Franklin Richards
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2002
- Messages
- 22,983
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
But do they make money doing it? Is it good business?
A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
But do they make money doing it? Is it good business?
Then we need to scrap it. Every aspect of the government should be run like a business.
They are the same customers, the public.
What exactly is untrust worthy about school criteria?
And if people don't want their children to make bad sexual decisions, why do they support abstinence only education?
What happens to the kids whose parents can't afford these private schools?
I can't even imagine an education system that's run the same way as a McDonalds or Wal-Mart.
And businesses only going for the bottom line is absolutly true. How can you even deny that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.