Abstinence-Only Education vs Sex Education

[Franklin Richards]

But do they make money doing it? Is it good business?

 

[StorminNorman]

I'm not some candy ass "government is bad when its easy to criticize" conservative Petunia. I hate the government in all cases.

Which makes my government job awesome.

 

[StorminNorman]

But do they make money doing it? Is it good business?

No, the military does not make money.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Then we need to scrap it. Every aspect of the government should be run like a business.

 

[StorminNorman]

Then we need to scrap it. Every aspect of the government should be run like a business.

Now we are getting somewhere!

Please google Murray Rothbard.

I respect you, AP - we both want the samething. We want the poorest of us to be wealthy, we want no child to go home hungry, we want a planet that isn't a cesspool, we want world peace.

But for these goals to be obtained, they have to fit within the rules of economics.

As an Economist, Historian and Philosopher, Rothbard shows how that is possible. And yes, he advocates exactly what you suggest. Best of all, the man is witty and enjoyable to read.

Plus everything he ever wrote is free on Mises.org. (I would suggest his book For A New Liberty)

 

[Faramir]

They are the same customers, the public.

Nope, school's costumers are parents and children. The government's 'costumers' is every constituent, especially those who contribute more, financially. The national teachers unions give out the highest campaign contributions, but we can all agree they do not have the same exact interests
children or parents have, no matter their rhetoric.

What exactly is untrust worthy about school criteria?

A lot. Unintended consequences of funding attached to standardization comes to mind, like "teaching to the test". Teachers contract stipulations, like opposition to merit payments. Impossibility to change school hours. Student tracking marginalizing kinds. National curricula homogenization initiatives, like "Race to the End". Licensing. Obstruction of initiatives to access private schools (i.e. vouchers, tax credits). Dependence on government funding timetables that leads to deferring schools maintenance, which makes it more expensive.

And that's just off the top of my head. I didn't even wanted to go into federal and state education bureaucracy. There's a lot of this in the CNN Tea Party Debate thread, just read it there.

And if people don't want their children to make bad sexual decisions, why do they support abstinence only education?

Misinformed parents tend to change attitudes over time.

What happens to the kids whose parents can't afford these private schools?

The government can always fund autonomous public charter schools. Google "Geoffrey Canada". There are also other avenues, like tax credits for private donations and vouchers lottery.

I can't even imagine an education system that's run the same way as a McDonalds or Wal-Mart.

You can't? Well, it's our current education system. Privileged and monopolized bad-quality chain-production that improves poorly and only through public scrutiny and scandal.

Although that's not my exact view on those companies, I know that's yours. But let me tell you something: don't make absurd reductions. Don't mistake McDonalds as the epitome of the private sector.
Try imagining schools that are run the same way as Apple.

And businesses only going for the bottom line is absolutly true. How can you even deny that?

I do. You have no idea what you're talking about. Services of high-skills personnel have been proven to be not profit-driven but driven by autonomy, desire of mastery and a sense of purpose. Check this. Google Dave Pink after that.
Unfortunately, most school teachers don't end up being highly-skilled. Every school reform start by getting GREAT teachers, teachers that are high-skilled and are paid on merit and performance rather than on the mediocre standards
of job protectionism.

You can also see this brief talk that suggests the merits of alternative education methods, something that can't be achieved without the flexibility, competition and variety that only the market can achieve.

 

[bell110]

Nope, school's costumers are parents and children. The government's 'costumers' is every constituent, especially those who contribute more, financially. The national teachers unions give out the highest campaign contributions, but we can all agree they do not have the same exact interests
children or parents have, no matter their rhetoric.

Since when are parent's not part of the public? And of course teachers have the same interests as the parents, so no, we can't all agree.

A lot. Unintended consequences of funding attached to standardization comes to mind, like "teaching to the test". Teachers contract stipulations, like opposition to merit payments. Impossibility to change school hours. Student tracking marginalizing kinds. National curricula homogenization initiatives, like "Race to the End". Licensing. Obstruction of initiatives to access private schools (i.e. vouchers, tax credits). Dependence on government funding timetables that leads to deferring schools maintenance, which makes it more expensive.

And that's just off the top of my head. I didn't even wanted to go into federal and state education bureaucracy. There's a lot of this in the CNN Tea Party Debate thread, just read it there.

Wow, all of that sounds like the exactly thing that is really wrong with education in this nation; parents and students not taking responsibility for themselves. "My kid's a dumbass and I can't be bothered with helping him with homework, it's the teachers fault he's failing. Yeah, they test the students TOO MUCH." Trust me, a market based education system is not going to make kids want to learn algebra any more than public schools.

Misinformed parents tend to change attitudes over time.

The government can always fund autonomous public charter schools. Google "Geoffrey Canada". There are also other avenues, like tax credits for private donations and vouchers lottery.

You can't? Well, it's our current education system. Privileged and monopolized bad-quality chain-production that improves poorly and only through public scrutiny and scandal.

Although that's not my exact view on those companies, I know that's yours. But let me tell you something: don't make absurd reductions. Don't mistake McDonalds as the epitome of the private sector.
Try imagining schools that are run the same way as Apple.

I do. You have no idea what you're talking about. Services of high-skills personnel have been proven to be not profit-driven but driven by autonomy, desire of mastery and a sense of purpose. Check this. Google Dave Pink after that.
Unfortunately, most school teachers don't end up being highly-skilled. Every school reform start by getting GREAT teachers, teachers that are high-skilled and are paid on merit and performance rather than on the mediocre standards
of job protectionism.

You can also see this brief talk that suggests the merits of alternative education methods, something that can't be achieved without the flexibility, competition and variety that only the market can achieve.

Alright, I'll break this up by paragraph

1. If misinformed parents change their attitude over time, again, why do they still support abstinence only education. Hell, why do they still support creationism.

2. That is nothing like our public school system.

3. Apple sucks. But beyond my personal opinion, they also specialize in an expensive product that not everyone can afford and their "highly skilled" work force works behind the scenes, are reletivley few, and don't deal directly with the consumer. The people working at the Apple stores or tech support are not the "highly skilled" people you are talking about, or they wouldn't be working those jobs.

4. See, again you are talking about highly skilled personnel. I'm talking about the business. That link is all well and good, but the business is about profit. You talk of highly skilled teachers. What is your defintion of highly skilled. Teachers aren't just pulled off the street, they do go to years of college to learn their skills. Are you talking professor level skills? If they get to that point, they'd be professors, and would seek a professor's compensation. That is the hypocracy of our society. People want "highly skilled" teachers yet at the same time they demonize them and think they get paid too much. Why would anybody go through years of college, accept crappy pay, work 10 plus work day, not to mention taking work home with them, and have lazy parents yell at them because their kid is too stupid or out right refuses to do work? Didn't some state recently stop compensating teachers who went on to get their masters? So much for wanted highly skilled teachers.

5. I never said alternative schooling didn't have merits. And alternative school does exist. I'm saying making all school based on private markets is a bad idea. In a competition, somebody has to lose, and in this case it would be the children. Everything you put forth has been your own opinion, so you really can't say I have know idea about what I am talking about.

Now I think we got a little off topic.

 

[WildcatNC]

Sarcasmo, really really forgive me for being blunt, but people smarter than you agree with him.

Alternative education should be more prominent in America. School programs should really be up for debate and market diversity.

For several reasons I'm acquainted with Chile's education system and despite of many problems affecting both public and private education, several alternative schools are really some of the best in their field. One in particular, Education Etievan Model, pays closer attention at awakening the kids individuality and encouraging a healthy their emotional development, something that is somehow butchered in many private schools that focus too much on making the kids competitive in several subjects in detriment of the child's emotional state. They have many alternative methods to expand the kids cultural foundations, raising awareness, instilling cooperation spirits and self confidence to face life, teach them to responsibility and use their wits along with their feelings. They have an open eye for teacher who adjust into their model and build all their activities around a well-defined set of principles. This implies that habits are changed to give creative solutions, so they do not adhere to government-mandated programs. They also maintain close communication with parents, who are often people who are aware of all the features of this model and are very sensitive and educated about what type of education they want their kids to receive.

It was astounding to me how some people could be aware of this issue and able to select a school model that satisfied their needs and their beliefs. Most parents who could afford private education would go for schools that teach kids to work in the children's space program. But there are parents who wouldn't sacrifice their kids personality for that... which is a sensible enough thing to do. School years are crucial to personality, and personality is crucial to living fulfilling lives!

So, it is not a matter of changing education programs... it is a matter of changing education paradigms. It's about less homogenization. It's about having wise teachers that talk to you honesty. Sex-ed can't be about information-giving. To educate is not to "inform". And that's what current mainstream sex-ed is about right now in America (and most parts of the world).

So how can we expect the government to do that, nationally? Sadly, it can't. The government can only do so much without screwing up. Unfortunately, this is something the market should do more. This is something good teachers have to sort out, and to do that they must have their hands freer. Then good, aware parents will choose those teachers and those schools for their children. These parents will lead by example and the best school models will be copied and implemented. No political blocking, no intervention of external decision-makers. Just parents, teachers and schools.

I agree with you mostly but I think many assume the public school system serves a different purpose than it really does. We already have a "tiered" education system. The more money you have the better schools and education you can afford. Public schools are for the plebs. Its only there to put out laborers, semi-skilled workers, etc. The main goal of it (imo) is to teach you to show up, be on time, and follow directions, complete tasks on time, etc. They are not concerned with "educating" everyone. The cream rises to the top before or during high school and the best of the public education sector can go on to improve their station. Then they can send their kids to the real schools.

The "tiers" are based on wealth and then merit. I think those that run the country behind the scenes know that there is no way to educate the dumb masses, nor do they really want to try.

I say that as a preamble to this. There is an inverse property to wealth/station/education vs # of kids and the teenage birth rate. The poorest and dumbest of us always breed more and sooner than the best and brightest of us. Its kind of a reverse darwinism and I believe many that "run things" know this and have no aspirations of truly creating any "enlightened society" or getting all kids to practice safe sex. They will put forth an effort for damage control and to try to mitigate overpopulation but thats about it. Like many things in society, I think there are very different "stated" and "real" goals (though many truly believe in the "stated" goals).

I agree with others though that the ball should be tossed squarely back in the parents court with this stuff. I think students should be given basic information on sex from a classroom perspective as part of comprehensive "Health" classes. The morality, social consequences, etc is the job of the parents to convey.

Abstinence only education is useless and only pushed as a religious agenda. Some people can make arguments that its based in good sense and reason but they are deluding themselves. It may be why YOU believe its good, but its not why most supporters push it. Its a religious relic and a waste of time or money. I agree that the world would be better off if most followed it. The world would be better off without soda and unhealthy food too but were not getting rid of that either.

 

[Faramir]

Since when are parent's not part of the public? And of course teachers have the same interests as the parents, so no, we can't all agree.

Parents are part of the public, but not the totality. On that evidence alone, you have to admit that politicians and schools cater to different publics. More importantly, the parents that rely on public schools for financial reasons are not the main part of a politician's electorate, because contributions are necessarily smaller. Teachers Unions

And of course the unions don't have the exact same interests as the parents! The parents are all for getting their kids the best possible education, while unions are all about protecting the workers' jobs, no matter their performance quality. For the unions, a bad teacher and a good teacher is the same... they all pay their membership dues. And they have consistently proven it over and over when they oppose any differentiation between good or bad teachers, whether on grounds or merit payments or more flexible contracts for schools to get rid of lousy teachers (many of them that get tenure after a few years, don't care even to teach, and even collect payments during the long hearings of sex scandals).

So yeah, they don't have the same interests as parents. It's not that we don't agree, it's that you're wrong.

Wow, all of that sounds like the exactly thing that is really wrong with education in this nation; parents and students not taking responsibility for themselves. "My kid's a dumbass and I can't be bothered with helping him with homework, it's the teachers fault he's failing. Yeah, they test the students TOO MUCH." Trust me, a market based education system is not going to make kids want to learn algebra any more than public schools.

Why should I trust you when the schools with the best scores are that were lucky enough to be autonomous to adjust teaching strategies, evaluate their teachers and put them through improvement programs, or change their school regime?

National government policies will never be as flexible or have that much room for self-improvement and course correction as the market does. It can make it cheaper too.

Alright, I'll break this up by paragraph

1. If misinformed parents change their attitude over time, again, why do they still support abstinence only education. Hell, why do they still support creationism.

Changes in education over time are visible in quantities. Some parents, but they are increasingly less. What most people fail to see is that parents do that out of a reaction for having little say in their children's education. But when the decision lies on them, when there is no one else to protest, when free market competition awards the best job positions to the academic top... that's all it's going to matter. The huge majority of parents are much more sensible to the needs of their sons and daughters than the government is. In fact, most parents with public schools kids have to spend time and money for additional lessons, mistake corrections or homework assistance, due to the lousy preparation offered by public schools. Yes, there are irresponsible parents out there, but they are the kids parents. And most, no matter how humble or how uneducated, identify good schools. That's why charters have such a great demand!

I have a problem with public education proponents fixating on the worst examples of parents. Well, that is an issue for some people. The big issue for most people is that country can't afford a costly, mismanaged, bureaucratic and centralized education program that has proven to ineffective (just check USA's proficiency levels; they suck) while education reform is stopped in its tracks over and over. I don't want a high-tech computer in my kids classroom. I want a good teacher! I don't want a system makes good teachers leave and bad ones stay while a horde of state and federal administrators keep cashing their pay-checks. I want to encourage programs of motivated, unorthodox teachers that are pushed to improve and can design their own methods and their own systems. I want parents to have more of a say, yes. What's wrong with that?

2. That is nothing like our public school system.

What country do you live in?

Watch 'Waiting for Superman'. Then come talk to me.

3. Apple sucks. But beyond my personal opinion, they also specialize in an expensive product that not everyone can afford and their "highly skilled" work force works behind the scenes, are relativaly few, and don't deal directly with the consumer. The people working at the Apple stores or tech support are not the "highly skilled" people you are talking about, or they wouldn't be working those jobs.

God. It was an example of good business. You are in the tiniest minority there. Programmers, marketers, industrial designers, all praise Apple, yet you find it overrated (imagine my surprise).
Of course not everybody can afford Apple products. But more and more people can every year and price-reduction has been highly perceptible. Their production system pays attention to detail, they don't work behind the scenes at all (even for a software company that is supposed to keep their developments top secret - you just happen to be poorly informed). But even if you don't agree with any of that, you must know that the private sector cannot be reduced to just McDonalds and Walt-Mart.

4. See, again you are talking about highly skilled personnel. I'm talking about the business. That link is all well and good, but the business is about profit.

You talk of highly skilled teachers. What is your definition of highly skilled. Teachers aren't just pulled off the street, they do go to years of college to learn their skills. Are you talking professor level skills? If they get to that point, they'd be professors, and would seek a professor's compensation. That is the hypocrisy of our society. People want "highly skilled" teachers yet at the same time they demonize them and think they get paid too much. Why would anybody go through years of college, accept crappy pay, work 10 plus work day, not to mention taking work home with them, and have lazy parents yell at them because their kid is too stupid or out right refuses to do work? Didn't some state recently stop compensating teachers who went on to get their masters? So much for wanted highly skilled teachers.

I hear you. That is the mentality that has gotten us in the crappy public education system we have to day. What is the leading force behind the opposition to better teacher compensation? Are you seated? Teachers' Unions and other public education workers' organizations. They consistently destroy negotiations to ensure wages bumps based on performance and evaluation.

Again: Watch 'Waiting for Superman'. Look it up online.

5. I never said alternative schooling didn't have merits. And alternative school does exist. I'm saying making all school based on private markets is a bad idea. In a competition, somebody has to lose, and in this case it would be the children. Everything you put forth has been your own opinion, so you really can't say I have know idea about what I am talking about.

My opinion? You say simplistic, biased, unfounded stuff like that in bold but I'm the one saying nothing but opinions? I, who have given you examples, counter-arguments, multiple reasons... me? Against you, who say ludicrous things like 'since market is competition, the losers in that competition will be the kids'? Really?

Be humble. Get informed first.

 

[Faramir]

I agree with you to some extent but I think many assume the public school system serves a different purpose than it really does. We already have a "tiered" education system. The more money you have the better schools and education you can afford. Public schools are for the plebs. Its only there to put out laborers, semi-skilled workers, etc. The main goal of it (imo) is to teach you to show up, be on time, and follow directions, complete tasks on time, etc. They are not concerned with "educating" everyone. The cream rises to the top before or during high school and the best of the public education sector can go on to improve their station. Then they can send their kids to the real schools.

Trust me, those are nothing but words of comfortable resignation. Why lower expectations? What do South Korea, Japan, Australia or Switzerland have that America doesn't? Better income levels? Then why Chinese or even Indian schools form better prepared children? Why is the United States 25th in Math and 24th in Science? The top 5% of American students ranked 23rd among students of 29 developed countries. The very best!

Wealth is not even a guarantee of good k-12 education. One of the featured students in the aforementioned documentary, is Emily Jones. She comes from a high-income middle-class family, lives in a wealthy neighbourhood in Rentwood, California, with an average home price of almost a million dollars. Of course, she went to a public school that had no visible budgetary problems. There was enough money for the construction of several new facilities, maintenance, and even a video communication system for the principal to give messages. And she, just like most of the kids in that school, perform really low in basic subjects like English and Mathematics. It is not a problem of money.

I know significant education reform is persistently blocked and people get used to what they have, but to perceive public schools as a place for kids to learn 'good behaviour' is telling how low America's education has sunk. Aren't people throwing the towel?

The "tiers" are based on wealth and then merit. I think those that run the country behind the scenes know that there is no way to educate the dumb masses, nor do they really want to try.

I strongly disagree. It is possible (google Geoffrey Canada's work with the "dumb masses") and there are people our there who want to change it for good. It's just a matter of raising awareness and putting more vocal pressure. Gridlocks aren't insurmountable. There are solutions out there and opposers aren't all-powerful.

And make no mistakes... the better the education, the more people are going to live responsible, contributing and fulfilling lives. In any area.

 

[bell110]

Parents are part of the public, but not the totality. On that evidence alone, you have to admit that politicians and schools cater to different publics. More importantly, the parents that rely on public schools for financial reasons are not the main part of a politician's electorate, because contributions are necessarily smaller. Teachers Unions

And of course the unions don't have the exact same interests as the parents! The parents are all for getting their kids the best possible education, while unions are all about protecting the workers' jobs, no matter their performance quality. For the unions, a bad teacher and a good teacher is the same... they all pay their membership dues. And they have consistently proven it over and over when they oppose any differentiation between good or bad teachers, whether on grounds or merit payments or more flexible contracts for schools to get rid of lousy teachers (many of them that get tenure after a few years, don't care even to teach, and even collect payments during the long hearings of sex scandals).

So yeah, they don't have the same interests as parents. It's not that we don't agree, it's that you're wrong.



Why should I trust you when the schools with the best scores are that were lucky enough to be autonomous to adjust teaching strategies, evaluate their teachers and put them through improvement programs, or change their school regime?

National government policies will never be as flexible or have that much room for self-improvement and course correction as the market does. It can make it cheaper too.



Changes in education over time are visible in quantities. Some parents, but they are increasingly less. What most people fail to see is that parents do that out of a reaction for having little say in their children's education. But when the decision lies on them, when there is no one else to protest, when free market competition awards the best job positions to the academic top... that's all it's going to matter. The huge majority of parents are much more sensible to the needs of their sons and daughters than the government is. In fact, most parents with public schools kids have to spend time and money for additional lessons, mistake corrections or homework assistance, due to the lousy preparation offered by public schools. Yes, there are irresponsible parents out there, but they are the kids parents. And most, no matter how humble or how uneducated, identify good schools. That's why charters have such a great demand!

I have a problem with public education proponents fixating on the worst examples of parents. Well, that is an issue for some people. The big issue for most people is that country can't afford a costly, mismanaged, bureaucratic and centralized education program that has proven to ineffective (just check USA's proficiency levels; they suck) while education reform is stopped in its tracks over and over. I don't want a high-tech computer in my kids classroom. I want a good teacher! I don't want a system makes good teachers leave and bad ones stay while a horde of state and federal administrators keep cashing their pay-checks. I want to encourage programs of motivated, unorthodox teachers that are pushed to improve and can design their own methods and their own systems. I want parents to have more of a say, yes. What's wrong with that?





What country do you live in?

Watch 'Waiting for Superman'. Then come talk to me.



God. It was an example of good business. You are in the tiniest minority there. Programmers, marketers, industrial designers, all praise Apple, yet you find it overrated (imagine my surprise).
Of course not everybody can afford Apple products. But more and more people can every year and price-reduction has been highly perceptible. Their production system pays attention to detail, they don't work behind the scenes at all (even for a software company that is supposed to keep their developments top secret - you just happen to be poorly informed). But even if you don't agree with any of that, you must know that the private sector cannot be reduced to just McDonalds and Walt-Mart.





I hear you. That is the mentality that has gotten us in the crappy public education system we have to day. What is the leading force behind the opposition to better teacher compensation? Are you seated? Teachers' Unions and other public education workers' organizations. They consistently destroy negotiations to ensure wages bumps based on performance and evaluation.

Again: Watch 'Waiting for Superman'. Look it up online.



My opinion? You say simplistic, biased, unfounded stuff like that in bold but I'm the one saying nothing but opinions? I, who have given you examples, counter-arguments, multiple reasons... me? Against you, who say ludicrous things like 'since market is competition, the losers in that competition will be the kids'? Really?

Be humble. Get informed first.

I consider myself a cynical person, but you take it to a new level. You really haven't provided anything substantial All of your "exmples, counter-aguements, mulptiple reasons" were all opinions. How about linking some stats to anything you just said? You keep going of on different directions to prove your arguement, swapping talk about "personnel" instead of "businesses" and "unions" instead of "teachers". There was so much wrong with your post, but your condescending attitude makes me not want to bother. I've never had a bad teacher in all my years in school. But it's been my experience that the people who complained about their teachers being poor or "hating" them were usually the people who spent more time trying to be the class clown than focus on their work.

 

[Faramir]

 

[WildcatNC]

Trust me, those are nothing but words of comfortable resignation. Why lower expectations? What do South Korea, Japan, Australia or Switzerland have that America doesn't? Better income levels? Then why Chinese or even Indian schools form better prepared children? Why is the United States 25th in Math and 24th in Science? The top 5% of American students ranked 23rd among students of 29 developed countries. The very best!

Most countries that do so well don't even try to educate all children. They take the gifted and bright. What % of China's children get educations? Its much easier to manage a smaller scale system efficiently also. Population plays a large part in ease of public education.

Much of it is also our culture also. We value materialism, stupidity, and drama. Flash over substance. Rome at its height suffered from much the same thing. The youth are coddled and catered to on a psychological level and end up being grown kids mentally. We are so spoiled we no longer appreciate education and therefore do not make good use of it when given half the time.

Wealth is not even a guarantee of good k-12 education. One of the featured students in the aforementioned documentary, is Emily Jones. She comes from a high-income middle-class family, lives in a wealthy neighbourhood in Rentwood, California, with an average home price of almost a million dollars. Of course, she went to a public school that had no visible budgetary problems. There was enough money for the construction of several new facilities, maintenance, and even a video communication system for the principal to give messages. And she, just like most of the kids in that school, perform really low in basic subjects like English and Mathematics. It is not a problem of money.

I know significant education reform is persistently blocked and people get used to what they have, but to perceive public schools as a place for kids to learn 'good behaviour' is telling how low America's education has sunk. Aren't people throwing the towel?



I strongly disagree. It is possible (google Geoffrey Canada's work with the "dumb masses") and there are people our there who want to change it for good. It's just a matter of raising awareness and putting more vocal pressure. Gridlocks aren't insurmountable. There are solutions out there and opposers aren't all-powerful.

And make no mistakes... the better the education, the more people are going to live responsible, contributing and fulfilling lives. In any area.

I said some believe they can do something. I'm saying that all those that matter (policy makers, shadow government, the rich 1%) all in all just don't give a ****. They have the money to get their kids a great education AND they know they need people to do their lawn and plumbing.

There are NO guarantees money gets you a good education, I never said that. There is no 100% in this stuff, only averages and trends. There is no denying that being rich allows you to afford the best schools and gives a child a significant leg up on those who are poor. Stupid is still stupid though. Money generally means more stability and ability to travel to the best schools if need be. Exceptions do not negate that statement, they are just that.....exceptions. All systems have them.

Its not "throwing in the towel" to see the world for how it is. Its always been a class based system and it still is. Its just based on money now rather than land. There ARE people trying to make this utopia come about, but its an unrealistic idealized version of culture and human nature. The real powerful and wealthy (most you never hear of) will always stifle it, whether through policy, funding, propaganda, etc. I believe they know there is no sense in trying to make the plebs into aristocrats. They like it just the way it is. Them on top and us making them a fortune on our backs and thanking them for it. Its been that way since the dawn of agriculture when the rich locked up the food.

 

[Faramir]

Most countries that do so well don't even try to educate all children. They take the gifted and bright. What % of China's children get educations? Its much easier to manage a smaller scale system efficiently also. Population plays a large part in ease of public education.

First of all, that's why I pitted China and India; your rationale doesn't apply to a country like Australia. Second, of course that's the issue. China does not supply universal education (in practice, not in theory) because they can't handle a country that is largely rural and as big as the United States. Their problem is centralization, which shouldn't be an issue in America since every state can operate functional governments. Now, I'm not saying America is as badly as China in lack of non-urban development, but I do know that centralizing education policies and funding leads to an eventually inoperative education. The Chinese opted for cutting an arm (only supplying top education to part of its population) instead of letting their provinces develop their individual economies and figure their education policies. The US has to do the latter.

Besides, didn't you say public schools are just to teach proper behaviour. I think that is absurd, since many don't even accomplish that and many colleges have to teach K-12 material again since the kids arrive under-prepared. But let us assume your take is correct... why then, increase so dramatically federal funding if all they need to do is keep kids at school? Do you see any logic there?

Much of it is also our culture also. We value materialism, stupidity, and drama. Flash over substance. Rome at its height suffered from much the same thing. The youth are coddled and catered to on a psychological level and end up being grown kids mentally. We are so spoiled we no longer appreciate education and therefore do not make good use of it when given half the time.

First, we can't change that. Culture cannot be changed with policies. But education can. I think you're mistaking cause and consequence here. Once education improves significantly, that will lead to shifts in consumer behaviour and values... then the market, especially media and entertainment, will adjust proportionally to that change in values. Every country out there that shifted from state intervention to market integration and vice-versa, witnessed a visible change in culture. Why would America be otherwise?

I said some believe they can do something. I'm saying that all those that matter (policy makers, shadow government, the rich 1%) all in all just don't give a ****. They have the money to get their kids a great education AND they know they need people to do their lawn and plumbing.

That's not true. There are people out there in public service that have spearheaded really profound reforms. When a Harvard graduate sets himself to run a publicly funded charter school, how does that add up?

I believe there are many indifferent people, and I also believe there are many with great ideas that cannot be put into practice because, let's face it, a big education overhaul will affect many special interests' pockets. Exactly what DC's Mayors Anthony Williams and Adrian Fenty experimented. They broke ranks with their party only to have be hand-tied by the machine. But constant demand of accountability from our politicians, plus big support for real reform candidates and initiatives, can bring some changes. It's difficult, but it's possible. The problem is when most politicians including the current president decide to back off the fight and break election promises.

This is not a problem of rich vs. wealthy. 'The rich', as a whole, aren't trying to screw the rest. To believe that is immature. Most may be indifferent, but those in pain who vote for people that will perpetuate their problems... or don't vote at all... that is worse.

Come on dude, really? Lectures about the 'evil wealthy' people? Every big business out there wants to make more money, which means they need three things: 1. to lower prices and keep innovation as much as they can so... 2. to have more and better paid consumers that can afford their products... 3. to have better prepared workers that can be contracted just as easily as the competition is. None of that can be done without strong national education. So even the "evil rich" (i.e. Bill Gates) want education reform.

It has not always being like this... so it follows it can change back.

 

[Faramir]

Please people, check Michelle Rhee's organization: StudentsFirst.org which has been talking for a long time mobilizing people against the LIFO ("last in, first out" policy) that forces schools in several states to cut budgets by laying off teachers based on seniority, not quality.

 

[8wid]

EDIT