Centralized School Systems

[Destructus86]

I keep seeing Schools in the news and rarely in a good way. It's usually a teacher trying to force feed Christianity, Islam or some other religion or even their own political views on issues. The point is...there is too much personal choice in what is being taught to children to where any wacko idea can be fed to hungry, growing minds and this is not a good thing.

I recently discovered this idea of centralized school systems where curriculum is decided upon and strictly enforced by an oversight committee (or something similar depending on your country) and I think this is actually a pretty good idea. First and foremost...religion shouldn't be taught in public school. UNLESS it's involving a history project. (ie...you can't talk about the middle ages without mentioning the catholic church) But learning about practices and beliefs which don't pertain to the topic should not be discussed as they have no relevance on the topic. (ie, it may be important to know that Muslims follow Allah, but we don't need to go into detail on the names and attributes of Allah as it is not relevant) Same with any other religion.

Political views have NO place in a class room unless it's an opinion piece that each student writes up in order to perhaps prove their opinion is the most convincing...but teachers should not attempt to sway students political opinions.

I feel like having a more centralized, strictly enforced system would grealty benefit the American school system.

Thoughts?

 

[Feenix]

From what I've read about the American school system, anything would be better than it is now.

As long as the committee that sets the curriculum is impartial and, let's face it, intelligent, it shouldn't be an issue. But you would have to figure out who gets to be on the committee and how they get to be on it (appointed or elected).

For the most part, teachers shouldn't have "creative freedom" in what they teach the kids and how they teach it. We've read too many stories of teachers teaching their own prejudices and opinions and relaying them as if it's fact.

 

[Destructus86]

Thank you for that intelligent response, Feenix! Glad to see someone else agree.

 

[The Question]

Yes and no? I mean, I agree that on the whole it would probably be better than what we have now, but there are a ton of problems it wouldn't solve. For starters, it by itself wouldn't do anything to address the gerrymandering of school districts to perpetuate racial segregation unofficially, unless of course that is also folded into the powers of this centralized board. Furthermore, this wouldn't necessarily solve the problem of inherent operational flaws in education that are commonly accepted and unquestioned. Homework, for example, has been proven to have a detrimental effect on learning, and yet it's still standard operating procedure. Similarly, there's no evidence that dividing students into grades by age serves any practical purpose and ample evidence that it hinders a lot of students, and yet it is an unquestioned practice. A centralized authority wouldn't solve problems like that unless there was some incorporated element of critical review of traditional educational practices.

Also, by itself, what you're talking about might have its own problems. Individualized lesson plans can lead to religious indoctrination, but it also allows room for teachers and schools to customize the curriculum for the individual needs of the students. Students are not equally capable in all academic subjects, nor do they all learn in the same way or at the same pace. Students and teachers will often need the freedom of movements to address individual needs, skills, and interests in the appropriate manner, and a universally applied curriculum decided by people who no first hand experience with the individual students could easily get in the way of that. "No Child Left Behind" and standardized testing in general have shown that setting a universal standard for education has detrimental results.

A centralized board might also lead to alternative educational models being ignored entirely. Setting a national standard could and likely would lead to outright ignoring the possibility of trade schools, art schools, Montesori schools, Sudbury schools, and other alternative models that individual students might be better suited in because, as I already mentioned, most students have unique educational needs. Now, of course, those alternative models get less attention or are ignored entirely right now in the system we currently have, but as things are now individual school districts do at least have the option of experiment with them if they ever feel like it would have value. A centralized school system could negate that possibility entirely.

None of these things make a centralized school system an inherently bad idea, but they'd have to be taken into account and worked into the perimeters of the centralized board's powers, and they go to show that this idea wouldn't fix every little thing.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Really the biggest conflict is over what version of history kids will be taught.

The "evils of the rich white man that were derailed by progressives" version or the "rich white men saved the world from dirty hippies and commies" version.

Red states will teach their version and blue states will teach theirs and presidential elections will continue to be split almost 50/50 for some suspicious reason.

 

[Marvolo]

Ive come to the opinion (having went to a private christian school that used a terrible curriculum and had no interest in helping us get any scholarships or admission to secular colleges and refused to teach genetics, actual biology, or anything that might make one question the bible or its version of things) that schooling should be regulated, controlled, and uniform everywhere in the country. No exceptions. Home schools and private schools should be required to use the same curriculum as public schools and all unaccredited courses and textbooks should be thrown out. Knowledge and facts are not debatable, and the idea that a person can just decide to not teach the facts and by so doing handicap a future generation is ludicrous if not downright dangerous. If parents want to teach their kids oposing ideas (mysticism, religion, ID etc) they can do so in their own free time at home or in church or at the Temple or local Mosque.

Ive got a friend who has pulled his kid out of public school to home schoop him. His current curriculum is whatever his mom teaches him. She gets her "curriculum" and courses off google. She types in a subject reads a bit and then sets him down and teaches him whatever she wants...and thats only when she can drag him away from minecraft. This kind of **** should not be happening!

 

[The Question]

Is anyone still interested in this? I thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

 

[Marvolo]

It could be a good topic but it might do better in the Politics section where Kelly is. She works in the school system and sees the problems first hand. Might wanna PM her and see what she thinks about the topic.

 

[Howlett]

I keep seeing Schools in the news and rarely in a good way. It's usually a teacher trying to force feed Christianity, Islam or some other religion or even their own political views on issues. The point is...there is too much personal choice in what is being taught to children to where any wacko idea can be fed to hungry, growing minds and this is not a good thing.

I recently discovered this idea of centralized school systems where curriculum is decided upon and strictly enforced by an oversight committee (or something similar depending on your country) and I think this is actually a pretty good idea. First and foremost...religion shouldn't be taught in public school. UNLESS it's involving a history project. (ie...you can't talk about the middle ages without mentioning the catholic church) But learning about practices and beliefs which don't pertain to the topic should not be discussed as they have no relevance on the topic. (ie, it may be important to know that Muslims follow Allah, but we don't need to go into detail on the names and attributes of Allah as it is not relevant) Same with any other religion.

Political views have NO place in a class room unless it's an opinion piece that each student writes up in order to perhaps prove their opinion is the most convincing...but teachers should not attempt to sway students political opinions.

I feel like having a more centralized, strictly enforced system would grealty benefit the American school system.

Thoughts?

But then you run into the same problem really. Who decides what the curriculum is and then who enforces what is taught?

 

[The Question]

It could be a good topic but it might do better in the Politics section where Kelly is. She works in the school system and sees the problems first hand. Might wanna PM her and see what she thinks about the topic.

This should probably get merged into the pre-existing education thread, but that thread doesn't have a lot of life in it.

 

[Marvolo]

But then you run into the same problem really. Who decides what the curriculum is and then who enforces what is taught?

How about a peer review education board. Run education the same way scientists decide whats published. Put educators with PHDs on the board. And all textbooks have to be reviewed and validated multiple times by those on the board and by other educators not on the board before they can be used. All scientific and historical facts are checked double checked and triple checked to make sure they line up with the latest knowledge. And Build curriculums and schedules with the help of scientists and psychologists and doctors using the latest knowledge and research on how the mind of children function. Teens should not be on the same schedules as elementary kids. Their brains do not function or retain information in the same ways. Optimize classes and text books and everything for maximum retentio.

Basically run education intelligently and not by the seat of our pants. There is a science to teaching or at least their should be.

Obviously its easier said than done and something like this would have to be ironed out. But its never gonna happen. Parents would destroy it before it ever had a chance to work.

 

[The Question]

How about a peer review education board. Run education the same way scientists decide whats published. Put educators with PHDs on the board. And all textbooks have to be reviewed and validated multiple times by those on the board and by other educators not on the board before they can be used. All scientific and historical facts are checked double checked and triple checked to make sure they line up with the latest knowledge. And Build curriculums and schedules with the help of scientists and psychologists and doctors using the latest knowledge and research on how the mind of children function. Teens should not be on the same schedules as elementary kids. Their brains do not function or retain information in the same ways. Optimize classes and text books and everything for maximum retentio.

Basically run education intelligently and not by the seat of our pants. There is a science to teaching or at least their should be.

Obviously its easier said than done and something like this would have to be ironed out. But its never gonna happen. Parents would destroy it before it ever had a chance to work.

How would you incorporate the issues of adapting a lesson plan/classroom environment to the individual needs of the student and making alternative educational models available for kids who need it (trade schools, democratic schools, etc.)?

Also, the issue of racial segregation in schools? Would this board have the power to draw up school districts?

 

[Marvolo]

How would you incorporate the issues of adapting a lesson plan/classroom environment to the individual needs of the student and making alternative educational models available for kids who need it (trade schools, democratic schools, etc.)?

Also, the issue of racial segregation in schools? Would this board have the power to draw up school districts?

Never heard of a democratic school. Just for the record Im talking about K-12.

Kids with learning disabilities tho would need to be properly provided for and their education would need to be designed by people who actually understand children with learning disabilities which is why Id want this board populated by properly qualified and educated people. Kids with learning disabilities cant be allowed to fall through the cracks and get bounced from class to class. Obviously we cant talor education to every individuals own personal situation. Thats impossible right now. But we should definitely try harder.

As for kids that arent handicap but are struggling with some or all of the material for whatever reason, give teachers enough slack to bend and mold the way the information is delivered so she can get the information to her students to the best of her ability. She cant omit or change the information and facts but if she has to get creative to find a way to get a kid to retain the information then give the teacher that freedom.

And this board is only for the education part of education. The books the scheduling the classroom design and tools of teaching etc. Their job is to make sure that as much up to date and peer reviewed information is retained as possible by kids whether it be mentally handicapped kids, violent kids, kids in general. Districting doesnt fall into that. Per se.

 

[The Question]

Never heard of a democratic school. Just for the record Im talking about K-12.

Democratic schools are K-12. Democratic schools are schools that are run by the students through a democratic process. They're pretty popular among hardcore socialist and hardcore libertarian families, but they don't get a lot of mainstream attention.

Anyway, aside from that, what about trade schools? Or art schools?

Kids with learning disabilities tho would need to be properly provided for and their education would need to be designed by people who actually understand children with learning disabilities which is why Id want this board populated by properly qualified and educated people. Kids with learning disabilities cant be allowed to fall through the cracks and get bounced from class to class. Obviously we cant talor education to every individuals own personal situation. Thats impossible right now. But we should definitely try harder.

I wasn't just talking about learning disabilities, just individual needs in general. The fact is, not everyone learns at the same pace or in the same way. I think schools and classrooms should have enough individual leeway to accommodate that.

Also, no matter how qualified these education experts are, they still can't work with the students individually if they're sitting on a board overseeing the whole country. That's a pretty big obstacle if the board is the board decides every single detail.

As for kids that arent handicap but are struggling with some or all of the material for whatever reason, give teachers enough slack to bend and mold the way the information is delivered so she can get the information to her students to the best of her ability. She cant omit or change the information and facts but if she has to get creative to find a way to get a kid to retain the information then give the teacher that freedom.

That's pretty vague, though. What would that look like in practice?

And this board is only for the education part of education. The books the scheduling the classroom design and tools of teaching etc. Their job is to make sure that as much up to date and peer reviewed information is retained as possible by kids whether it be mentally handicapped kids, violent kids, kids in general. Districting doesnt fall into that. Per se.

1: Again, kids aren't uniform in how they learn or how fast they learn. A single universal standard isn't going to work.

2: Districting kind of does fall into that. Currently, schools get money from property taxes. The way the district lines are drawn basically determine what a school's budget will be. And most school districts are drawn in a way that disproportionately advantages white communities at the expense of communities of color.

 

[Marvolo]

Democratic schools are K-12. Democratic schools are schools that are run by the students through a democratic process. They're pretty popular among hardcore socialist and hardcore libertarian families, but they don't get a lot of mainstream attention.

I really dont care how popular they are. Children should not be making decisions. I was a kid and I didnt have a clue what was best for me and none of the teens around me did either. These Democratic Schools are an example of something that should not be allowed in our education system.

Anyway, aside from that, what about trade schools? Or art schools?

Im really not concerned about art schools. Im concerned with schools that cover Math Sciences History Government studies etc. Subjects that are the foundation of society.

I wasn't just talking about learning disabilities, just individual needs in general. The fact is, not everyone learns at the same pace or in the same way. I think schools and classrooms should have enough individual leeway to accommodate that.

And people with far more education than me understand and would account for this. And Ive already said that teachers need leeway in how they teach. But not so much leeway that they can just decide to teach ID or creationism because they believe evolution is a bunch of bunk.

Also, no matter how qualified these education experts are, they still can't work with the students individually if they're sitting on a board overseeing the whole country. That's a pretty big obstacle if the board is the board decides every single detail.

Their job is to make sure the proper knowledge and information is getting to students. Never said they decide every single detail.

That's pretty vague, though. What would that look like in practice?

Pretty much what it looks like now. Teachers take what they are given and make it work the best they can. Thats about all that can be done.

1: Again, kids aren't uniform in how they learn or how fast they learn. A single universal standard isn't going to work.

Clearly Im not talking about a single standard for everyone.

2: Districting kind of does fall into that. Currently, schools get money from property taxes. The way the district lines are drawn basically determine what a school's budget will be. And most school districts are drawn in a way that disproportionately advantages white communities at the expense of communities of color.

[/QUOTE]


Well then budgeting shouldnt be based on property tax. Education is the foundation of society. Its budget shouldnt be based on damn property tax and districting.

 

[The Question]

I really dont care how popular they are. Children should not be making decisions. I was a kid and I didnt have a clue what was best for me and none of the teens around me did either. These Democratic Schools are an example of something that should not be allowed in our education system.

I know it's a pretty radical notion, but don't you think you should do a little more research on the subject before dismissing them entirely? You only just found out they existed. Some of these schools have been operating for as long as 45 years, and seem to have something of a reasonable success rate. They may not be for every student, but that's my point. Nothing is for every student.

And democratic schools aren't the only alternative model out there. There are many different academic models that suit different needs. I think a good education system would incorporate multiple models as options for the students based on what they need.

Would alternative models of any kind be factored into your system?

Im really not concerned about art schools. Im concerned with schools that cover Math Sciences History Government studies etc. Subjects that are the foundation of society.

1: But there are specialized public schools that focus on arts education in some large cities like Boston and New York. How would existing schools like that be incorporated into your centralized system?

2: I think art is a societal foundation.

And people with far more education than me understand and would account for this. And Ive already said that teachers need leeway in how they teach. But not so much leeway that they can just decide to teach ID or creationism because they believe evolution is a bunch of bunk.

I don't think they should be allowed to do that either. Which is why the leeway that they do have should be very carefully determined.

Their job is to make sure the proper knowledge and information is getting to students. Never said they decide every single detail.

Pretty much what it looks like now. Teachers take what they are given and make it work the best they can. Thats about all that can be done.

What if there's one student that is actually hindered by being assigned homework instead of helped by it? What if there are students who learn better through practical application in the same class as students who learn better through lecture?

What if you have a student who is an absolute prodigy at math and science but is an abysmal student when it comes to, say, history? Do you think it would be reasonable to create an individualized lesson plan that deemphasizes history or removes it outright and focuses primarily on math and science?

Clearly Im not talking about a single standard for everyone.

You are to an extent. Determining the proper knowledge and information that all students should learn is setting a universal baseline standard.

Well then budgeting shouldnt be based on property tax. Education is the foundation of society. Its budget shouldnt be based on damn property tax and districting.

Where would the money come from, then?

 

[Destructus86]

We simply need to present different viewpoints to students. Teach history from the viewpoint of America and then from the viewpoint of the other side. Just present the facts then break students up into small groups to discuss and form their own opinions based on the facts presented.

Also...I believe in school uniforms. It really does impact the school environment on a psychological level. (in a good way)

 

[The Question]

We simply need to present different viewpoints to students. Teach history from the viewpoint of America and then from the viewpoint of the other side. Just present the facts then break students up into small groups to discuss and form their own opinions based on the facts presented.

That's great for a history class, but it doesn't really address school in general.

Also...I believe in school uniforms. It really does impact the school environment on a psychological level. (in a good way)

I think people greatly exaggerate the efficacy of school uniforms. They don't have the miraculous positive impact that people think they do. And there's that whole "first amendment" thing. Plus, they put a financial burden on poorer families, they almost always favor middle class-upper class western styles of dress over others, which has all sorts of ****ed up racial politics wrapped up in it, and for some kids, stifling their ability to express themselves individually can have a negative impact.

 

[Destructus86]

That's great for a history class, but it doesn't really address school in general.



I think people greatly exaggerate the efficacy of school uniforms.

Uniforms actually make a pretty big impact on the social aspect of public school and shown by studies in other countries. There was significant less bullying than schools where students wore what they wanted. Fashion can play a pretty big part in segregation among students.

 

[The Question]

Uniforms actually make a pretty big impact on the social aspect of public school and shown by studies in other countries. There was significant less bullying than schools where students wore what they wanted. Fashion can play a pretty big part in segregation among students.

1: I added a bunch of other stuff in an edit. You should check that out.

2: It's a band-aid. School uniforms might remove one avenue for bullying, but they do nothing to fix the social environment that encourages it in the first place. There are many other ways to deal with bullying that are much more effective. For starters, creating an educational environment where socialization isn't penalized and where students do not feel powerless. At the very least, direct involvement from teachers and bullying prevention programs do a lot more to combat the issue than school uniforms.

3: Studies on the efficacy of school uniforms are fairly inconclusive. Some say they're great, some say they actually hurt, and a lot say that they don't have much of an impact at all or the impact can't be accurately measured. There hasn't been a consistent standard of how to measure it, and lots of studies have failed to factor in a ton of variables, so the evidence really isn't that strong.

4: I went to a school that had uniforms. There was still bullying. It sucked.

5: The problem with thinking that school uniforms prevent bullying is that it fundamentally misunderstands what bullying is. Bullying ins't a hatred of all things different. Bullying is about power. People who feel powerless seeking to acquire power over others. Making fun of someone for the clothes they wear is one avenue, but there are many others. According to a government study, fashion choices were just one of MANY risk factors for bullying: http://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/factors/index.html

6: Using school uniforms to combat bullying sends a message that it's wrong to be different, and it smells a bit like victim blaming, neither of which is good.

 

[BestGirl]

I think people greatly exaggerate the efficacy of school uniforms. They don't have the miraculous positive impact that people think they do. And there's that whole "first amendment" thing. Plus, they put a financial burden on poorer families, they almost always favor middle class-upper class western styles of dress over others, which has all sorts of ****ed up racial politics wrapped up in it, and for some kids, stifling their ability to express themselves individually can have a negative impact.

I don't know about that. Buying a small number of uniforms is probably cheaper in the long run for poor families than a large number of regular clothes. Imagine being the only kid in school wearing the same clothes over and over.

As far as expressing yourself individually, you can do that after school once you've changed into your regular clothes.

 

[The Question]

I don't know about that. Buying a small number of uniforms is probably cheaper in the long run for poor families than a large number of regular clothes. Imagine being the only kid in school wearing the same clothes over and over.

1: I doubt that poor families spend less on non-uniform clothes just because uniforms exist, especially if kids are changing into non-uniform clothes after school as you suggest.

2: Imagine schools that invest in anti-bullying programs and creating a less toxic social atmosphere where what you wear isn't a problem, instead of putting a band-aid over it.

As far as expressing yourself individually, you can do that after school once you've changed into your regular clothes.

But they should also be able to do that during school. School shouldn't be a civli liberties-free zone.