can be infected many different ways with problems. The biggest one it mentions deals with aristotles problem with democracy.

Will a democracy work according to it's political ideology, meaning voting rights and so on,

or will it work based on trying to make a democracy work (meaning, will it just try to keep itself alive, thereby cutting off important ideals that democracy has).

It is worded better in the book, but that is basically what it comes down to.

He talks about how a democracy can be tainted. Simply instill an overdone equality in people. So much so that all sorts of excellence is hated because it lowers those who in a sense, dont excel in things.

So that a great student has to be put back with kids who arent at his or her level of success, thereby making him or her deficiant in their capabilities.

He goes on to talka bout how the best way of doing this is. He says that the education system needs to be government subsidised. Once it is a government education system then all ideas of excellence is destroyed. (i.e. anybody can get in, nobody who wants to strive to better themselves will be placed in higher posts. those that are at a lower level are placed with those at a higher level, and those that are on a higher level are put back because it would be unfair to students at a lower level.)

The idea of government funded schooling is socialistic in it's ideals. What it does is put everything at a level playing field, but by doing that you have to lower things to the lowest common denominator. It is impossible to "sink everybody at their own level". That idea is naively utopian and silly. It just doesnt work that way in the real world.

I have a feeling that government funded education is the wrong way to go. It puts back kids who wish to excel, it makes things level to a point where things become numb.

It is getting to that point in Colleges around the western hemisphere. Where people can get a college education through many means now days, and College itself has seemed to have lost it's greatness. No longer is it an established sort of thing, but is a deploma factory of sorts.

Public education not only lowers competition, but it is hopelessly in danger of propaganda-like methods of teaching (egeides, dont freak out about the word I used. ;) hehe, just kidding man. :)  )

The government oversees how schools teach, how they work, what they do, how teachers act and so on. This limits teaching massively.

I just fear that america's education system is growing dull, and that manditory education from a government subsidised education system seems to be the wrong way to go.

what do you guys think?

[Andrew]

It is getting to that point in Colleges around the western hemisphere. Where people can get a college education through many means now days, and College itself has seemed to have lost it's greatness. No longer is it an established sort of thing, but is a deploma factory of sorts.

I'm not sure what kind of college's you are talking about (community, etc. or if you are including universities) but as for university as one professor put it in first year business class The person sitting next to you will not be here next year which means the person failed or dropped out. (I had 4 friends drop out last year)

I agree that education does not seem as prestigious as it used to and will not make you a larger margin of income compared to decades ago. (but it still does provide a lot more money for a job, but it costs too much to go to...)

The government oversees how schools teach, how they work, what they do, how teachers act and so on. This limits teaching massively.

I think the professors have some input as to what they teach, some can choose what books to teach with, and the university as a whole works on it's own. The government may set down some guidelines. That's how I see my university.

[thomas]

if you live in louisianna and got your high school diploma you'll automatically get accepted with a full-scholorship to LSU if you apply :O

for all califronia state schools (UCLA,UCB,UCI, UCSD, UCSB. . .) if you get in you only pay registartion fees

[Anathema]

Well, I'll describe our education a bit...

From about 12 years old kids attend "middle school", wich is what you would call high school. It used to be divided in 4 levels: VBO (lowest), MAVO (average- VBO and MAVO have fused recently and is now called VMBO), HAVO (above average, VWO (highest).

In VMBO middle school usually takes 4 years to get your diploma, in VWO (the most challenging branch) usually takes 6.

A similar division in degrees of difficulty is found in college (university being the highest).

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm not sure what the strive is of this thread, but here are my thoughts concerning education, people & jobs.

I think the government should set some guidelines (like Andrew said), but it should be up to schools how/when and from what they teach. Although the general lecture should be the same.

And as far as highly schooled and lower schooled people... Personally I will never judge a person (or would hire a person) just based on the fact that they are higher schooled. From personal experience, higher schooled doesn't mean they're more fitted to do a certain job. I've seen high school people fail miserably in a certain job, while a lower schooled person excelled in that same job.

Do not forget that some people (like me) have a fear for doing exams (not sure what you call it in English). When I need to prepare for an exam, I truely know my stuff. I can take test exams and pass them easily. But when the exam comes that counts, I somehow get in some sort of shock (if you can call it that) and forget everything I learned (which I previously knew without a hitch).

Due to that, I haven't been able to finish school. Although I explained my teacher that, he told me bluntly that I would end up on the streets, without a home, without a job and money.

Some time ago I saw him riding his bike to school (he doesn't have a driving lisence) in the rain, while I was on my way to work in my new BMW. I did honk the horn and smiled friendly at him like I was just saying hello. I can only imagine what he must have thought (probably I was dealing drugs).

People's education doesn't always tell you how smart or how knowledgable a person is. I'm not saying it's always the case, but it may not be as black and white as it seems. If people truely want, they can achieve most of their dreams.

I have a feeling that government funded education is the wrong way to go. It puts back kids who wish to excel, it makes things level to a point where things become numb.

It puts kids back who wish to excel... what about the poor who wish to excel, but can't afford it ? I think you may well have stated that the lower paid jobs are for the poor, while the higher paid jobs are for the richer... Cause if the government isn't funding education (at least for the poor), they'll never will be able to receive a higher education (which is needed to get a higher paid job with most companies)..

[Edric O]

Once it is a government education system then all ideas of excellence is destroyed. (i.e. anybody can get in, nobody who wants to strive to better themselves will be placed in higher posts. those that are at a lower level are placed with those at a higher level, and those that are on a higher level are put back because it would be unfair to students at a lower level.)

Excuse me? I wasn't aware that the best way to determine a student's worth is by looking at how much money his parents have... ::)

Private schools discriminate on the basis of WEALTH. By giving everyone a free education, government-funded schools eliminate that discrimination.

And tell me, HOW exactly does public education harm people who wish to excel? What if there is an extremely intelligent kid whose parents are too poor to put him in a private school? In that case, public education is his only hope to excel and to rise out of poverty.

Your argument seems to be that the masses need to be kept illiterate and uneducated in order for the privileged few to feel good about themselves. Ridiculous.

Public education lowers "competition"? Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, public education prevents a monopoly. It prevents the rich from having a monopoly over knowledge.

It is getting to that point in Colleges around the western hemisphere. Where people can get a college education through many means now days...

So you want to get back to the days when only aristocrats could get a college education? ::)

The debate about private vs. public education has nothing to do with excellence vs. mediocrity. It has everything to do with snobbish elitism vs. respect for all human beings.

I just fear that america's education system is growing dull, and that manditory education from a government subsidised education system seems to be the wrong way to go.

America has one of the weakest and most under-funded public education systems in the world. Nearly all other governments invest more money into free public education, and the result is that the average European high school student is better educated than the average American high school student.

Public education has a superb historical record. It brought knowledge and enlightenment to the vast majority of the people, it practically eradicated illiterracy in the Western world, it made the information age possible.

Here is another topic in which we discussed education, and in which I presented my arguments. Notice that in the end, everyone agreed that public education (government-funded, not necessarely government-controlled) is absolutely essential. The question is whether private education should exist at all.

It all comes down to this:

All human beings deserve to begin with the same chances in life. Therefore, all children deserve a free and equal education.

[Edric O]

And yes, of course public education is a socialist idea. Many of the hallmarks of what we call "the civilized world" are socialist ideas. Socialist ideas are what separates our society from the barbarity of the 19th century.

Here is what Albert Einstein had to say about education in his essay, "Why Socialism?":

"[...]

The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

[...]"

- Albert Einstein, 1949

[Andrew]

My family has no money eithor. That is what student loans are for to get an education. If your family is poor like mine you can easily get < $12 000 a year for a loan, but I'm lucky and only need $5 000 (so in debt 20-25k in 2 more years) To pay to live and go to university costs around 12k (but this

[HasimirFenring]

I dont know about your school, TMA, but my PUBLIC high school certianly doesnt lower anyone to the lowest common denominator.

Sure there are a few classes that are mandatory and a waste of time, but you can still get a first rate education.  We offer advanced and honors classes in the sciences, math, literature, social studies and several other fields.  If you take the initiative in your education, a public school can be just as good (and often better) than a private one. 

Just how does being at a public school prevent us from excelling?  please help me understand here ::).

[nemafakei]

Interesting. At your schools, does there not exist a notion of streaming/banding/setting (there are many names), whereby those with better ability are taught alongside their academic peers - so teachers can specialise either in the basics of a subject, ensuring that the fundamentals at least are well understood or, in higher sets/bands, in the subtleties, so that the intricacies of each subject are mastered by those more able to acheive?

(Yes, that is actually a question, in case you'd forgotten where the sentence began... I almost did)

I'm not sure if this iss what Hasimir is talking about, it might be.

Personally, I believe that those who can benefit most from the best education should not be denied it. To begin with, under current systems, that means scholarships and bursaries, while the state education system is being improved so that it's every bit as good as private schools.

[EWS]

Thought I would share my views on this.  I school in Scotland, and from expierience I know how different the school system is in America.  In October of 2003 I attended Mount Dora High School for a month, and boy was it different.  One of the main big differences was freedom.  To me it didn't seem that there was a good degree of freedom for children in America.  There was a huge emphasis on going to college and that it was the be all and end all, and that if they didn't they would be a failure.  This sort of pressure then lead to families going into debt beacuse they want their children to go to college and to me that isnt ideal. 

I found many other things as well but they are really releated to attitudes, and I doubt people want to read me bitching about their country.  However in Scotland, our University is free, all we need to do is pay for housing and living expenses.

[Andrew]

However in Scotland, our University is free, all we need to do is pay for housing and living expenses.

Guess I will be getting a visa and moving there ASAP. ;)

What do you mean by freedom? There is a time schedule you have to follow or what you are allowed to say/do?

[TMA_1]

That is what I am getting at edric, the poor who wish to learn (like me) would recieve grants and funds INDIVIDUALLY from the government. a beurocracy set to oversee funds given to people for schooling would be good. Instead of allowing all to go to school, where many dont wish to succeed is just silly.

and no nema, at my highschool, there were no programs for elevating kids who were brighter or more intelligent. The only thing that MIGHT have been done was elevate the grade level, which is really crude.

The standard of excellence is wasted on government funded schooling. The idea to plop all kids into one area of learning is horrific. NOw days if you are 6, no tests are done, you are put in 1st grade and are taught like everybody else. There is no standard of excellence where tests are done to let people rise or lower their education level based on their needs. It is vanilla, one sided. You are stuck in the grade level chosen to you based on your age. In most cases (and over here where I live, all cases) that is how it works.

And edric, stop putting words in peoples mouths. The propaganda i was talking about hasent been wasted on you. You eagerly jump at points in time to accuse people of saying things that werent said. A symptom of oversensitivity (not for the people though) and a lack of reason.

I dont want poor kids to be illiterate ::)  Hell I grew up in a very poor family, my handicapped sister needed to be taken care of. I had to get some sort of schooling, And public school didnt help me!

at 7th grade, I was reading at a first grade reading level, they shuffled me around in classes where kids were reading at a normal level. I felt out of place and the horror of not being able to catch up was within me.

I was finally taken out of school, home schooled, and within a matter of literally 4 months, I was reading at a college reading level.

The lack of personalization and the sheer amount of people in public schools destroys any sort of hope for the individual. Instead kids are taught the same way in every class, without a worry for the individual.

You must not understand edric, what things are truly like for the people. You just say things that sound nice, dont be silly.

And Nyar, I am trying to get the point across that the public schooling system ideal is flawed, didnt you see that in my last statement? I said it pretty clearly, if not then my apologies.

And you are right about hiring people based on their own merits. Judging based on one's own capabilities is all that matters, because if my parents didnt take me out of school, I wouldnt have ever succeeded like I have. You cant treat everybody the same. Public school systems do that.

(By the way, no hard feelings edric, I am trying to get my point across. I hope I havent been too harsh, I figure you understand this is just a debate, and the feelings stay in this thread.)

[EWS]

Freedome = In my school (not the same for all schools) we have 6 periods of 55 minutes a day.  We further get a choice of 5 subjects from 5 colomns.  However we dont have electives I think they are called, every subject we pick has 3 levels to it and we can choose to sit at any level providing we have previous grades (earned in 4th yr) and we seem to be able to take a wider range of subjects.  I don't know, but in my final year of school we can take free periods (where we have a free colomn) and we can do what we want in that time, ie leave school and that.  Plus we do not have to stay at school during lunch time and that.  It's hard to explain, but I can say when I was there I got bored of having the same subjects in the same order everysingle day, I like a bit of variety.

It's hard to explain, I'll have a think and try and explain it better.

[Andrew]

yes electives are not given very much thought (if any at all) up till grade 8 or so here. and there are few electives to choose in high school (at least at my small school of 200 people) but in university we can pick whatever the hell we want. ;) (providing a few guidelines).

Say you pick business as your major, then:

Year 1:

Math 111 and 112

English 101 and an English elective

Business Admin. 101

Economics 101 and 102

IT 111

Two non-Business electives

Year 2:

Business 241

Economics (one course from 203, 204, 251, or 291)

Accounting 201 and 202

Business 251 and 252

Business 271

English 381

Two non-Business electives

Year 3:

Business 331 (Managerial Finance)

Business 341 (Marketing)

Business 351 (Operations Management)

Business 371 (Entrepreneurship)*

Business 332 (Integrated Cases in Managerial Finance)*

Business 342 ( Integrated Cases in Marketing)*

One Business elective

Three non-Business electives

* Indicates the course may be taken in 3rd or 4th year.

Year 4:

Business 491 (Strategic Management)

Business 495 (Business Research I)

Two Business Management Context electives

(from Bus. 401, 485, 486, 487, 488 and Phil. 404)

Four Business electives

Two non-Business electives

And there are some other guidelines like averages and such to get into 3rd and 4th year.

I am also guessing you meant high school when you said it was the same courses over and over. (which is true)

[Edric O]

I understand where you're coming from, TMA. You have presented a number of problems that exist in American public schools. But what do ANY of those problems have to do with the fact that the schools are government-funded? You need to change the way schools are RUN, not the way they're funded.

Now let's go into a little more detail:

the poor who wish to learn (like me) would recieve grants and funds INDIVIDUALLY from the government

Based on what criteria? Where do you draw the line between "accepted" and "rejected"? How do you decide who gets educated and who doesn't?

What you are proposing is for the government to play with people's lives, deciding who gets a grant and who doesn't. You want a person's entire future to be decided by some exams he must take during his childhood. If he passes, he gets an education. If not, he has no future.

No one has the right to play God. Discrimination has NO place in education.

The standard of excellence is wasted on government funded schooling. The idea to plop all kids into one area of learning is horrific.

The two things have no connection with each other. What does the source of funding have to do with plopping all kids into one area of learning? Private schools do it too.

NOw days if you are 6, no tests are done, you are put in 1st grade and are taught like everybody else. There is no standard of excellence where tests are done to let people rise or lower their education level based on their needs. It is vanilla, one sided. You are stuck in the grade level chosen to you based on your age. In most cases (and over here where I live, all cases) that is how it works.

Ok, then fight to change THAT. Fight to change the way schools are RUN, not the way they are funded. If anything, you should be fighting for MORE public funding to education and more public schools, while at the same time improving the way those schools teach.

The private education system should not even exist, since it is a privilege for the rich. How would you feel about "White-only" schools? Rich-only schools are the exact same thing.

Now, regarding the rest of your post:

Before you accuse me of "putting words in your mouth", read my arguments more carefully. They were very specific, and directed at the exact things you said.

Few things are as important to the people as the future of their children. Education is a vital matter.

As I said before, I understand where you're coming from. I have heard many people testify that the quality of teaching in American schools is horrible. But introducing discrimination in schools is not the answer. The answer is to change the way your schools are organized, and to change what and how they teach.

[Nyarlathotep]

I have a feeling that government funded education is the wrong way to go. It puts back kids who wish to excel, it makes things level to a point where things become numb.

You seem to say here that governments shouldn't fund education. Hence why I made my earlier statement.

And Nyar, I am trying to get the point across that the public schooling system ideal is flawed, didnt you see that in my last statement? I said it pretty clearly, if not then my apologies.

Here you touch ideals. Like Edrico stated, if it's the way governments interfear with the way schools are run, yes, you have a point. But I do not believe you should take away government fundig of education.

TMA, read Edrico's statement, which is basicly explaining why/how and what:

You have presented a number of problems that exist in American public schools. But what do ANY of those problems have to do with the fact that the schools are government-funded? You need to change the way schools are RUN, not the way they're funded.

In otherwords:

A) Should schools be run by the government (or the way the government dictates) => I say No.

B) Should education be government funded => I say Yes.

:)

[Wolf]

The amount of money spent on a person does not mean he will "rise" or "fall" in society. If a person does not want to truly learn, he will not. Even in a socialist system, the unmotivated will accomplish little, while the motivated and talented are instantly recognized.

A socialist system, I hope, means that all people receive an equal opportunity. However, this still allows some people to "do better" in how the make a living than others. Rather than being based on race, wealth, religion, caste, or strength, the standard of one's living is related only to their motivation to work and better their lives. Someone who refuses to work hard will not receive the same benefits of one who does. Should a socialist system ever take away one worker's hard-earned successes in order to make another worker "feel better about himself" or to "redistribute wealth", then I would say that socialism has failed in its core tenet of equality. People who do not work for what they want do not deserve what they want. However, all people should be given an equal opportunity to work for what they want. That means equal opportunity in education.

What you can do is have a basic level of courses in a school. These courses represent what is needed to survive, and even to succeed, in society. They are not "backwards" courses, but they are simple, practical, and informative courses for the person not that interested in deeper learning or understanding. Personally, I think that very few people are totally unmotivated -- most individuals simply are motivated in different areas, and need to explore those areas. More advanced courses move towards specialization, more in-depth, and more critical knowledge. This goes on perhaps to even higher courses, where people develop their own specialized skills, fitting in to whatever niche they desire for themselves and are proficient at in society. Sounds pretty socialist to me -- everyone has the same opportunity and begins at the same level. It is talent and talent alone that advances one.

[HasimirFenring]

As Edric said, there is nothing wrong with a government funded school system: it is only poorly run schools (public or private) that are a problem.  Much as dislike my school, it really is pretty good (for an American school :'().  There are minimal requirements for graduation; those who do not with to learn only fulfill the lowest requirements and move on.  For those who are academically motivated, however, we offer two optional years of chemistry, biology and physics each.  We have 6 years of math classes, an advanced English program and an under funded but still functional music and art department.  Clearly it is not government funding that makes a school bad, but, as others have said, it is shoddy organization.

BTW EWS I agree 100% that American schools pressure everyone into going to college, even those who don

[TMA_1]

hmm, I thought it over and you nyar and edric seem to be largly correct. I think I overstepped and in the heat of it all damned public education. Damning something that large would be like damning an entire group of people for the actions of a few of them. Like I said, I overstepped.

There do need to be changes in the system though, and as you said edric, instead of fighting against the school system, you should fight to CHANGE the school system.

So nyar, by saying no government control, but government spending, you are saying what I probably have been thinking this whole time.

Put the system in the hands of academics, regular teachers, parents, and people who understand the system. Make the system a little more flexable for the individual in that system, not just putting so many in a couple categories.

And you were right edric, the government shouldnt be too invloved, you kinda got me thinking now that maybe that is one venue where a government shouldnt be involved, shouldnt mess with the individual. Because when the government becomes that personal it tends to squash the individual. Like an elephant trying to deal with a fly. No matter what happens, the elephant cant help but kill the fly because of it's immensity.

[Edric O]

Well, I'm just glad I could be of assistance, TMA. :)

State-funded schools are the only way to go, because they do not discriminate on the basis of wealth, like private schools do. Information and education should be equally and freely available to anyone who is interested and who wants to be successful in life, regardless of his skin colour, religion, gender, or wealth. Public schooling is the only way to achieve that.

And you are right that the government should only fund schools, not necessarely control them. I like diversity, so I think there should be more than one kind of public schools. Some should be controlled by the government, as before. Others should be controlled by the local community. Others by various scientific or academic organizations. Others by teacher associations... the more options, the better. Not every student is the same, so diversity is the only way to ensure that everyone's needs are being met.

Wolfwiz, I agree with your points. You are right about socialism. As I explained before, socialism doesn't put a limit on how rich you can get. It only puts a limit on how poor you can get (because you have the right to a decent life, which means that the state will always provide you with food, drinking water, clothes, a spartan house, free healthcare and free education; but if you want a TV, or a computer, or a car, or fancy clothes, or a bigger house, or anything else like that, then you'll have to work for it). And socialism also ensures that all human beings have equal opportunities in life, and that you can only get rich through your own hard work, not by exploiting the work of others.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, you talk about need of eliminating discrimination. But how then about priest seminaries? Or simply I want my children to be educated in christian tradition, so they need some, tough positive, but still a discrimination. But atheists may then start yelling they don't want to pay it...

[Leto le Juste]

In France we have two excellent sort of schools: the University which is public, cheap and for all the studients who have their "bac" (equivalent of the german "abitur"-sorry i've forgotten the english equivalent :P), if you want to make research it is the best way. On the other side you have the private high schools with fees (not so high in coparison with the others countries like GB and US). Those schools prepare for High job in the industry or trade. And in France, banks lend you money easilly if you pursue this way because your job will be profitable.

There are more students in the public way because to access in the private schools you have to make 2 years of preparation. In those years you have to work like a slave, you have to "sacrify" 2 years of your life. But believe me it morth the price cause life in the french high schools, it is the Eden garden...

[TMA_1]

good point caid. Dont those who wish to go into theological ventures help the people just as much as anybody else? Spiritual comfort and stability is vital to a nation, and there shouldnt be discrimination for somebody who wishes to follow their heart in those matters. As long as they get a well rounded education.

[nemafakei]

The 'Bac' is equivalent to the A-Level, here, similar to 'Highers' in Scotland, and it used to be 'CO' in Spain, but they've changed it in the past 10 years; to anyone familiar with the International Baccalauriate, this is also the same level: Education (and examination) to the age of about 18. I can't remember: Is it the gym in the Netherlands...

Which brings me onto another question: examination systems... in the two years preceeding university, does anyone agree that there should exist options for different schemes of examination: Rather than forcing everyone who wishes to further education beyond 16 to either specialise in a small number of subjects (modular or self-contained subject qualifications e.g. A-level), or to retain weaker subjects, (integrated diplomas, e.g. IB, Bac, Abitur, gym), should we give pupils the choice? And perhaps offer more skills-based education as well - formalising qualifications for carpentry, plumbing, and other practical skills?