Education: The problem is NOT lack of funding

The_Bear · 08-14-2007, 09:43 PM

The problem is lack of interest, which is caused by a few fold:
a) Families or social situations that do not have the interest or the resources to properly give the adequate oversight of kids in school systems.
b) Centralized control of the education system leaves school funding dependent on some test.
c) Centralized control of the education system that does not take into account localized situations.
d) A cirriculum that teaches many things that appear irrellevant.
--> E) Overall, a lack of context that appreciates realizing educations full potential
--

To illustrate my point more clearly, I believe what I am about to write is called an allegory.
--

A kid grows up on a farm. On this farm, each day before he goes to school, he helps his father out with tending the crops of the livestock of his farm. During the day, this kid spends time at school, learning the usual things that kids learn, and doing the usual things that kids do: recess, reading, writing, math, etc. After school is finished, the kid returns home to his farm, milks the cows, does some chores, eats food, does homework, and goes to sleep. Ultimately, although he goes to school everyday, he learns the way the world works so much more from his home life; the world, he says, is pastoral in its nature. What do I care if some guy is chasing the white whale in a book? What do I care about the circumference of a circle? Everything the kid learns at school, he learns in relation to what it is that he does at home. And what he learns at home tells him what to remember from the school hours; geometry, so he could learn how to line up the seeds properly - math, so he could learn how to keep track of the milk from his cows. Everything else is just learned for the sake of learning - and this information, once is no longer needed, is either forgotten or discarded for relevant info.

---Comparitevly---

A kid grows up in an inner city school. The kid's family is poor, and doesn't even have a full set of caring parents. As a result of this, the kid turns to other people for mentoring; those that have been in the 'inner city' longer, artists who have their name known (IE biggy, tupac, eminem), teachers, guidance counslers, etc. However, due to the nature of the circumstances of these schools, these schools do not attract the best teachers for the specific job; working in an inner city school has been described as 'missionary work', especially since private schools are willing to pay for more for the same quality of teacher than inner city public schools. Once again, the kid has no particular reason to push himself unless he begins to recognize the beauty of education; however, since nothing aroudn him is telling him about the beauty of education, this guy doesn't want to be educated - instead, that which is glorified is pursued (drugs, basketball, rap).

---One more---

A kid grows up in a well to do situation. Both parents have jobs, and the kid never feels the pangs of hunger, disease, etc. Every night, before the kid goes to sleep, the parents read the kid nighttime stories, which leave the kid wondering about the magic of the universe. Whether it is winnie the pooh, or goosebumps, the kid gets exposed to the fact that there is much out there that he does not know, and that he should know. MOre than that, he should understand the key question of why people do things - why winnie the pooh always wanted more honey, or why he wanted to be friends with christopher robin. So, this fire has been lit inside the kid because initially it was brought to him on a plane that he can understand; so, although he may not be interested enough in learning everything, he is capable of undertaking on his own accord the path to learn how to read.

-----

Ultimately, what I wish to point out, is that in examining the reading levels of kids, you cannot take them as an aggregate; because intrinsically, reading is an individual thing. Its not like every year, the entire class of a school gets together and reads moby dick in an auditorium, so why do we treat it like they do?
The failure of our education system lies not in the education system, but in the general context by which we send our kids into education. In the context, learning and understanding the fundamental principles that govern our life and existence, is not something that is praised and promoted; instead, within our lives, schools are most heavily a social place, rather than a place of education. It is not a question of funding - it is a question of what the kids who enter the schools are looking for. In some cases, people are entering the classes to learn practical things they can use at home; in some cases, they are entering the schools because that's the only place for them to go; in still other cases, they enter the schools because the schools will provide them with the best education. What I decry in this thread is the amount of people who view schools as not a educational place, where they can enhance their creative capacity, but just another place in the neighborhood.

This is why the centralized testing is a flawed idea, because you cannot force two people who grow up in different contexts to adhere to the same plan. This is why tying funding to test scores will ultimately lead to administrators meddling with the scores. This is why mandating things that are irrellevant to people who don't want them will lead to a waste of time and resources. It is because the general context in which kids judge their experiences at school is determined by their out of school life - and this context, does not lend itself an appreciation of our ability to understand the 'why' and 'how' question.

Cyrene · 08-17-2007, 02:05 PM

You're misplacing cause and effect children's interests aren't determined by their environment predominantly, a children's interest is determined by a grossly complex interaction of genes and environment. A child that grows up in a farming community may be just as inspired to a carreer in science or whatever. A lot of what determines the child's interest(s) is biological. Say, I doubt many geniuses born in farming communities grow up to become the average farmer opposed to an agricultural scientist.

Besides that it has a lot more to do with the actual content of the courses and cirriculum, I live in Canada and we had teacher's mixing things like sociology with religion, biology with religion, etc etc.

Zarathustra · 08-17-2007, 02:08 PM

It's neither. The problem with education is partly property taxes, and partly the way education is run: By the feds.

Dispondent · 08-17-2007, 02:24 PM

Much of it comes down to the value of education within a given community and how that value is confered to the student.

Zarathustra · 08-17-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dispondent

Much of it comes down to the value of education within a given community and how that value is confered to the student.

That doesn't matter if schools aren't motivated to improve. As long as the present method of education continues, some public schools will be decent and others will be below average and some will be terrible.

I propose a school voucher system. Let the PARENTS, NOT the government, decide what school their children go to.

splansing · 08-17-2007, 03:11 PM

Vouchers for sure. Privatize.

Take all of the criticisms of things that could potentially go wrong with a system of privatizing schools...and ask yourself if those things haven't already gone wrong in public schools. We have nothing to lose except an educational system that is falling apart. Whatever problems are posed by making the switch, we already face far worse problems trying to hold together the shitpiece school system we've got now.

I seem to remember doing an awful lot of things in school to fulfill requirements that were universal, that often had very little to do with many of the students.

I think the feds need to get out of the way, for sure. We need to allow kids the opportunity to specialize earlier than we do now. If education is compulsive and publicly funded through the 12th grade, then finishing the 12th grade ought to prepare a kid better for life, and include a lot more practical learning and hands-on experience. A kid should be able to learn how to solder pipes or operate heavy machinery or refinish a floor or build shelves or furniture in high school. Do I really need another trip through Columbus and the Triangle Trade when I'm at an age where I might be worried about how I'm going to help my family pay the bills in six months?

Freedom for All · 08-17-2007, 04:42 PM

Centralized testing is not a flawed idea, it's the only way to gage someone's preparedness for a given task.

I don't give a shit if an applicant grew up on a two-parent loving home, a home with one parent, or a dumpster. If I need someone that can do calculus, I'm going to test his ability to apply limits, do differentiation, and take integrals.

And if I need someone to do job requiring good English skills, I'm going to want to see how he does on English writing and reading comprehension. I won't give a crap if he speaks fluent Invader if I don't have a position requiring that language. And I won't care if he grew up as an Anchor Baby with six daddies and three mommies, either, at last not insofar as my needs for English language skills are concerned.

And that's what centralized testing is for. To establish a common baseline for measurement.

splansing · 08-17-2007, 04:46 PM

The tests are certainly not the problem. The problems have to do with how and what we teach people. Nothing wrong with establishing some standards for measuring a person's aptitude at something. But ETS is a non-profit organization, and can come to be trusted nationally just as well as anything the feds concoct. And they'll pay their own bills, too.

Desidude666 · 08-17-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Bear

The problem is lack of interest, which is caused by a few fold:
a) Families or social situations that do not have the interest or the resources to properly give the adequate oversight of kids in school systems.
b) Centralized control of the education system leaves school funding dependent on some test.
c) Centralized control of the education system that does not take into account localized situations.
d) A cirriculum that teaches many things that appear irrellevant.
--> E) Overall, a lack of context that appreciates realizing educations full potential
--

To illustrate my point more clearly, I believe what I am about to write is called an allegory.
--

A kid grows up on a farm. On this farm, each day before he goes to school, he helps his father out with tending the crops of the livestock of his farm. During the day, this kid spends time at school, learning the usual things that kids learn, and doing the usual things that kids do: recess, reading, writing, math, etc. After school is finished, the kid returns home to his farm, milks the cows, does some chores, eats food, does homework, and goes to sleep. Ultimately, although he goes to school everyday, he learns the way the world works so much more from his home life; the world, he says, is pastoral in its nature. What do I care if some guy is chasing the white whale in a book? What do I care about the circumference of a circle? Everything the kid learns at school, he learns in relation to what it is that he does at home. And what he learns at home tells him what to remember from the school hours; geometry, so he could learn how to line up the seeds properly - math, so he could learn how to keep track of the milk from his cows. Everything else is just learned for the sake of learning - and this information, once is no longer needed, is either forgotten or discarded for relevant info.

---Comparitevly---

A kid grows up in an inner city school. The kid's family is poor, and doesn't even have a full set of caring parents. As a result of this, the kid turns to other people for mentoring; those that have been in the 'inner city' longer, artists who have their name known (IE biggy, tupac, eminem), teachers, guidance counslers, etc. However, due to the nature of the circumstances of these schools, these schools do not attract the best teachers for the specific job; working in an inner city school has been described as 'missionary work', especially since private schools are willing to pay for more for the same quality of teacher than inner city public schools. Once again, the kid has no particular reason to push himself unless he begins to recognize the beauty of education; however, since nothing aroudn him is telling him about the beauty of education, this guy doesn't want to be educated - instead, that which is glorified is pursued (drugs, basketball, rap).

---One more---

A kid grows up in a well to do situation. Both parents have jobs, and the kid never feels the pangs of hunger, disease, etc. Every night, before the kid goes to sleep, the parents read the kid nighttime stories, which leave the kid wondering about the magic of the universe. Whether it is winnie the pooh, or goosebumps, the kid gets exposed to the fact that there is much out there that he does not know, and that he should know. MOre than that, he should understand the key question of why people do things - why winnie the pooh always wanted more honey, or why he wanted to be friends with christopher robin. So, this fire has been lit inside the kid because initially it was brought to him on a plane that he can understand; so, although he may not be interested enough in learning everything, he is capable of undertaking on his own accord the path to learn how to read.

-----

Ultimately, what I wish to point out, is that in examining the reading levels of kids, you cannot take them as an aggregate; because intrinsically, reading is an individual thing. Its not like every year, the entire class of a school gets together and reads moby dick in an auditorium, so why do we treat it like they do?
The failure of our education system lies not in the education system, but in the general context by which we send our kids into education. In the context, learning and understanding the fundamental principles that govern our life and existence, is not something that is praised and promoted; instead, within our lives, schools are most heavily a social place, rather than a place of education. It is not a question of funding - it is a question of what the kids who enter the schools are looking for. In some cases, people are entering the classes to learn practical things they can use at home; in some cases, they are entering the schools because that's the only place for them to go; in still other cases, they enter the schools because the schools will provide them with the best education. What I decry in this thread is the amount of people who view schools as not a educational place, where they can enhance their creative capacity, but just another place in the neighborhood.

This is why the centralized testing is a flawed idea, because you cannot force two people who grow up in different contexts to adhere to the same plan. This is why tying funding to test scores will ultimately lead to administrators meddling with the scores. This is why mandating things that are irrellevant to people who don't want them will lead to a waste of time and resources. It is because the general context in which kids judge their experiences at school is determined by their out of school life - and this context, does not lend itself an appreciation of our ability to understand the 'why' and 'how' question.

It is primarily centralized to maintain quality assurances of what is taught and what level of understanding is expected. While the education could be to mechanistic at times and vague even, it is *not* obsolete. So, it works. Ideally put, the better resources you have, the better quality of education you could access.

Zarathustra · 08-18-2007, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desidude666

It is primarily centralized to maintain quality assurances of what is taught and what level of understanding is expected. While the education could be to mechanistic at times and vague even, it is *not* obsolete. So, it works. Ideally put, the better resources you have, the better quality of education you could access.

You DO know that centralization and quality are mutually incompatible right?