|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: They don't need no public education...
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
[QB] I think it's unlikely Hawk was talking about race/ethnicity when he made that comment. He's reacting to Mere Nick's suggestion that teaching would be so much better and easier if you could just get rid of the one or two disruptive kids from the class. I must admit that made me blink too.
Why would it make you blink? In my wife's school the kid would either have to stop being a disruption or be sent to ISS (in school suspension). Kids who are serious about learning and teachers serious about teaching don't have to put up with that crap.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
(to Moo) That's true. But refusing to have them in public education at all is not the answer. Severely disruptive children with parents who don't care about education won't be homeschooled; they will be left unsupervised to watch the telly or play computer games or vandalise the local shopping mall. That makes them a danger to themselves and to other people.
The London riots happened in the middle of the school holidays...
[ 18. July 2013, 13:20: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Mere Nick: quote:
In my wife's school the kid would either have to stop being a disruption or be sent to ISS (in school suspension).
Oh, I see. It sounded like you were advocating refusing to have them in school at all.
Being sent out of class for causing a disturbance is a reasonable punishment; being deprived of any chance of an education is not. The second is what the senator seems to be advocating...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Just one question. When parents start exercising their right not to send their children to school, who will pay the children's welfare, when they grow up and can't get jobs because they're not literate or numerate?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Mere Nick: quote:
In my wife's school the kid would either have to stop being a disruption or be sent to ISS (in school suspension).
Oh, I see. It sounded like you were advocating refusing to have them in school at all.
Being sent out of class for causing a disturbance is a reasonable punishment; being deprived of any chance of an education is not. The second is what the senator seems to be advocating...
If you were sufficiently bad you could be kicked out of school for a few days, too, as a last resort. The ones that really don't want to be in school will probably go ahead and drop out when they turn 16. I'm sure there are some things a student can do that would get them permanently expelled.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just one question. When parents start exercising their right not to send their children to school, who will pay the children's welfare, when they grow up and can't get jobs because they're not literate or numerate?
Don't be silly, Adeodatus, All the little girls, when grown, will be supported by thejr husbands while pumping out new "arrows" for their "quivers" annually.
All the little boys, when grown, will hit their daddies up for quarter-million-dollar loans to get their start-ups going. Honestly, some people just have no idea how to run their lives.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The problem is that one very disruptive kid can seriously detract from the education of all the other children. The disruptive kid doesn't learn much either.
Many schools seem to have no idea how to deal with disruptive kids.
There's an issue there with what to do with disruptive kids, and what point at which they should be removed from a classroom. But the issue of what to do with kids whose parents can't be bothered to educate them is completely separate. There seems to be an assumption that the disruptive kids are the same kids who wouldn't be sent to school. I can't see that there's any evidence for that. There's a very obvious difference between excluding a child from school because of the child's own behaviour, and excluding him/her because s/he has rubbish, neglectful parents. Because the kids who will stop going are the ones that have rubbish, neglectful parents - at the moment, mandatory schooling is a godsend to these particular kids because it means they have to have contact with the world outside their dysfunctional family home, so there's a greater chance of someone noticing that something is wrong.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
If it isn't the responsibility of a parent-voter-established, parent-voter-funded public education system to teach the young how to read, write, and reason, while interfering with their regrettable tendency to maim and harass one another in the process, what responsibilities DO belong to the parent-voter-established, parent-voter-funded public education system?
It is the responsibility of the school, but it is also the responsibility of the parents.
One of the many jobs that a parent has is to ensure that his or her children are educated appropriately. Most parents choose to use the state education system to obtain this education (and in the case of the majority of parents, it's not much of a choice, because there's no charge for the state system, but private schools are expensive and homeschooling pretty much means one parent not working).
This doesn't relieve parents of their obligation to ensure that their child is educated, though. If your child's school is not providing an appropriate education for your child, it is your obligation as a parent to do everything you can to fix that.
I also think that access to a decent education, just like basic healthcare, housing and food, is something that we, the taxpaying people, should guarantee. This doesn't mean that the state has to run the schools, or run the healthcare system. There is much, to my mind, to be said for a system of education vouchers.
Plenty of the things that Mr. Osmond says are correct - some parents are inept and dysfunctional, and there are plenty of parents who actively interfere with a school's attempt to impose order and discipline. It is also the case that one disruptive child can make a huge difference to the education received by the rest of the class.
But the response of society cannot be to say to those children "you have sucky parents, so you're on your own."
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There seems to be an assumption that the disruptive kids are the same kids who wouldn't be sent to school. I can't see that there's any evidence for that.
True that. Some parents will make sure their little holy terrors are at school every time the doors are open just for the free day care aspect of it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There's a very obvious difference between excluding a child from school because of the child's own behaviour, and excluding him/her because s/he has rubbish, neglectful parents.
In the experience of Mrs. Cniht, who taught in inner-city schools, there was a strong correlation between a child being disruptive in class, and his mother coming in to school and yelling things like "you can't fucking do anything to my fucking child, I know my fucking rights."
There were other children who were normally-behaved, but had inept parents who wouldn't manage to get out of bed in time to bring them to school on time in the morning, would give them a packet of biscuits as a meal because they couldn't manage to produce an actual meal, and would keep their children off school because "I wanted to take them shopping".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There's a very obvious difference between excluding a child from school because of the child's own behaviour, and excluding him/her because s/he has rubbish, neglectful parents.
In the experience of Mrs. Cniht, who taught in inner-city schools, there was a strong correlation between a child being disruptive in class, and his mother coming in to school and yelling things like "you can't fucking do anything to my fucking child, I know my fucking rights."
Not to mention that things like hunger often make children act up more.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Not to mention that things like hunger often make children act up more.
Which is why they thought free lunches in India would be such a wonderful thing...
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
In Britain our state schools are becoming increasingly socially segregated, and so are American ones, I hear.
I don't know if that's true for all parts of Britain. There is social segregation here in that some schools clearly have a more affluent catchment area than others, but that's always been true. It's not "increasingly" true. I live in an area, Aberdeenshire, which has 16 comprehensive state secondaries, one state comprehensive with a specialist competitive entry music section attached and two fee-paying schools. One of the fee-paying schools is a Montesorri which doesn't present pupils for enough exams for University entrance, and is therefore of limited appeal, and the other is geared towards oil industry families who are here for a limited period and don't want to follow the Scottish curriculum.
Some children commute into Aberdeen City to attend a fee paying school there, but the vast majority (I'd assume over 95%) of children are state comprehensive educated and it works fine.
(There are almost 16,000 children in state comprehensive secondaries in Aberdeenshire; I don't know what number are none-state educated.)
I do accept that every area is different. In my large English city many schools have become more racially segregated, which translates into greater social segregation, I would say.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Mere Nick: quote:
In my wife's school the kid would either have to stop being a disruption or be sent to ISS (in school suspension).
Oh, I see. It sounded like you were advocating refusing to have them in school at all.
Being sent out of class for causing a disturbance is a reasonable punishment; being deprived of any chance of an education is not. The second is what the senator seems to be advocating...
Then you get the kids who are disruptive not just for the fun or whatever of it, nor because the parents are neglectful, but who are frustrated and feeling left out because of learning disabilities.
As school budgets are slashed, there are fewer and fewer resources to deal with kids who have special needs, particularly those with what are considered milder disabilities, who don't qualify for full-on special education programs. So these kids have to try to cope in a regular classroom where the teacher just doesn't have the time to give them the extra support they need to succeed.
For example, my adult son has a mild auditory processing disorder that interferes with both his ability to understand spoken instructions and his organizational skills. He struggled for his entire school career. Most of the time, his teachers just didn't have the time to work with him individually to make sure he understood what was going on. He would become bored and his attention would wander as he lost track of the lesson. Then he would distract other students. And he got labelled as a disruptive student.
Other than implementing a few insufficient and ineffective remedial measures after he was clinically diagnosed, the best advice the school could offer was to put him on medication for ADHD, which was entirely unacceptable for several reasons. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) Ideally he should have been in a smaller class or one with a full-time assistant. But the resources just weren't there.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Back to the politician. He has a nice smile just like the rellies. But he is silly, very silly, except that apparently he has some power. That's dangerous, but many politicians are idiots in the real sense.
I would like to see if he has the competence to teach: poetry, algerbra, history, geotrig, evolutionary biology, and perhaps the most important thing that schools teach: how to be part of a larger social entity and to get along with peers. Utah appears to be a pretty weird place.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Friends who are teachers say most of their time is just maintaining order, not teaching.
The solution is not to shut down schools, but to give school authorities a right to effectively discipline disruptive students.
"The Canadian Teachers Federation conducted a study in 2005 that found one-third of teachers in Ontario had been bullied by students" teachers are bullied
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Back to the politician. He has a nice smile just like the rellies. But he is silly, very silly, except that apparently he has some power. That's dangerous, but many politicians are idiots in the real sense.
I would like to see if he has the competence to teach: poetry, algerbra, history, geotrig, evolutionary biology, and perhaps the most important thing that schools teach: how to be part of a larger social entity and to get along with peers. Utah appears to be a pretty weird place.
I pretty much agree with what is on his webpage. It seems that to sum it up he saying that learning is important, teachers and students deserve respect, and if you can't understand that, then, no, you don't have to be here.
When I think of mandatory showing up at school, I think of something else that used to be a mandatory show up thing, the military draft. What would happen to complete screw ups there?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My schoolteacher friends have given me the impression that disruptive kids can belong to any racial group, and some of them are from well-to-do families.
I'm pretty sure that's all Mere Nick was talking about. Strange that so many people seem to have assumed he meant ethnic minorities, isn't it?
But then there are those parents/vocal social groups who are racist, even if they speak softly about their actual desire. This, at least, is/was the practice in the Old Confederacy after Brown, and it certainly was the practice in relation to native populations and some coloured groups in Canada/US/Oz
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My schoolteacher friends have given me the impression that disruptive kids can belong to any racial group, and some of them are from well-to-do families.
I'm pretty sure that's all Mere Nick was talking about. Strange that so many people seem to have assumed he meant ethnic minorities, isn't it?
But then there are those parents/vocal social groups who are racist, even if they speak softly about their actual desire. This, at least, is/was the practice in the Old Confederacy after Brown, and it certainly was the practice in relation to native populations and some coloured groups in Canada/US/Oz
What does that have to do with this thread, though?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just one question. When parents start exercising their right not to send their children to school, who will pay the children's welfare, when they grow up and can't get jobs because they're not literate or numerate?
Don't worry. They'll join the army.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Mere Nick: quote:
In my wife's school the kid would either have to stop being a disruption or be sent to ISS (in school suspension).
Oh, I see. It sounded like you were advocating refusing to have them in school at all.
Being sent out of class for causing a disturbance is a reasonable punishment; being deprived of any chance of an education is not. The second is what the senator seems to be advocating...
I read Nick's statement the same way Jane did. It sounded like, "Some kids are too stupid for school; some too ill-behaved; worthless, no-account parents usually mean worthless, no-account kids; and they should all be grateful, or get out the door!"
Even if all of that were true, can you imagine what would happen if all those kids were turned loose? We're past the days when kids generally had an adult at home during the day. Child labor laws keep them out of most work. Many kids' only meals are what they get at school. So, worst case scenario: mobs of aimless, underfed, angry-at-adults (rightly) kids with nothing to do.
Yeah, that would be better than mandatory schooling.
Is that what you meant, Nick? Sure seems to be what Osmond meant.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Even if all of that were true, can you imagine what would happen if all those kids were turned loose? We're past the days when kids generally had an adult at home during the day. Child labor laws keep them out of most work. Many kids' only meals are what they get at school. So, worst case scenario: mobs of aimless, underfed, angry-at-adults (rightly) kids with nothing to do.
Does this mean (and I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying) that we have to fundamentally change what we mean by public education?
Is now as much about social services as it is teaching? Do schools now have the responsibility to check whether a child's had breakfast, a good night's sleep, wearing washed clothes, has something for lunch, hasn't been beaten/abused at home, doesn't have some underlying medical problem and needs to be taken to a doctor - before any actual lessons start?
Because if that's the case - and it's pretty much happening by default - then we're simply too under-resourced to do anything like that effectively. Lots of things would need to happen, the most profound of which would be the notion of parental responsibility, so that exchanges like this:
quote:
In the experience of Mrs. Cniht, who taught in inner-city schools, there was a strong correlation between a child being disruptive in class, and his mother coming in to school and yelling things like "you can't fucking do anything to my fucking child, I know my fucking rights."
Would end with "you've just lost the right to screw your child up any further. I'll see you in front of a judge tomorrow morning to get that formalised."
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
In the experience of Mrs. Cniht, who taught in inner-city schools, there was a strong correlation between a child being disruptive in class, and his mother coming in to school and yelling things like "you can't fucking do anything to my fucking child, I know my fucking rights."
There were other children who were normally-behaved, but had inept parents who wouldn't manage to get out of bed in time to bring them to school on time in the morning, would give them a packet of biscuits as a meal because they couldn't manage to produce an actual meal, and would keep their children off school because "I wanted to take them shopping". [/QB]
Yeah I've no doubt that many kids become disruptive at school because of poor parenting at home and a lack of boundaries. I think what I'm getting at here is that the kids with the very worst parents - ie those who tend to end up being taken and placed in foster care eventually - often suffer from being written off by others because they have bad parents, not because there's anything wrong with the kids themselves. It's not unusual for kids in foster care to discover that teachers have pretty much written off any likelihood of academic success for them.
My suspicion is that many of the worst behaved kids (excluding those with disabilities etc) are spoilt at home, or have parents who are simply unable or unwilling to say no - they learn as toddlers that tantrums work, and they're still using them to get their way many years later. If you make education optional, these children will likely still be at school.
The children who won't make it to school are the ones who've got parents who are too caught up in their own problems to bother much with their kids. These are the parents who are drunk and/or high in the middle of the day, or have severe mental health problems which are preventing them from functioning as parents. The kids are already in a bad place which isn't their fault. By saying that these parents don't have to bother sending their kids to school (general you), you're letting them do even more damage to their kids' future. You're also reducing the chance that responsible adults will discover how bad things are at home in time to do something about it.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Politicians LOVE the uneducated: its so much easier to pull the wool over their eyes. Don't give people the tools to have any sort of critical response, etc., etc.
I've been reading Scottish history recently, and the thing that strikes me most strongly was the fact that the Scots were miles ahead of the rest of Europe in terms of education by the early 19th century. It made them very restless and unwilling to follow blindly: not easy to govern (and a pain in the proverbial to the English). It made them adventurous and innovative - and the reason I'm reading about Scottish history is that all but 2 sets of my great great grandparents came to NZ from Scotland in the mid-19th century. Tracking them and their forebears down has been relatively easy, as they were literate, and lived in a society that valued record keeping.
I work with the parents of challenging kids, the kids teachers struggle with, who are generally not getting much of an education. Often their parents have also struggled with education. The government takes advantage of the fact that people like these don't understand how the world works. We hear a lot about benefit bludgers, but most of the poorer families I work with aren't getting the benefits they're entitled to because they don't know they exist. When I take them to meet with welfare, they're visibly terrified because they assume they'll be treated badly (and unfortunately, they're often right) so they become aggressive, and the cycle continues.
When I have the opportunity to talk with the kids about education, I always frame it as learning what they need to so no one can take advantage of them - you need to read to understand contracts (for rent, jobs, hire purchase etc.) and you need maths so that you don't get short changed or underpaid. Sadly, not many schools teach the skills that bluntly, which is a pity.
My other understanding of the value of education came during the 18 months I volunteered as a reading tutor at a high security prison. I did teach the practical stuff, looking at housing, benefits and other forms. It made me realise how much I take for granted the ability to plow my way through legalspeak - a skill none of my students had. So we looked at key words and their meanings and practised filling out forms (every alternate lesson we did from the Bible, as several of my students were Pacific Islanders who wanted to learn to read to their kids).
You'll have to excuse me saying this, but I read about the Taliban letter to Malala, and then this from Mr Osmond, and I wonder what the difference is.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
If it isn't the responsibility of a parent-voter-established, parent-voter-funded public education system to teach the young how to read, write, and reason, while interfering with their regrettable tendency to maim and harass one another in the process, what responsibilities DO belong to the parent-voter-established, parent-voter-funded public education system?
It is the responsibility of the school, but it is also the responsibility of the parents.
One of the many jobs that a parent has is to ensure that his or her children are educated appropriately. Most parents choose to use the state education system to obtain this education (and in the case of the majority of parents, it's not much of a choice, because there's no charge for the state system, but private schools are expensive and homeschooling pretty much means one parent not working).
Way to miss the point. The "state" education system is the creature of the electorate -- IOW, parents-voters-taxpayers. It was set up originally, back in an agricultural society, for several reasons:
1. to relieve those same parents, who were working hard to make their farms meet the household's material needs, of the duty of also trying to teach their children skills the parents themselves often lacked.
2. to ensure that the next generation had the advantages of basic reading, writing, and arithmetic (which originally pretty much fulfilled the educational needs of most citizens, though this is no longer the case, and the system has adjusted accordingly, or so we hope).
3. To instill some sense of a local, regional, national, community's history, ideals, values, and strictures in members of those communities.
That's what it was established for; those were or are its responsibilities. The Senator seems to me to be claiming the "state" (i.e., voter-created, taxpayer-funded, parent-overseen) system isn't, or shouldn't be, responsible for these things.
If those are not the responsibilities of the voter-created, taxpayer-funded, parent-overseen system, then what ARE its responsibilities?
[ 19. July 2013, 12:09: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I'm also pretty sure that education is only free of charge because it's mandatory. Those two aspects tend to be brought in together, and those campaigning for the "mandatory" part to be removed are not, of course, saying that they don't want their own children to be educated - just that they don't want them to have to be in the same room as children they don't like.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The "state" education system is the creature of the electorate
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Oh wait, you're serious? Well in that case:
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
A little googling about education in the USA comes up with a statement by John Adams, 2nd President of the United States:
quote:
The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.
Seems to me that Mr Adams knew a thing or two. But then, he was never President of Utah.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The "state" education system is the creature of the electorate
Oh wait, you're serious? Well in that case:
I don't know what it's like where you live, but where I live, every school district has a school board. Most of these people are individuals who have, or have had, or expect to have, or have been, kids attending the schools overseen by those boards. Again, where I live, these folks are serving on these boards as volunteers; they don't get paid.
Moreover, these folks get elected into their board positions by those citizens of the local community who register and vote. Many of these people are also parents of local pupils, or have been local pupils, etc. etc.
And beyond that, the local community has a say over the school budget, the school plant(s), and (many) school policies.
A school district in my state (not in my city) several years ago successfully changed and/or banned several courses, policies, and textbooks after managing to get a majority of fundamentalist Christians elected to their school board. While I don't agree with the direction they took, it certainly showed that the parents in that community had local control of their schools.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
This idea scares me, of ending public education. I see us heading for a new Dark Ages, with knowledge kept only by the select few in power, and a huge caste of uneducated, oppressed workers supporting them.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Back to the politician. He has a nice smile just like the rellies. But he is silly, very silly, except that apparently he has some power. That's dangerous, but many politicians are idiots in the real sense.
I would like to see if he has the competence to teach: poetry, algerbra, history, geotrig, evolutionary biology, and perhaps the most important thing that schools teach: how to be part of a larger social entity and to get along with peers. Utah appears to be a pretty weird place.
I pretty much agree with what is on his webpage. It seems that to sum it up he saying that learning is important, teachers and students deserve respect, and if you can't understand that, then, no, you don't have to be here.
When I think of mandatory showing up at school, I think of something else that used to be a mandatory show up thing, the military draft. What would happen to complete screw ups there?
Except that school is about the formation of children for life together, and helping them be part of a society. The military is about training people to follow orders, kill others to defend some political goal, and is not about being part of the community in any immediate sense.
That this politico's schools (and perhaps your's) are deficient in serving their purposes of knowledge and socialization may speak to specifics of poor educational funding and other lacks of support, but not about the merits of public education itself. Education, in the thought of your Benjamin Franklin, is what fits people for democracy. -- So perhaps eliminating it from being compulsory, might help the current neo-liberal direction of corporate enrichment and kleptocracy. Keep 'em stupid, at McJobs and Walzmart and supplied with electronic entertainment, corn syrup and salt.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I don't know what it's like where you live, but where I live, every school district has a school board. Most of these people are individuals who have, or have had, or expect to have, or have been, kids attending the schools overseen by those boards. Again, where I live, these folks are serving on these boards as volunteers; they don't get paid.
I think that local control of schools is much more common in New England than elsewhere.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I don't know what it's like where you live
A quango reporting to the government sets the national curriculum and every school has to follow it. The electorate gets about as much say in the matter as a dead vole.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I don't know what it's like where you live
A quango reporting to the government sets the national curriculum and every school has to follow it. The electorate gets about as much say in the matter as a dead vole.
Better move to New England, then. Our system's prolly why NE schools generally (I'm not factoring that town run by creationism-teaching fundies, who didn't last long anyway & got voted out next election) get high marks every few years by the people who measure these things.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
We generally hear that American education is deficient in geography, history other than their own country, and is lagging in math and science. I think the deficiencies in geography are probably due to the story virtually every Canadian can tell about Americans who've asked silly questions about snow, weather in general, and animals. The other alleged deficiencies are probably due to the wider span between worst and best education. Provincial governments set standards which schools must follow, i.e., provincial curriculum, even as the boards try to attend to some local concerns.
I certainly shake my head in wonder with some of the anti-science ideas of alleged educated politicians, who probably had a better education than many of the general populace.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Well deficient as American education may be, it's only going to get worse if the guy has his way. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I don't actually see how American public education can be anything but deficient, given that it takes on all comers, including those who don't want to be there, those with little capacity to learn, those whose parents have persuaded them that, although they're required by law to attend, public school is really just a Satanic plot, etc. etc.
It beats the alternative, though.
In my brief foray into teaching at a junior college, I was pretty staggered by the sheer range of students. They were all fresh, um, persons, and all had graduated from some specie of US high school, with a couple of home-schoolers thrown in.
Some were bright, well-informed (for 18-y.o.), had a pretty good range of general knowledge, and could produce coherent written work. Others seemed utterly ignorant and functionally illiterate, and either didn't bother writing any papers (and flunked), or wrote so poorly I packed them off to the tutoring center (some of these flunked, too).
And that, alas, is the downside of local control.
As to history (touched on through the lens of American social movements), I saw no evidence that they were any less ignorant of US history than any other brand.
Our coursework didn't touch on geography, so who knows?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
It beats the alternative, though.
Yes, dear Porridge, it does, and with that, come hope I think. You mention teaching. I have only supervised interns and tried to mentor new associates, it is so, so important, and yes, yes, does beat the alternative.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And that, alas, is the downside of local control.
I don't think local control is all that much to blame - having taught the equivalent students in the UK, I also found a wide range - from the brilliant to those who were unable to construct a coherent, grammatically-correct sentence. These were all students from England and Wales, where a governmentally-imposed National Curriculum proscribes what is taught in the state schools (~93% of all pupils) and de facto what is examined in the national public exams (GCSE at 16, A-levels at 18). Those who preferred partying over working would do so whoever set the curriculum.
Of course, if the "Answers in Genesis" people took over your school board, they could eventually eliminate all trace of rational thought from the syllabus, but an established school system has a lot of inertia to overcome. Homeschools and other private schools are a much easier target for this kind of idiocy.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And that, alas, is the downside of local control.
I don't think local control is all that much to blame - having taught the equivalent students in the UK, I also found a wide range - from the brilliant to those who were unable to construct a coherent, grammatically-correct sentence. These were all students from England and Wales, where a governmentally-imposed National Curriculum proscribes what is taught in the state schools (~93% of all pupils) and de facto what is examined in the national public exams (GCSE at 16, A-levels at 18). Those who preferred partying over working would do so whoever set the curriculum.
Of course, if the "Answers in Genesis" people took over your school board, they could eventually eliminate all trace of rational thought from the syllabus, but an established school system has a lot of inertia to overcome. Homeschools and other private schools are a much easier target for this kind of idiocy.
I think we're talking two different fish here. "Local control," which I've learned now to my sorrow doesn't apply everywhere in the US, is as much about money as it is about curriculum (and while one is being worked on, there is as yet no US "national curriculum," and I can guarantee there'll be a long hard political battle before we get one, if we ever do).
Where I live (New England), schools are funded either primarily by local property taxes, or they're funded (in my state) almost exclusively by local property taxes. Small towns with few residents and businesses either have correspondingly whoppingly high property taxes, or correspondingly few dollars to allocate to their schools. My state delivers almost no state aid to schools, and that aid primarily comes in the form of helping localities financially when putting up a bond for a new building.
In March, when Town Meeting is held, the populace votes on whether and/or how to spend money on its schools. Poor towns pay lower salaries, attract fewer teachers, and may attract teachers unable to get work elsewhere. Poor towns have older, shabbier plants, older (or no) equipment, older textbooks, larger class sizes, etc. etc. Despite the ancient cry that money has nothing to do with quality of education, I'm persuaded that factors like these do affect schooling. For one thing, they send the students a very explicit message: "We don't care enough about you and where you spend your days to ensure that you have teachers who know how to teach, working bathrooms, current textbooks, and a roof that doesn't drip on your head."
Of course, the town may in fact care a great deal about these things. But if they have no money, they can't express that care in observable,concrete ways.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Despite the ancient cry that money has nothing to do with quality of education,
it is difficult to credit that anyone with function beyond the brain stem actually believes this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
John Knox argued for public education in 1560; "The children of the poor must be supported and sustained on the charge of the church, till trial is taken whether the spirit of docility is found in them or not. If they are found apt to letters and learning, then may they not be permitted to reject learning; but must be charged to continue their study, so that the commonwealth may have some comfort by them."
In other words, children, including poor children, were an asset of the nation, and must be educated to let the nation benefit from that asset.
That was the thinking behind the first couple of hundred years of provision of education in Scotland (the Education Act 1696 stipulated that there must be a school in every parish so that every child had access to a school; it didn't always work in practice, but the theory was sound).
Surely this is as true today as it was in 1560; children are our future, and educated children give society more confidence in the future than an under-class of uneducated children.
This included education up to and including University - "the great schools, called universities, shall be replenished with those that are apt to learning; for this must be carefully provided, that no father, of what estate or condition that ever he be, use his children at his own fantasy, especially in their youth; but all must be compelled to bring up their children in learning and virtue."
[ 21. July 2013, 14:34: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Surely this is as true today as it was in 1560; children are our future, and educated children give society more confidence in the future than an under-class of uneducated children.
You think this. I think this. But every time the schools tax rate goes up around here, two plaints are sounded:
1. "I don't even have children (or "My children are grown"); I don't see why I should pay through the nose so somebody else's kids can have a computer (new textbooks, sports equipment, music instruction, etc.) in the classroom."
2. "Why are we paying teachers so much when they work only 9 months a year and get off at 3 in the afternoon to boot?"
There's absolutely zero understanding that the entire society benefits from an educated workforce, and zero understanding of the job of teaching (it takes no preparation whatsoever, obviously; anyone with a little patience and the ability to read can do it; papers mark themselves; teachers never have meetings to attend, etc. etc.).
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
John Knox argued for public education in 1560; "The children of the poor must be supported and sustained on the charge of the church, till trial is taken whether the spirit of docility is found in them or not. If they are found apt to letters and learning, then may they not be permitted to reject learning; but must be charged to continue their study, so that the commonwealth may have some comfort by them."
In other words, children, including poor children, were an asset of the nation, and must be educated to let the nation benefit from that asset.
Not all children, though - he's pretty clear that only those who "are found apt to letters and learning" should continue their study, and that universal education is only a good thing up to the point where those individuals can be identified.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not all children, though - he's pretty clear that only those who "are found apt to letters and learning" should continue their study, and that universal education is only a good thing up to the point where those individuals can be identified.
Aye, there's the rub. Personally, I think everybody deserves a decent, real shot, maybe even 2-3 shots, at getting an education.
But once someone has demonstrated a decided lack of interest, or internal barriers we don't know how to fix (for example, cognitive deficits), or repeatedly gets in the way of other people's efforts to learn, then we need to acknowledge that something different is needed for these folks.
This is one of the most serious problems with No Child Left Behind: It assumes that every kid can acquire grade-level proficiency at every academic discipline. This just isn't true, and will never be true in a system which is required by law to school every child who comes through the door, regardless of any sensory, cognitive, neurological, physical, psychological, socioeconomic, and/or any other kind of barrier to learning.
I've told this story before, but placing a 20-year-old guy in a high school physics class, when he has not yet learned to respond to his own name, in the name of social inclusion is bull. His time is being wasted. Maybe he can learn to use the toilet independently; let's use his learning time for that. Maybe he can learn to cross the street; let's work on that. Maybe he can learn to do up his own buttons and zippers; let's go for that.
But let us, for the love of all that's good and holy, stop dragging him and many others like him, through pointless activities that serve no purpose but to "annoy the pig."
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not all children, though - he's pretty clear that only those who "are found apt to letters and learning" should continue their study, and that universal education is only a good thing up to the point where those individuals can be identified.
Aye, there's the rub. Personally, I think everybody deserves a decent, real shot, maybe even 2-3 shots, at getting an education.
But once someone has demonstrated a decided lack of interest, or internal barriers we don't know how to fix (for example, cognitive deficits), or repeatedly gets in the way of other people's efforts to learn, then we need to acknowledge that something different is needed for these folks.
Or those who have non-academic aptitudes. Some kids who don't fit into the regular system want to learn, just not what is taught in the traditional classroom. Once they've got literacy and numeracy enough to function in the world (alas, that seems difficult enough to achieve these days), there should be choices. Rather than being utterly bored in a high school history class, some kids should be learning a trade.
For a while in Canada (60s-90s ish) schools were trying to prepare everyone for university and community college, and very few people went into trade apprenticeships. The folly of that became apparent when we had a glut of unemployed or underemployed university graduates and a serious shortage of skilled tradespeople. There's now a shift toward a better balance, but it's slow to emerge, and there's still something of a stigma attached to vocational and trade schools and programs.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
That this politico's schools (and perhaps your's) are deficient in serving their purposes of knowledge and socialization may speak to specifics of poor educational funding and other lacks of support, but not about the merits of public education itself.
You don't know if they're deficient.
quote:
Education, in the thought of your Benjamin Franklin, is what fits people for democracy. -- So perhaps eliminating it from being compulsory, might help the current neo-liberal direction of corporate enrichment and kleptocracy. Keep 'em stupid, at McJobs and Walzmart and supplied with electronic entertainment, corn syrup and salt.
However, there's no such thing as compulsory education. At most, you might get compulsory showing up on a somewhat regular basis.
[ 23. July 2013, 16:55: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
John Knox argued for public education in 1560; "The children of the poor must be supported and sustained on the charge of the church, till trial is taken whether the spirit of docility is found in them or not. If they are found apt to letters and learning, then may they not be permitted to reject learning; but must be charged to continue their study, so that the commonwealth may have some comfort by them."
In other words, children, including poor children, were an asset of the nation, and must be educated to let the nation benefit from that asset.
Not all children, though - he's pretty clear that only those who "are found apt to letters and learning" should continue their study, and that universal education is only a good thing up to the point where those individuals can be identified.
Yes, only those found "apt to learning" were to continue beyond basic reading, but still, every child should be given the opportunity to attend school and receive some education.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Despite the ancient cry that money has nothing to do with quality of education,
it is difficult to credit that anyone with function beyond the brain stem actually believes this.
It cannot be assumed to be a direct correlation, no. There were some terrible independent schools in the city in which I grew up, as well as far better state schools. Also, how are you measuring quality? "Value Added"? A-level results? Oxbridge entry? All this ignores the pastoral dimension. A lot of schools, state and private alike, gain a reputation for "quality" essentially through Oxbridge cramming. Others may not have the grades, but I would be far happier sending my children there for the sense of community.
The elephant in the room, I think, is that there will never be a level playing field between state and private is that the latter can far more readily exclude people. It was a big step up I noticed entering VI form too - suddenly you only had those who wished to learn.
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
