Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Education US Schools -- a failed system?

absolutely I agree, Austin.

it is already that way, Ron. It has always been in the hands of the states not the federal government.
And it is my understanding that local schools ONLY get that money if they abide to the letter of NCLB. That is why the teachers are so frustrated.

department of education





The solution?
Fund the damn thing. If you hire creative teachers at a good salary, you'll have a creative atmosphere.
Our children are worth it. ALL of our children.
I saw another graph where 410.8 billion was spent in 2006 on defense and only 56.5 billion on education. That is disgusting.
Like Austin, in the long run I think we're going to be very sorry.

Olyve - I'm curious - what did you hate (or hate most) about being PTO president?

I remember PTO meetings as a child; my parents went to every one of them, and as one or more of us kids was part of the dog-and-pony show, we all had to go too.

BUT - that was a rural school, the meetings were held at night so all parents could attend - and I think they pretty much all did. I don't remember any of the business meetings, of course, I wasn't paying attention. But it seemed to me the adults took things pretty seriously.

As I said, rural school, a long time ago. But I'd like to hear more about your experience in the current century <weak grin>.

I understand that perfectly; nor was I limiting it to the NCLB stuff. Perhaps someone can tell me why the feds are in the mix for anything - even the 8-something percent? Exactly where is the constitutional authorization for a federal DoEd?

In included Congress - sorry for your confusion - only to indicate that both bureaucracies need to be flushed.

And that is exactly what the education cartel [monopoly | bureaucracy] resists - the inclusion of anyone, regardless of their skills and ability, who has not passed through their little initiation ceremonies of non-topic related "education" fluff. Interestingly enough, shop teachers are generally quite popular and effective with students, and they normally have very little of the fluff as a requirement for holding the job.

The school was closely identified with the community and reflected the needs of the community rather than the dictates of some bureaucracy attempting to mold cogs for the machine. The movement toward the so-called "modern" educational plant as a state-directed effort seems to emerge at about the turn of the previous century as a part of the "progressive" movement.

I'd say extensive training in educational theory, especially the psychology of education, is needed for special-education students and for kindergarten and the lower grade levels. Beyond that, it's largely a waste.

Not contested. That's what genuine education should involve.

The rules and the rice-bowls involved make that a formidable task. You'd be dealing with irate union hacks - "educators" and other types as well - who would be in a state of panic that their incompetence and irrelevance might suddenly become manifest.

I am going to "step in here" for "the parents".

Hillary was[is] "right" about "one thing".-

"It takes a village".

It is "sadly" true that there ARE SOME parents who don't "give-a-damn".

HOWEVER-there are MANY parents who are LITERALLY "tied to their jobs". "They" don't have "careers" or "occupations"."They" have "JOBS". "They" don't have the "luxury" of "time-off" when "their" children "might" need them "the most".

My husband and I are "fortunate" to be "self-employed" which allowed one/both of us to "be there". [2 p.m. "awards banquets","plays","sick days",etc.]

Many parents would be "more involved" if not for their "inflexable" "jobs".

Julia,

I understand very well that teacher qualifications and graduation requirements are set by the state educational cartel [monopoly | bureaucracy] and not by the federal government.

And the cartel here, as in every other state, is that education cartel that is the gate-keeper. The Texas legislature is a cartel in its own right.

Molly Ivins was famous for many cute comments, many of which were almost or even totally correct. If Molly had been able to get her "druthers" she would probably have rturned Texas to Mexico with tearful apologies.

My own observation of Molly the Mouth was that, like Hemingway, she was living proof that it was possible to continue writing long after you had exhausted yourself of anything worth saying.

Do y'all "miss" Ann Richards "too"?

ive often contemplated this issue. it seems that in this day and age, with single parents and two working parents, schools have yet to grasp the complexities of family life and in my experience schedule events that would be important to the children in such a way that parents have a difficult time attending. when my daughters were in public school i would always be pressed, in front of them, at the last minute, to participate in something. i would have to decline because of work - not always, though - and my daughter's face would melt.

Nice post, 2wins.
Perhaps the problem is not confined to schools. Perhaps we as a society have failed "grasp the complexities of family life."

In some measure, it seems unavoidable that workers in our capitalist/consumerist society will be com pulsed to work more and more, consume more and more, have more and more interests/activities--- all to an extent that family life is debased.

It is interesting to look at teaching in this context. I remember growing up when , IMO, a real shift was taking place in education. In a time earlier, it seemed like teaching was more of a calling to which one was dedicated. The there were a new crop of teachers that started coming in for whom it was more of a job. I am not saying there are not dedicated teachers today, but the system also makes it harder to be such a caring person.

I would connect up this whole issue to another thread on capitalism... which in many ways I think is great. But when more and more of life gets reduced to the evaluation of a few narrow parameters (like profit-money) then life loses some richness. As an example, "art" that is pursued as purely a commercial endeavor can never be transcendent IMO.

I'll add that in a number of states, teacher certification rules are being slackened a bit, but only in those areas where qualified teachers are simply unavailable and practical knowledge can be substituted.

There are incompetent teachers, of course there are. There are stellar teachers as well, and as Ron says, they are few and far between. But that's what "outstanding" means. It means above the norm, right? Somewhere in between you'll find the majority of teachers.

Teachers work a) because they want to teach, and b) in spite of the lousy money. If you find someone who will teach math or computer science in a public high school, instead of going into industry for MUCH better money, you're going to be very lucky. To find someone who can get ideas across, deal with kids, doesn't care that much about money, and what was the other one - oh, has technical knowledge -- those people don't fall off trees.

(On the other hand, the worst teachers, I think, are those who went into teaching because nothing else seemed to work for them, or those who are burned out and need to retire, but can't afford to.)

As for staff and administration - I worked for awhile in a community college, and served on two hiring committees for the MIS department. We had people who were coming straight out of college with no work experience at all, who laughed at the starting salary we offered. (Because of the way the institution was structured [locally controlled, by the way, in a small tax district] we were unable to negotiate salary. At all. Our starting salary was $25,000 under what those applicants could make in business.) Can you expect excellence in staff when that's your pay scale?

We did eventually find programmers, but they never stayed long; the money just wasn't good enough.

And they weren't even asked to teach world history to teenagers.

It's a huge generality, to say you want to throw out the entire educational system, including the Department of Ed (which spends most of its time and money on financial aid for college students) because the schools in your own district don't meet their standards. ("You" and "your" are used in a general sense, and not directed at any one poster.)

We could easily reverse the argument, and say "If your locally-controlled schools are poor, why should we get rid of fed and state involvement and reward your district with MORE control?" It's a poor argument, blunt on both ends, and it doesn't have enough factual information to be useful.

As with just about any discussion I've seen on this board, real discussion begins when you throw out the generalities and start on specifics.

If you want to throw out the Department of Ed, fine, but tell me what it does that you specifically have a problem with.

If you think that the way we train teachers is terrible, you may be absolutely right - but tell me what we're doing wrong, and tell me how you think we should change it.

There is room for improvement in just about anything, and I'd love to hear specifics about what's wrong and how to fix it. Too, Schlack asked some very detailed questions back on page 1, and I don't think anyone has addressed them.