Well Duh! I Could Have Told You That, I See Proof Here Every Day

[quote name='elprincipe']I'm basically saying the public education system we have now sucks so we should replace it with a privatized system, yeah, exactly. Why is that odd? Private generally is better than public if reasonably possible.[/quote]

Because the comparison of our system to a better run foreign public system is what prompted your statement. Maybe it just provided an opportunity to say it and your comment didn't have anything to do with the comparison.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Ouch. How did you do?[/QUOTE]

I finished the year until they found a new, permanent teacher. There was no saving the 4 inherent idiots who never received proper traning in pre-pubescence. I'm sure they are taking up space and tax dollars in medium security penal residence somewhere.

The sad thing is that there were an equal number of brilliant students in the class with whom I wasn't able to spend a great deal of time. I had to focus on the common denominator and tutor the slower kids one-on-one for a majority of the classperiods. Such is the case for a majority of classrooms across america.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I finished the year until they found a new, permanent teacher. There was no saving the 4 inherent idiots who never received proper traning in pre-pubescence. I'm sure they are taking up space and tax dollars in medium security penal residence somewhere.

The sad thing is that there were an equal number of brilliant students in the class with whom I wasn't able to spend a great deal of time. I had to focus on the common denominator and tutor the slower kids one-on-one for a majority of the classperiods. Such is the case for a majority of classrooms across america.[/QUOTE]

Another bit of evidence that supports my idea of privatizing the schools!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Another bit of evidence that supports my idea of privatizing the schools![/QUOTE]
Because privatizing schools will make kids less naturally inept?:roll:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Another bit of evidence that supports my idea of privatizing the schools![/QUOTE]
I don't quite understand how privatizing schools would help. Are you saying that it would make the quality of teaching better, or it would be better for the kids to be able to go to different schools? I personally think that we should institute some kind of national testing and tracking system, depending on what you score on a standardized test, you will be put into a track for college or a vocational school.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I don't quite understand how privatizing schools would help. Are you saying that it would make the quality of teaching better, or it would be better for the kids to be able to go to different schools? I personally think that we should institute some kind of national testing and tracking system, depending on what you score on a standardized test, you will be put into a track for college or a vocational school.[/QUOTE]

I always thought that was a horrible way of doing things. Peoples skills vary so much in different areas that they really should be placed on a class by class basis. In my high school you could easily move up and down phases (phase 2 being below average, 3 average, 4 honors, 5 ap) depending on how well you did the previous year. When I took math I was phase 2 (I got a 600 on math sat's, so I tested well. I'm extremely strong in mental math but extremely weak in formulas.) Only with great effort can I even pass a foreign language course (I failed french once and latin twice, but passed, usually barely, the rest of the time). Biology I was always b's or c's, never really could do it. I would have flunked chemistry if I wasn't essentially in the remedial "let's just be certain they pass" chemistry course (we didn't even have to learn the table of elements except for the first 10 or so). But classes like history, psychology, sociology etc. I took the AP courses. I got A's without any effort at all (one history class I played calculator games in, did my french homework in, and didn't study books or notes and still got an A). I got around a 750 on my verbal SAT's. How would you place me in any one track? Put me in all advanced courses and up to half of my report card will be F's, put me in all remedial courses and you're wasting away my time and my future.

I had a friend get a 1500 on his sat's but a good day for him was when he did half his homework. His english teacher (at the end of the year) once told him if he didn't do his homework he couldn't come to class. He spent the last 5 classes of the year down in the office with the headmaster because he didn't do his homework for them. The kid was a genius, aced everything test he took, but did absolutely nothing. Where would you put him? He's going to pass everything he does with flying colors, but he's going to flunk everything cause he won't do the work.

Another friend took almost all honors classes, got all A's and B's and never really tried at all. He got an 800 on his sat's. Where do you put him?
 
[quote name='evanft']No, because one example from one classroom proves that every school in America sucks ass, duh.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I taught as an emergency favor to a high school principle. My wife has been a school teacher for almost 15 years. I personally know many dozens of schoolteachers and have heard testimony from a majority of them that would echo my experience in the classroom.

There are, as most have probably experienced in their own high school, different tracks of education within the public school system. Most AP classes and higher level classes don't have the discipline problems and the disaffected population that a general education class would have.

The problem is lack of discipline in the family or usually a non existing parent, un attentive or uninvolved parent, or a combination of both.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I always thought that was a horrible way of doing things. Peoples skills vary so much in different areas that they really should be placed on a class by class basis. In my high school you could easily move up and down phases (phase 2 being below average, 3 average, 4 honors, 5 ap) depending on how well you did the previous year. When I took math I was phase 2 (I got a 600 on math sat's, so I tested well. I'm extremely strong in mental math but extremely weak in formulas.) Only with great effort can I even pass a foreign language course (I failed french once and latin twice, but passed, usually barely, the rest of the time). Biology I was always b's or c's, never really could do it. I would have flunked chemistry if I wasn't essentially in the remedial "let's just be certain they pass" chemistry course (we didn't even have to learn the table of elements except for the first 10 or so). But classes like history, psychology, sociology etc. I took the AP courses. I got A's without any effort at all (one history class I played calculator games in, did my french homework in, and didn't study books or notes and still got an A). I got around a 750 on my verbal SAT's. How would you place me in any one track? Put me in all advanced courses and up to half of my report card will be F's, put me in all remedial courses and you're wasting away my time and my future.

I had a friend get a 1500 on his sat's but a good day for him was when he did half his homework. His english teacher (at the end of the year) once told him if he didn't do his homework he couldn't come to class. He spent the last 5 classes of the year down in the office with the headmaster because he didn't do his homework for them. The kid was a genius, aced everything test he took, but did absolutely nothing. Where would you put him? He's going to pass everything he does with flying colors, but he's going to flunk everything cause he won't do the work.

Another friend took almost all honors classes, got all A's and B's and never really tried at all. He got an 800 on his sat's. Where do you put him?[/QUOTE]

You failed classes in high school? ROFFLE.

J/K
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I always thought that was a horrible way of doing things. Peoples skills vary so much in different areas that they really should be placed on a class by class basis. In my high school you could easily move up and down phases (phase 2 being below average, 3 average, 4 honors, 5 ap) depending on how well you did the previous year. When I took math I was phase 2 (I got a 600 on math sat's, so I tested well. I'm extremely strong in mental math but extremely weak in formulas.) Only with great effort can I even pass a foreign language course (I failed french once and latin twice, but passed, usually barely, the rest of the time). Biology I was always b's or c's, never really could do it. I would have flunked chemistry if I wasn't essentially in the remedial "let's just be certain they pass" chemistry course (we didn't even have to learn the table of elements except for the first 10 or so). But classes like history, psychology, sociology etc. I took the AP courses. I got A's without any effort at all (one history class I played calculator games in, did my french homework in, and didn't study books or notes and still got an A). I got around a 750 on my verbal SAT's. How would you place me in any one track? Put me in all advanced courses and up to half of my report card will be F's, put me in all remedial courses and you're wasting away my time and my future.

I had a friend get a 1500 on his sat's but a good day for him was when he did half his homework. His english teacher (at the end of the year) once told him if he didn't do his homework he couldn't come to class. He spent the last 5 classes of the year down in the office with the headmaster because he didn't do his homework for them. The kid was a genius, aced everything test he took, but did absolutely nothing. Where would you put him? He's going to pass everything he does with flying colors, but he's going to flunk everything cause he won't do the work.

Another friend took almost all honors classes, got all A's and B's and never really tried at all. He got an 800 on his sat's. Where do you put him?[/QUOTE]
I'm certainly not condoning using the SAT's as the standard of measure, as it is only a predictor of first year college grades. I would say using some kind of minimum standards test, with the ability to retake a test to change where you track. Maybe there would be a couple of different tracks for the college, sort of like the way universities are broken up into different departments. I guess I really don't have a great solution, but what I'm really trying to get at is that if someone doesn't want to go on to higher education, they should at least learn something so that they can make a decent living and contribute meaningfully to society. As for your friend that didn't really try at all who got all A's and B's, but yet scored an 800 on his sats, was that a combined score or for one of them?
 
[quote name='docvinh']I'm certainly not condoning using the SAT's as the standard of measure, as it is only a predictor of first year college grades. I would say using some kind of minimum standards test, with the ability to retake a test to change where you track. Maybe there would be a couple of different tracks for the college, sort of like the way universities are broken up into different departments. I guess I really don't have a great solution, but what I'm really trying to get at is that if someone doesn't want to go on to higher education, they should at least learn something so that they can make a decent living and contribute meaningfully to society. As for your friend that didn't really try at all who got all A's and B's, but yet scored an 800 on his sats, was that a combined score or for one of them?[/QUOTE]

Combined. I have another friend who got below 800 even though he studied and took classes, overal he put more effort into it than anyone I've seen. He's a senior in college now studying to be an engineer, can't remember what kind though.

You failed classes in high school? ROFFLE.

J/K
Click to expand...

Well, it was a prep school and the courses were generally harder than what my friends at public school took. It wasn't exclusive, but it wasn't one of the kinds that takes everyone either.

But the only class I ever really tried in was french. Other than that I was one of the "he's so smart, if only he tried" kids. One of my english teachers even referred to me as a log with moss on it (many other teachers made similar comments), saying I put absolutely no effort whatsoever into his class. I had a B at the time, while most kids had a C (he kept insisting C was average, when most teachers gave a B for average work). I always got a B in english, no matter what, I could ace half the stuff or not do half the stuff, somehow I always got a B.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I don't quite understand how privatizing schools would help. Are you saying that it would make the quality of teaching better, or it would be better for the kids to be able to go to different schools? I personally think that we should institute some kind of national testing and tracking system, depending on what you score on a standardized test, you will be put into a track for college or a vocational school.[/QUOTE]
It's obvious that the more money you spend on the school, with the shiniest gadgets, the more attentive kids will be.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']It's obvious that the more money you spend on the school, with the shiniest gadgets, the more attentive kids will be.[/QUOTE]

Not true. In the State of Michigan, schools in Detroit spend $12,000 per student with lackluster results. I live in one of the best performing districts in Brighton where they spend $6,700 per student. And giving all this money and control over to the state was supposed to make things "equitable". Go figure.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Not true. In the State of Michigan, schools in Detroit spend $12,000 per student with lackluster results. I live in one of the best performing districts in Brighton where they spend $6,700 per student. And giving all this money and control over to the state was supposed to make things "equitable". Go figure.[/QUOTE]

For once I agree with you. Its not just throwing more money into it, but how that money is used. A quick look at health care spending across the world is a perfect example of this.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Not true. In the State of Michigan, schools in Detroit spend $12,000 per student with lackluster results. I live in one of the best performing districts in Brighton where they spend $6,700 per student. And giving all this money and control over to the state was supposed to make things "equitable". Go figure.[/QUOTE]
I was being sarcastic. Guess I should have put the eye rolling emoticon. I would have thought the stupid allusion was enough :lol:
 
[quote name='evanft']No, because one example from one classroom proves that every school in America sucks ass, duh.[/QUOTE]

Evidently you believe all the studies showing how behind our schools are in teaching math and science are wrong.

For people who don't know if privatizing schools would help or how that would help, just realize that government control comes with huge, huge administrative and overhead costs. Privatizing would be better for students, teachers, everyone except for the bloated bureaucracy of our current educational system.

And money sure doesn't equal results. DC, for example, pours a huge amount of money per student in, and they have a terrible school system. In fact, all the politicians send their kids to private school here...what a surprise.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Evidently you believe all the studies showing how behind our schools are in teaching math and science are wrong.[/QUOTE]
I just don't believe that those studies automatically lend themselves to Privatization.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I just don't believe that those studies automatically lend themselves to Privatization.[/QUOTE]

The studies simply show that our system right now is not working. It needs to be drastically altered to better prepare our kids for the global economy of the 21st century. We need a leaner, meaner school system with less administrators and more/better paid teachers, and the only way to realistically achieve this is through privatization since the government only gets more and more bloated and less and less efficient.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The studies simply show that our system right now is not working. It needs to be drastically altered to better prepare our kids for the global economy of the 21st century. We need a leaner, meaner school system with less administrators and more/better paid teachers, and the only way to realistically achieve this is through privatization since the government only gets more and more bloated and less and less efficient.[/QUOTE]
High school isn't the place to prepare our kids for the 21st century global economy.

That being said, privitization of schools isn't going to do anything about work ethic among students, nor is it going to do much for making poor teachers any better. The only things that need to be done are higher standards.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']High school isn't the place to prepare our kids for the 21st century global economy.

That being said, privitization of schools isn't going to do anything about work ethic among students, nor is it going to do much for making poor teachers any better. The only things that need to be done are higher standards.[/QUOTE]

Privatization leads to higher standards. That is what the market does. If someone can take their voucher money to another school down the road in a heartbeat, the schools that stay in business will be the ones who perform. It's called a market economy and it works well in other areas.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Privatization leads to higher standards. That is what the market does. If someone can take their voucher money to another school down the road in a heartbeat, the schools that stay in business will be the ones who perform. It's called a market economy and it works well in other areas.[/QUOTE]
Where do these schools get their funding?

Also, these "standards" don't mean that students are going to be any more motivated.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Privatization leads to higher standards. That is what the market does. If someone can take their voucher money to another school down the road in a heartbeat, the schools that stay in business will be the ones who perform. It's called a market economy and it works well in other areas.[/QUOTE]
Standards set by who? It would still be the government. The voucher system would still have to be funded by the government. Privatization would more than likely lead to finding a way to pass a test, not a better education. I definitely agree that something needs to be done, but I don't think that this would be the answer in the long run.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Standards set by who? It would still be the government. The voucher system would still have to be funded by the government. Privatization would more than likely lead to finding a way to pass a test, not a better education. I definitely agree that something needs to be done, but I don't think that this would be the answer in the long run.[/QUOTE]
I will admit that privatization may lead to higher standards for teachers. However,I doubt student standards are going to change very much.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Where do these schools get their funding?

Also, these "standards" don't mean that students are going to be any more motivated.[/QUOTE]

They would get their funding from government vouchers. I'd have the government give a set amount for each child to be educated and let the parents choose where to have them educated.

And of course they are not going to be any more motivated automatically. The real gain is by improved schools and especially teachers. Hopefully this will lead to increased motivation of students.

[quote name='docvinh']Standards set by who? It would still be the government. The voucher system would still have to be funded by the government. Privatization would more than likely lead to finding a way to pass a test, not a better education. I definitely agree that something needs to be done, but I don't think that this would be the answer in the long run.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it would still have to be funded by the government because every child should have the right to an education. Without that, the poor would not be educated, and that would be a tragedy as well as kill the American Dream.

If you know a better objective way to measure progress than tests, by all means enlighten us. Until then, we'll have to stick to the imperfect but best we know, which is tests.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Privatization leads to higher standards. That is what the market does. If someone can take their voucher money to another school down the road in a heartbeat, the schools that stay in business will be the ones who perform. It's called a market economy and it works well in other areas.[/QUOTE]

Those without cars or the means to send their kids to a further away school will be stuck with the one closest, and after the exodus of the better off kids then the poor left behind will be in an even worse situation. There also aren't enough teachers to go around, it seems likely if privatized the better teachers would be more likely than they already are to transfer to the better schools, since they'd likely be in demand and courted by others.

Privitization leads to higher standards for the most succesful of the group, but the bottom rung suffers.

Though I think using general tests as a graduation requirment, or for placement in classes is a poor idea. Tests should be based on actual material studied like the ones done by teachers for their particular classes. They're fine to track progress (ie. which schools students perform better), but not to decide what to do with particular students. In massachusetts you have to pass the MCAS to graduate now (think its public schools only) and there have been many complaints by people, including teachers, that they often have to set aside time just to teach the test, and not actual class material.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
Yes, it would still have to be funded by the government because every child should have the right to an education. Without that, the poor would not be educated, and that would be a tragedy as well as kill the American Dream.

If you know a better objective way to measure progress than tests, by all means enlighten us. Until then, we'll have to stick to the imperfect but best we know, which is tests.[/QUOTE]
Well, you have a point there, I don't have a better system.:) However, I don't know if privatization would lead to better teaching if eveyone would still have a right to education. I think student motivation definitely plays a large part in learning. I also think that parents should somehow have to be involved more in their students education legally. I know they are responsible as far as attendance policies, but they should also be responsible for "motivating" their children. What do you guys think about that?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Though I think using general tests as a graduation requirment, or for placement in classes is a poor idea. Tests should be based on actual material studied like the ones done by teachers for their particular classes. They're fine to track progress (ie. which schools students perform better), but not to decide what to do with particular students. In massachusetts you have to pass the MCAS to graduate now (think its public schools only) and there have been many complaints by people, including teachers, that they often have to set aside time just to teach the test, and not actual class material.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, thats what I was trying to get at, although elprincipe brings up a valid point about a better system. Wouldn't using tests that are specific to to teachers be a little subjective? I mean, a great teacher may have a great test, but a crappy teacher may not have a good test.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Yeah, thats what I was trying to get at, although elprincipe brings up a valid point about a better system. Wouldn't using tests that are specific to to teachers be a little subjective? I mean, a great teacher may have a great test, but a crappy teacher may not have a good test.[/QUOTE]

I was referring to deciding what to do with kids. Any mass testing system does not take into account the individual differences. Mass testing is fine to gather data, and maybe even to help in the decision making (ie. the person does poorly, has little interest, and tests indicate he/she probably doesn't have much ability in this area to begin with), but not suitable for dealing with individuals. Another issue with mass tests is they often depend on what the kid has been taught. Essentially they do poorly partly because they weren't taught enough, not entirely due to drive or ability. It would reflect more on the school, or classes they take (for example, my math classes didn't cover some of the sat material the more advanced ones did so I had an extra disadvantage on that part), instead of the individual.

I think decisions on where to place individual students should come down to what they and their teachers decide.

I also think that parents should somehow have to be involved more in their students education legally. I know they are responsible as far as attendance policies, but they should also be responsible for "motivating" their children. What do you guys think about that?
Click to expand...

Half agree. You can't legally force someone to be involved (and it would be difficult to decide who didn't and who did but without results, you also don't want to go overboard and make them put too much pressure on the kid) and in many situations it would be impossible. For example, a single mother who works odd hours, long hours or multiple jobs really couldn't do that, no matter how concerned or how good of a mother she was. The situation itself prevents it. If you were to say the schools themselves should legally have to make active attempts to get parents involved and not just provide opportunities, like many currently do, then I'd agree.

Personally that wouldn't have benefited me though. The more I was pushed, prodded and hovered over the worse I did in school. Later in high school they backed off (my parents stopped bothering me entirely about school) and I went from missing large amounts of assignments and having grades all over the place (mainly due to not making up tests or not passing in assignments) to getting mostly A's with a few B's (minus french) and actually doing my work. Before that my grades were good, but nothing was done. I had a 26 average once in english, but my grade for the work I actually did was a B. But, for the overwhelming majority that would be very advantageous.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Those without cars or the means to send their kids to a further away school will be stuck with the one closest, and after the exodus of the better off kids then the poor left behind will be in an even worse situation. There also aren't enough teachers to go around, it seems likely if privatized the better teachers would be more likely than they already are to transfer to the better schools, since they'd likely be in demand and courted by others.

Privitization leads to higher standards for the most succesful of the group, but the bottom rung suffers.[/quote]

Disagree. I think private schools will offer bus service just as public schools do because it is necessary to access a large enough pool of students. And better pay coupled with better facilities would mean more qualified people would want to teach. One thing the private sector does much better than the government is weed out people who are not getting the job done in favor of those who are.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though I think using general tests as a graduation requirment, or for placement in classes is a poor idea. Tests should be based on actual material studied like the ones done by teachers for their particular classes. They're fine to track progress (ie. which schools students perform better), but not to decide what to do with particular students. In massachusetts you have to pass the MCAS to graduate now (think its public schools only) and there have been many complaints by people, including teachers, that they often have to set aside time just to teach the test, and not actual class material.[/QUOTE]

Well, there has to be an objective standard used to measure how well kids are learning what they need to learn. If you have something better than a test, by all means let us know. If you just test for what a teacher has taught students, that leads to all sorts of inequities if the teacher does a crappy job or doesn't teach what he's supposed to teach.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Well, you have a point there, I don't have a better system.:) However, I don't know if privatization would lead to better teaching if eveyone would still have a right to education. I think student motivation definitely plays a large part in learning. I also think that parents should somehow have to be involved more in their students education legally. I know they are responsible as far as attendance policies, but they should also be responsible for "motivating" their children. What do you guys think about that?[/QUOTE]

Well sure, ideally the parents are deeply involved in their children's education. The sad fact is that some aren't, and unfortunately for some kids it's incredibly difficult or even impossible to get them to be properly motivated. So yes, parents should do a better job on this front, but it's a hard thing to do, and definitely something the government can't really mandate obviously.
 
I think 99.9% of parents do care. They just get frustrated with the local school's caving-in ceilings & the politicians unwillingness to give them real solutions. To quote the West Wing:

Bartlet: "Charlie would you have taken a Voucher if it was offered to you?"

Charlie: "Absolutely. D.C. schools suck & I'd take any opportunity to escape them and go to private school."

But the politicians ignore people like Charlie, and they think, 'If my government does not care, why should I care? Screw it.'
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']The quality of students and teachers kind of goes hand in hand, it's no wonder then, as American teachers are among the worst, and most underqualified in the civilized world...[/QUOTE]
Maybe if we paid them more? Seriously. I considered teaching as a career, but why should I? Why should I quit my current $90K a year job & take a cut in pay to only $30K.

Screw that. And that's why you end up wirth the "worst" teachers. 99% of the teachers are people who are second-rate & can't get a better job.


If you want better talent, you need to pay for it. (Just as if you want a better stereo, or car, you pay more.)
 
The point of privatization is to introduce competition... like exists at the university level. Basically, schools either perform and teach their students, else, the school gets a bad reputation & students refuse to go there.

Ya know how US News ranks the best colleges?

A similar ranking should exist for the K-to-12 school districts. That way parents can decide what districts are best for their children & avoid the ones that are crap.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Evidently you believe all the studies showing how behind our schools are in teaching math and science are wrong.

For people who don't know if privatizing schools would help or how that would help, just realize that government control comes with huge, huge administrative and overhead costs. Privatizing would be better for students, teachers, everyone except for the bloated bureaucracy of our current educational system.

And money sure doesn't equal results. DC, for example, pours a huge amount of money per student in, and they have a terrible school system. In fact, all the politicians send their kids to private school here...what a surprise.[/QUOTE]

Dude, I never said anything about any studies. I was merely saying that one example from one classroom does not constitute enough evidence to prove that our schools are crap and we need to privatize.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']I think 99.9% of parents do care. They just get frustrated with the local school's caving-in ceilings & the politicians unwillingness to give them real solutions. To quote the West Wing:

Bartlet: "Charlie would you have taken a Voucher if it was offered to you?"

Charlie: "Absolutely. D.C. schools suck & I'd take any opportunity to escape them and go to private school."

But the politicians ignore people like Charlie, and they think, 'If my government does not care, why should I care? Screw it.'[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of parents hang it on the education system to do everything for them. If their kids aren't getting straight A's, it's because the teacher isn't teaching them, not their kids don't give a crap about school. Although private schools are generally always better, I'm not sure how much better they would be if the whole public system was privatized. What would happen when the "better" private schools were filled to capacity? How would they determine who gets in and who stays out? It would end up being pretty much the same system as we have now. I do agree teachers should be paid more, though. I still wouldn't want to be a teacher if you paid me 60k a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top