Education Discussion

[Soxy]

I think Clinton was as big of a cheerleader as Reagan.

 

Yes we can make higher education affordable through better grants, scholarships or something. It's completely out of hand.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I think Clinton was as big of a cheerleader as Reagan.

 

Yes we can make higher education affordable through better grants, scholarships or something. It's completely out of hand.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see, in terms of education costs... we need to do more about tax shelters for early child care. Its just a reality now that most families have two working parents, and day care is absurdly expensive. Like, more than tuition at most colleges (even private) per year. Its absolutely insane. If its two kids, you are talking about more money than the majority of Americans take home every year.

 

[Soxy]

I'll tell you what I'd like to see, in terms of education costs... we need to do more about tax shelters for early child care. Its just a reality now that most families have two working parents, and day care is absurdly expensive. Like, more than tuition at most colleges (even private) per year. Its absolutely insane. If its two kids, you are talking about more money than the majority of Americans take home every year.

Honestly, something needs to be done about education from birth on up.

[Texsox]

Honestly, something needs to be done about education from birth on up.

 

The change that is needed is away from local property taxes dictating the quality of the school.

[kapkomet]

I'll tell you what I'd like to see, in terms of education costs... we need to do more about tax shelters for early child care. Its just a reality now that most families have two working parents, and day care is absurdly expensive. Like, more than tuition at most colleges (even private) per year. Its absolutely insane. If its two kids, you are talking about more money than the majority of Americans take home every year.

 

 

Honestly, something needs to be done about education from birth on up.

Word.

 

I think that somehow, there has to be a "re-education" on what fosters a real learning environment - an emphasis on critical thinking... I know that's hard to do with little kids, but be onvolved is the biggest thing. So how do we involve parents who don't want to be involved (it's the school's job to teach my kids, not me)? That's the biggest drain, IMO, on our system. I think what Soxy is saying is more generalized then that - but I struggle with this now being a parent and seeing other kids my kids age with their parents not teaching them manners, etc. What do we do about that?

 

/threadjack.

 

[bmags]

Out of curiousity, kap, do you think that is an issue the fed gov't should be tackling.

[kapkomet]

Out of curiousity, kap, do you think that is an issue the fed gov't should be tackling.

Education? Is that what you're asking?

 

[bmags]

Yes.

[kapkomet]

It's a gray area to me.

 

I laregly think it's up to the state and local goverments. I have a hard time with the "voucher" program, although I understand the intent.

 

I do think that there should be a standardization by our national government but I don't think that national education funding should go back to the states based on a test score program... I have a serious problem with that because there's too many issues with that.

 

I think that part of the budget should just get allocated back to the states based on the populations of said children. In that way, the NATIONAL money is equalized ($X/student). Fair? That depends on your view point. On a national level, I think it's fair. The state then distributes how it can.

 

The biggest issue (and therefore problem) is population shifts, inner cities whose dynamics simply don't change or get worse. How do you take care of that? In that way, somehow, there has to be a revitalization of the areas - and that goes beyond education programs. The problems largely start at home and where these kids live. If you're in a disadvantaged area, you stay in a disadvantaged area. I don't really know how you take care of that... other then through some of the initiatives beyond education to get off of urban blight, if you will.

 

Parents are the other hugely important role. If you have parents that screw just to pump out kids for the welfare money, that's obviously a huge problem too. And it happens in the more economically depressed areas in the country. Again, that transcends "education". What do we do about that?

 

Education is more then children. It's about the whole population. Re-education is something that is sorely needed in this country.

 

I guess I don't have a good answer.

 

 

[bmags]

It's a gray area to me.

 

I laregly think it's up to the state and local goverments. I have a hard time with the "voucher" program, although I understand the intent.

 

I do think that there should be a standardization by our national government but I don't think that national education funding should go back to the states based on a test score program... I have a serious problem with that because there's too many issues with that.

 

I think that part of the budget should just get allocated back to the states based on the populations of said children. In that way, the NATIONAL money is equalized ($X/student). Fair? That depends on your view point. On a national level, I think it's fair. The state then distributes how it can.

 

The biggest issue (and therefore problem) is population shifts, inner cities whose dynamics simply don't change or get worse. How do you take care of that? In that way, somehow, there has to be a revitalization of the areas - and that goes beyond education programs. The problems largely start at home and where these kids live. If you're in a disadvantaged area, you stay in a disadvantaged area. I don't really know how you take care of that... other then through some of the initiatives beyond education to get off of urban blight, if you will.

 

Parents are the other hugely important role. If you have parents that screw just to pump out kids for the welfare money, that's obviously a huge problem too. And it happens in the more economically depressed areas in the country. Again, that transcends "education". What do we do about that?

 

Education is more then children. It's about the whole population. Re-education is something that is sorely needed in this country.

 

I guess I don't have a good answer.

 

Me neither, I actually feel quite similar. I'm for more standardized education, but also realize how culturally delicate that is. We are such a big country, and so diverse. So I think there are specific things can be done nationally, along the lines of some of the things you said, but also know that there needs to be a lot of flexibility for schools to fit their students.

[farmteam]

My biggest concern this election more than anything -- Iraq, Gay Marriage, alternative energy -- was education. More than anything else, education is really a building block in a person's life. I was lucky enough to go to a good public school, but many aren't, I really think we need to completely restructure education in this country, and stop using band-aids.

[southsider2k5]

It's a gray area to me.

 

I laregly think it's up to the state and local goverments. I have a hard time with the "voucher" program, although I understand the intent.

 

I do think that there should be a standardization by our national government but I don't think that national education funding should go back to the states based on a test score program... I have a serious problem with that because there's too many issues with that.

 

I think that part of the budget should just get allocated back to the states based on the populations of said children. In that way, the NATIONAL money is equalized ($X/student). Fair? That depends on your view point. On a national level, I think it's fair. The state then distributes how it can.

 

The biggest issue (and therefore problem) is population shifts, inner cities whose dynamics simply don't change or get worse. How do you take care of that? In that way, somehow, there has to be a revitalization of the areas - and that goes beyond education programs. The problems largely start at home and where these kids live. If you're in a disadvantaged area, you stay in a disadvantaged area. I don't really know how you take care of that... other then through some of the initiatives beyond education to get off of urban blight, if you will.

 

Parents are the other hugely important role. If you have parents that screw just to pump out kids for the welfare money, that's obviously a huge problem too. And it happens in the more economically depressed areas in the country. Again, that transcends "education". What do we do about that?

 

Education is more then children. It's about the whole population. Re-education is something that is sorely needed in this country.

 

I guess I don't have a good answer.

 

Its actually very interesting, but we are seeing exactly what you are talking about in Indiana right now. They have taken away regular old property tax funding, the municipalities are instead sending money to the state, and they are re-allocating it back to the local areas based on a one student = $X formula. The most interesting part of it is that we in Michigan City have already seen the first big down fall of that, which is not all students require the same amount of funding to educate. MC has a very big special education population. These type of students cost more to educate because their needs are more intensive than your average C student who is going to cruise through HS without taking a difficult class.

 

I really have a large problem with the nationalization of education in some respects, but totally understand it in others. My biggest problem, which I have seen first hand is it takes away the creativity of teachers in the classroom to be able to teach to the best of their abilities. On the other hand, with as much money as is being put into education, why shouldn't the federal government have some say in the final results, like they would any other governmental program? You are seeing the seeds of nationalization of education coming out of No Child Left Behind. I like most of the ideas (having some standards), but really hate the way it was implemented and executed. Study after study have said that after the home issues (socio-economic backround, parental education level and involvement etc) the next best thing that could be done for a kids education is to get student teacher levels around something like 15:1. With all of the unfunded mandates that exist for education now, many of the classrooms in our district are at double that ratio. We have hired so many administrators (part of that being horrible local management, another part, the need to meet federal and state laws) that we are literally taking teachers out of the classroom to become administrators.

 

In my experience in running for school board and being involved in our local system pretty heavily wasn't any of the old stereotypes, it was that so many kids had no expectations of being able to do better than their parents did. They go into our school system, and they don't work, and they don't try, because in their minds, their destiny is fixed. I don't have experience in another school system, but I would be that City isn't the only place this happens. Convincing each child that their education really could change their life is the biggest downfall of our system right now. My original hope for NCLB was that it would force our educational system to work harder to reach those kids and wake them up to what the rest of their lives could be. Instead it has become trying to get these kids to be able to pass a test, and moving them along to the next grading levels, so that a teacher/school/school systems numbers don't look bad.

 

What's the answer? That's the hard part. Having been very involved in seeing what Washington DC and Indianapolis policy does a specifc individual kid at Issac C Elston Middle School in Michigan City Indiana, makes you realize that it is nearly impossible for government to come up with a big policy that works for everyone. I think by and large the governmentalization of education has been a huge failure. I don't think it can be fixed on the federal level, and maybe not even on the state level from a policy standpoint. Funding is a different story. Their needs to be some recognition that the richest school districts don't deserve multiple amounts more money than our poorest districts. The simple formula of each kid equaling the same cost of educating is just dumb. Any formula needs to take into account poverty rates, community education levels, special education levels, and a few more things I am sure I am forgetting.

 

I could keep going on, but I think I will stop rambling now.

[NorthSideSox72]

Its actually very interesting, but we are seeing exactly what you are talking about in Indiana right now. They have taken away regular old property tax funding, the municipalities are instead sending money to the state, and they are re-allocating it back to the local areas based on a one student = $X formula. The most interesting part of it is that we in Michigan City have already seen the first big down fall of that, which is not all students require the same amount of funding to educate. MC has a very big special education population. These type of students cost more to educate because their needs are more intensive than your average C student who is going to cruise through HS without taking a difficult class.

 

I really have a large problem with the nationalization of education in some respects, but totally understand it in others. My biggest problem, which I have seen first hand is it takes away the creativity of teachers in the classroom to be able to teach to the best of their abilities. On the other hand, with as much money as is being put into education, why shouldn't the federal government have some say in the final results, like they would any other governmental program? You are seeing the seeds of nationalization of education coming out of No Child Left Behind. I like most of the ideas (having some standards), but really hate the way it was implemented and executed. Study after study have said that after the home issues (socio-economic backround, parental education level and involvement etc) the next best thing that could be done for a kids education is to get student teacher levels around something like 15:1. With all of the unfunded mandates that exist for education now, many of the classrooms in our district are at double that ratio. We have hired so many administrators (part of that being horrible local management, another part, the need to meet federal and state laws) that we are literally taking teachers out of the classroom to become administrators.

 

In my experience in running for school board and being involved in our local system pretty heavily wasn't any of the old stereotypes, it was that so many kids had no expectations of being able to do better than their parents did. They go into our school system, and they don't work, and they don't try, because in their minds, their destiny is fixed. I don't have experience in another school system, but I would be that City isn't the only place this happens. Convincing each child that their education really could change their life is the biggest downfall of our system right now. My original hope for NCLB was that it would force our educational system to work harder to reach those kids and wake them up to what the rest of their lives could be. Instead it has become trying to get these kids to be able to pass a test, and moving them along to the next grading levels, so that a teacher/school/school systems numbers don't look bad.

 

What's the answer? That's the hard part. Having been very involved in seeing what Washington DC and Indianapolis policy does a specifc individual kid at Issac C Elston Middle School in Michigan City Indiana, makes you realize that it is nearly impossible for government to come up with a big policy that works for everyone. I think by and large the governmentalization of education has been a huge failure. I don't think it can be fixed on the federal level, and maybe not even on the state level from a policy standpoint. Funding is a different story. Their needs to be some recognition that the richest school districts don't deserve multiple amounts more money than our poorest districts. The simple formula of each kid equaling the same cost of educating is just dumb. Any formula needs to take into account poverty rates, community education levels, special education levels, and a few more things I am sure I am forgetting.

 

I could keep going on, but I think I will stop rambling now.

Great post. I think I might break these education-related posts to a seperate thread, this is a good discussion.

 

One thing you hint at here, in regards to no allowance for teachers to teach their way, is that there are so many standardized tests that many teachers only teach to them. In some cases, there is little time left except for teaching to those exams, which means there is no time for critical thinking and discussion. Further, some of the grants out there (i.e. Gates Foundation) are a great idea poorly executed - they have requirements that are far too constricting in order to get the grant money.

 

Not sure of what the answer there is, since clearly you need some sort of semi-standard tests to establish base levels of education.

 

[southsider2k5]

Great post. I think I might break these education-related posts to a seperate thread, this is a good discussion.

 

One thing you hint at here, in regards to no allowance for teachers to teach their way, is that there are so many standardized tests that many teachers only teach to them. In some cases, there is little time left except for teaching to those exams, which means there is no time for critical thinking and discussion. Further, some of the grants out there (i.e. Gates Foundation) are a great idea poorly executed - they have requirements that are far too constricting in order to get the grant money.

 

Not sure of what the answer there is, since clearly you need some sort of semi-standard tests to establish base levels of education.

 

It has gotten so bad, we literally had one of the schools in our system teaching kids how to take the ISTEP (IN standardized tests). We also had that same school steal some of the answers and try to specifically teach them to some of the worst students to bring up test scores. There is no doubt in my mind the pendulum has swung too much towards standardized testing.

[StrangeSox]

20/20 (John Stossel) just did a report on the cost of college and whether or not its really worth it for everyone to go. There's a big push in high schools and society in general that absolutely everyone should attend college. Vocational schools are stigmatized.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020 -> "College: Worth the Price of Admission?"

Edited January 21, 2009 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

It has gotten so bad, we literally had one of the schools in our system teaching kids how to take the ISTEP (IN standardized tests). We also had that same school steal some of the answers and try to specifically teach them to some of the worst students to bring up test scores. There is no doubt in my mind the pendulum has swung too much towards standardized testing.

I think that there needs to be a standardization in some areas, but not in others.

 

Math is pretty black and white. Science? I think standardization goes too far. History's history - although the political slant that is taught troubles me because kids aren't taught to see both sides of an issue and then learn to choose for themselves.

 

I think standardization is good for curriculum, NOT how it's taught. It's like reading a college course guide. In this class, you will learn, XYZ. How it's taught should be left to the teacher to teach to his/her strengths. However, how much of that has the teacher been taught?

[kapkomet]

20/20 (John Stossel) just did a report on the cost of college and whether or not its really worth it for everyone to go. There's a big push in high schools and society in general that absolutely everyone should attend college. Vocational schools are stigmatized.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020 -> "College: Worth the Price of Admission?"

Now we get into education as a "right" and education as a "priveledge" (sort of like health care).

 

College (as I think of the term traditionally) isn't for everyone. If we change how colleges do things (i.e. vocational stuff like mechanics, etc. are "college") then I'm for it. I think "trade schools" are better words then college, because we are all taught trades (econ, finance, mechanics, etc. etc. etc.)

 

At that point, you start re-defining what education really is.

 

[southsider2k5]

I think that there needs to be a standardization in some areas, but not in others.

 

Math is pretty black and white. Science? I think standardization goes too far. History's history - although the political slant that is taught troubles me because kids aren't taught to see both sides of an issue and then learn to choose for themselves.

 

I think standardization is good for curriculum, NOT how it's taught. It's like reading a college course guide. In this class, you will learn, XYZ. How it's taught should be left to the teacher to teach to his/her strengths. However, how much of that has the teacher been taught?

 

Standarization, by its very nature, robs teachers of many of their teaching methods. When you tell a teacher the most important thing is for the kids to learn XYZ, and if enough of them don't your school and school system will lose funds, it means that they pretty much will be pushed to only teach XYZ, because that is the only thing that matters to the people who put school policy into place locally. Failing schools are what gets superintendants fired, and school boards voted out. In the end, they force the teachers to concentrate only on the standards. I have seen it first hand.

[southsider2k5]

Now we get into education as a "right" and education as a "priveledge" (sort of like health care).

 

College (as I think of the term traditionally) isn't for everyone. If we change how colleges do things (i.e. vocational stuff like mechanics, etc. are "college") then I'm for it. I think "trade schools" are better words then college, because we are all taught trades (econ, finance, mechanics, etc. etc. etc.)

 

At that point, you start re-defining what education really is.

 

I hate that we look at trade schools differently than we do institutions of higher education. Not every kid is going to be a doctorate. Why do we assume to stuff every single kid into the same box? Some kids best shot at a middle class life is to learn a blue collar trait, and not be forced to try to become a white collar employee that they aren't able to become. The important thing is that the option is there for students to learn something that will give them the ability to provide for themselves and a family for their lifetime, and it not be a "bad" or "lesser" thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

Standarization, by its very nature, robs teachers of many of their teaching methods. When you tell a teacher the most important thing is for the kids to learn XYZ, and if enough of them don't your school and school system will lose funds, it means that they pretty much will be pushed to only teach XYZ, because that is the only thing that matters to the people who put school policy into place locally. Failing schools are what gets superintendants fired, and school boards voted out. In the end, they force the teachers to concentrate only on the standards. I have seen it first hand.

I tend to agree, especially at higher levels like high school. I really fear that over-standardization will cause not only the lethargic attitude towards learning you have mentioned, but it also removes critical and dynamic thinking from the equation.

 

Kap used History as one example. I don't see standardization being of much use there. Think about what learning history means... a standardized test can see if you know who the 6th President was. But that fact in a vaccuum is almost irrelevant. What matters is, what did the 6th President DO, and what effect did that have on the nation?

 

[kapkomet]

Standarization, by its very nature, robs teachers of many of their teaching methods. When you tell a teacher the most important thing is for the kids to learn XYZ, and if enough of them don't your school and school system will lose funds, it means that they pretty much will be pushed to only teach XYZ, because that is the only thing that matters to the people who put school policy into place locally. Failing schools are what gets superintendants fired, and school boards voted out. In the end, they force the teachers to concentrate only on the standards. I have seen it first hand.

I realize that. The methods of teaching become the standard. Yet, there should be certain things that kids know. Where's the line? If I could figure that out, I'd be in Barack's administration.

 

 

[bmags]

I read a study that lower teacher-student ratios are really just important in k-6 levels and not as important in high schools. I believe it was a study in Kansas.

 

I, personally, like the American higher education system. I think it's good we keep such a liberal arts education instead of such specific "trade" schools like you would see in Germany.

[Soxy]

I read a study that lower teacher-student ratios are really just important in k-6 levels and not as important in high schools. I believe it was a study in Kansas.

 

I, personally, like the American higher education system. I think it's good we keep such a liberal arts education instead of such specific "trade" schools like you would see in Germany.

But liberal arts isn't for everyone. And by stigmatizing trade schools we're denying some people the kind of education they need.

 

I like the European system because there are more choices for students--so they get an education that is useful and beneficial to them. Too many students in this country go to college although they are academically unprepared or intellectually subpar because they feel like they have no other options. Not everyone should go to college, and even fewer people will flourish in a liberal arts setting.

 

I do think that there is beginning to be a much needed switch--for example Stout has made a rather nice transition to a tech school.

[bmags]

But liberal arts isn't for everyone. And by stigmatizing trade schools we're denying some people the kind of education they need.

 

I like the European system because there are more choices for students--so they get an education that is useful and beneficial to them. Too many students in this country go to college although they are academically unprepared or intellectually subpar because they feel like they have no other options. Not everyone should go to college, and even fewer people will flourish in a liberal arts setting.

 

I do think that there is beginning to be a much needed switch--for example Stout has made a rather nice transition to a tech school.

 

I didn't get the impression that trade schools or community colleges were stigmatized when I was in high school. They were openly encouraged. A liberal arts education is important to our democracy, in my opinion.

[southsider2k5]

But liberal arts isn't for everyone. And by stigmatizing trade schools we're denying some people the kind of education they need.

 

I like the European system because there are more choices for students--so they get an education that is useful and beneficial to them. Too many students in this country go to college although they are academically unprepared or intellectually subpar because they feel like they have no other options. Not everyone should go to college, and even fewer people will flourish in a liberal arts setting.

 

I do think that there is beginning to be a much needed switch--for example Stout has made a rather nice transition to a tech school.

 

Which, by the way, is a big reason that it costs so much to go to college. Its simple supply and demand. The number of institutions and spots at them is relatively fixed. With more people attempting to go to college, the price point becomes the way of weeding out some people from going.