American School System

[frozen_water]

Dryctarth

frozen_water

Dryctarth

frozen_water

Dryctarth

Hold on a moment here. Let's look at what you just said with a bit of rearranging.







The first two statements say you want school to be more challenging and push students farther academically, but the third says that you don't want any of those requirements. This is a contradiction. Please clarify which view you're supporting, please.

It's not a contradiction, just because I feel curriculum should be more challenging does not mean the state should mandate that the curriculum should be more challenging. The state shouldn't even mandate that I attend high school.

So you don't want a regional or political authority requiring that you attend the school that you want to be more challenging (which you also don't want a regional or political authority ensuring)? Very well, if we remove the state's requirements and assume that the local school district does not impose the same requirements (in the US each and every school district enjoys autonomy with regards to the schools within it), then what is there to ensure that anyone attends school to receive their education goals? Most middle and high school students I know would rather be doing something else than actually be in class.

No I don't want them forcing high schoolers to be there, it simply detracts from my education, and the education of those who want to learn.

If a bunch of people don't care enough to go great. That less students that have to be paid for, that's less money wasted on those who don't care, that one more class that's not brought down for the benefit of those who don't appreciate it at the cost of those who do.

What are those people who don't want to be there getting from their education to begin with?

That's a good point. I agree it would likely improve education for those who truly want it. However with regards to middle/high schoolers who don't want to be there, I argue that we try and teach them anyways because their desire to not be in class is not the same as the desire of one who wants to learn. I would argue that in most cases not wanting to be in class is simply a normal teenager thing to do. Any student who really doesn't want to go to school can get out of it pretty easily. The law obviously has no effect on them, except perhaps to ruffle their feathers. And the law has no effect on those who truly want to learn, they'd go to school anyways. The law is there to get the rest of the kids, the ones without those strong desires for or against school to be there. There's a good chance that they'll learn something from the class, even if they only get average grades and are bored most of the time.

I think through middle school attendance should be mandatory, but at the high-school level, the basic classes fail to prepare students who don't want to be there for anything regardless, all the basics should be known by that time anyway.

Also we should have more vocational programs, some starting in middle school. There is no reason why we can't have children graduate completely prepared for a specific job.

I suggest a voucher system as mentioned in my OP. I also agree with Cory Shallow on many of the flaws that plague the school system, and most of these could be easily fixed.

[Dryctarth]

frozen_water

Dryctarth

That's a good point. I agree it would likely improve education for those who truly want it. However with regards to middle/high schoolers who don't want to be there, I argue that we try and teach them anyways because their desire to not be in class is not the same as the desire of one who wants to learn. I would argue that in most cases not wanting to be in class is simply a normal teenager thing to do. Any student who really doesn't want to go to school can get out of it pretty easily. The law obviously has no effect on them, except perhaps to ruffle their feathers. And the law has no effect on those who truly want to learn, they'd go to school anyways. The law is there to get the rest of the kids, the ones without those strong desires for or against school to be there. There's a good chance that they'll learn something from the class, even if they only get average grades and are bored most of the time.

I think through middle school attendance should be mandatory, but at the high-school level, the basic classes fail to prepare students who don't want to be there for anything regardless, all the basics should be known by that time anyway.

Also we should have more vocational programs, some starting in middle school. There is no reason why we can't have children graduate completely prepared for a specific job.

I suggest a voucher system as mentioned in my OP. I also agree with Cory Shallow on many of the flaws that plague the school system, and most of these could be easily fixed.

Many specialist high school classes aren't offered in middle school but are quite important for life after graduation: Algebra, History, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry, for example. Some high schools don't even offer basic Calculus (which isn't that advanced compared to things taught in college classes). These aren't taught in middle school and yet not only are they quite important in most careers, but they help students learn what interests them. Visual art, music, and drama are also offered in high school to assist students discover their interests and to continue to improve their skills. And then let's not forget sports and athletics, which just aren't that impressive in middle school. Without high school, a lot of students would be left with an insufficient education, by American and global standards.

The idea of vocational schools as a replacement for high schools is a very good one, but they have a major flaw that high schools are relatively free of: they are dependant on the economic wellbeing of the trades they teach. If the economy is doing poorly and people aren't spending, then they aren't going to be building houses or battleships, where does that leave carpenters and welders? Arts schools are another option, but they shouldn't ignore the important subjects as mentioned above. Who knows what sort of career a graduate from an arts school might pursue?

I've heard a lot about the idea of vouchers and it seems like a good one for the parents and students. But let's say the public school district, paid for by taxes and charitable donations, grants vouchers to every student for any school, public or private. Obviously the schools perceived as the best fill up first. A lot of the time private schools are perceived as being better, so suddenly there's a large influx of students into these schools, all for free attendance, of course. So now the government and the public are paying for these students' education, but they don't get any say in it at all. Private schools aren't run by a democratically elected school board, so the general public doesn't have the same sphere of influence as they otherwise would. Also the operators of these private schools wouldn't like being mandated to accept students, it goes against the idea of being a private school, and they wouldn't appreciate the large influx either.

That's just one part of the problem. Teachers at private schools don't have the same requirements as those at a public school, so there's no way to ensure that they are quality teachers or that they're teaching the right classes or even teaching the classes in the best way. And what about transportation to and from school? Private schools aren't under the same obligation as public schools to provide any. They also aren't under the obligations to provide food at breakfast or lunch that public schools are. And if you just limited the vouchers to public schools only, what would be the point? Some parents might want to send their children to a school all the way across town, but most would probably just elect to put them in the local school anyways. (Again the issue of transportation.)

Vouchers are great to talk about but few people would actually want them. Even if they did make teaching programs more competitive and produced higher quality teachers, public schools usually have a lot less funding than private schools do, especially in highly urban or highly rural areas. That means fewer people would send their students to public schools, public schools then get less money, they can't pay teachers as much, they can't attract high quality teachers, and they can't maintain their schools so school quality drops which then makes attendance drop and so it repeats. It would also make things harder for new teachers that didn't come from a high quality training program to get started.

[frozen_water]

Dryctarth

frozen_water

Dryctarth

That's a good point. I agree it would likely improve education for those who truly want it. However with regards to middle/high schoolers who don't want to be there, I argue that we try and teach them anyways because their desire to not be in class is not the same as the desire of one who wants to learn. I would argue that in most cases not wanting to be in class is simply a normal teenager thing to do. Any student who really doesn't want to go to school can get out of it pretty easily. The law obviously has no effect on them, except perhaps to ruffle their feathers. And the law has no effect on those who truly want to learn, they'd go to school anyways. The law is there to get the rest of the kids, the ones without those strong desires for or against school to be there. There's a good chance that they'll learn something from the class, even if they only get average grades and are bored most of the time.

I think through middle school attendance should be mandatory, but at the high-school level, the basic classes fail to prepare students who don't want to be there for anything regardless, all the basics should be known by that time anyway.

Also we should have more vocational programs, some starting in middle school. There is no reason why we can't have children graduate completely prepared for a specific job.

I suggest a voucher system as mentioned in my OP. I also agree with Cory Shallow on many of the flaws that plague the school system, and most of these could be easily fixed.

Many specialist high school classes aren't offered in middle school but are quite important for life after graduation: Algebra, History, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry, for example.

What average job requires that the person have taken any of those besides algebra?

Quote:

Some high schools don't even offer basic Calculus (which isn't that advanced compared to things taught in college classes). These aren't taught in middle school and yet not only are they quite important in most careers, but they help students learn what interests them.

How is calculus important in most careers? And what's to stop students from taking these classes if they continue to pursue their education?

Quote:

Visual art, music, and drama are also offered in high school to assist students discover their interests and to continue to improve their skills. And then let's not forget sports and athletics, which just aren't that impressive in middle school. Without high school, a lot of students would be left with an insufficient education, by American and global standards.

Nothing would stop students from taking these classes.

Quote:

The idea of vocational schools as a replacement for high schools is a very good one, but they have a major flaw that high schools are relatively free of: they are dependant on the economic wellbeing of the trades they teach. If the economy is doing poorly and people aren't spending, then they aren't going to be building houses or battleships, where does that leave carpenters and welders?

Same place it leaves high school graduates now. I assure that someone who has experience welding and doing carpenter work would be much better off that the average high school graduate at finding a job.

Quote:

Arts schools are another option, but they shouldn't ignore the important subjects as mentioned above. Who knows what sort of career a graduate from an arts school might pursue?

Vocational schools would be optional compared to the standard high school, and no where did I mention art schools.

Quote:

I've heard a lot about the idea of vouchers and it seems like a good one for the parents and students. But let's say the public school district, paid for by taxes and charitable donations, grants vouchers to every student for any school, public or private. Obviously the schools perceived as the best fill up first. A lot of the time private schools are perceived as being better, so suddenly there's a large influx of students into these schools, all for free attendance, of course.

What? Do you understand how the voucher system works? The school receives money upon the acceptance of the child. Currently the government pays for each child attending a public school, only the money is sent to the school based on the child's attendance, and the parents have no say.

Quote:

So now the government and the public are paying for these students' education, but they don't get any say in it at all.

How would they not have a say? Now they don't have a say, the voucher system is an improvement because it allows them a say in it.

Quote:

Private schools aren't run by a democratically elected school board, so the general public doesn't have the same sphere of influence as they otherwise would. Also the operators of these private schools wouldn't like being mandated to accept students, it goes against the idea of being a private school, and they wouldn't appreciate the large influx either.

Why would they be mandated to accept children? Just like when the government provides grants for college, the money goes to the college you attend, and has no influence on what college accepts you. And private schools are like a business they would love more students, because that means more money.

Quote:

That's just one part of the problem. Teachers at private schools don't have the same requirements as those at a public school, so there's no way to ensure that they are quality teachers or that they're teaching the right classes or even teaching the classes in the best way.

And the system we have ensures this? Are you kidding me? If anything this only makes the private school teachers better, because they are hired on ability, not what college classes they've taken or what seminars they've attended.

Quote:

And what about transportation to and from school? Private schools aren't under the same obligation as public schools to provide any. They also aren't under the obligations to provide food at breakfast or lunch that public schools are. And if you just limited the vouchers to public schools only, what would be the point?

If they parents can't get the child to the school then don't send the child there. Problem solved.

Quote:

Some parents might want to send their children to a school all the way across town, but most would probably just elect to put them in the local school anyways. (Again the issue of transportation.)

So? That's there choice. I don't see an issue here.

Quote:

Vouchers are great to talk about but few people would actually want them. Even if they did make teaching programs more competitive and produced higher quality teachers, public schools usually have a lot less funding than private schools do, especially in highly urban or highly rural areas. That means fewer people would send their students to public schools, public schools then get less money, they can't pay teachers as much, they can't attract high quality teachers, and they can't maintain their schools so school quality drops which then makes attendance drop and so it repeats. It would also make things harder for new teachers that didn't come from a high quality training program to get started.

And then that school would go under and I wouldn't be the least bit upset because if the school was so poorly run that no one would attend it, then it shouldn't have been open to begin with.

[Dryctarth]

frozen_water

Dryctarth

Many specialist high school classes aren't offered in middle school but are quite important for life after graduation: Algebra, History, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry, for example.

What average job requires that the person have taken any of those besides algebra?

Teaching requires all of them. Any medical career requires History, Bio, and Chem. Going into politics or law definately requires History. Any engineering position requires Physics and Calculus. No, the cashier at Walmart (as an example) doesn't need to know Newton's Third Law of Motion, or Beer's Law, or what the Treaty of Versailles was, but how many people really want to be the cashier at Walmart?

Quote:

Quote:

Some high schools don't even offer basic Calculus (which isn't that advanced compared to things taught in college classes). These aren't taught in middle school and yet not only are they quite important in most careers, but they help students learn what interests them.

How is calculus important in most careers? And what's to stop students from taking these classes if they continue to pursue their education?

Calculus is very handy in the world of business and economics and necessary in any job related to science or engineering. And you really shouldn't be a teacher without taking at least one Calculus course. And if students continue to pursue their education then good for them. My argument is that most students wouldn't continue to pursue their education if they didn't have to.

Quote:

Quote:

Visual art, music, and drama are also offered in high school to assist students discover their interests and to continue to improve their skills. And then let's not forget sports and athletics, which just aren't that impressive in middle school. Without high school, a lot of students would be left with an insufficient education, by American and global standards.

Nothing would stop students from taking these classes.

True, but would they take them at all?

Quote:

Quote:

The idea of vocational schools as a replacement for high schools is a very good one, but they have a major flaw that high schools are relatively free of: they are dependant on the economic wellbeing of the trades they teach. If the economy is doing poorly and people aren't spending, then they aren't going to be building houses or battleships, where does that leave carpenters and welders?

Same place it leaves high school graduates now. I assure that someone who has experience welding and doing carpenter work would be much better off that the average high school graduate at finding a job.

Yes, I won't argue with that. Instead I'll say that the average high school graduate isn't looking for a job at this point, they're looking for college. Time magazine just ran an article last week about the unemployment rate among teenagers. It said that companies or professions which used to be good sources of teen employment are now dropping their teen workers in favor of older workers whom companies feel are more reliable than teens. Yes, the student who graduates with a certificate in welding would be more favorably looked upon than one who hasn't, but what about when the second comes back from college with a degree in engineering or physics?

Quote:

Quote:

Arts schools are another option, but they shouldn't ignore the important subjects as mentioned above. Who knows what sort of career a graduate from an arts school might pursue?

Vocational schools would be optional compared to the standard high school, and no where did I mention art schools.

So if the vocational school is optional compared to high school, does that mean that students don't have to attend either if they don't want to? You don't want mandatory schooling after middle school, after all.

Also I was just trying to keep the artsy people off my back as three of my siblings graduated from or are attending an arts school. The argument about being prepared for a job right away is one they use a lot as well and I felt I should at least mention them.

Quote:

Quote:

I've heard a lot about the idea of vouchers and it seems like a good one for the parents and students. But let's say the public school district, paid for by taxes and charitable donations, grants vouchers to every student for any school, public or private. Obviously the schools perceived as the best fill up first. A lot of the time private schools are perceived as being better, so suddenly there's a large influx of students into these schools, all for free attendance, of course.

What? Do you understand how the voucher system works? The school receives money upon the acceptance of the child. Currently the government pays for each child attending a public school, only the money is sent to the school based on the child's attendance, and the parents have no say.

If John's parents send him to Private School A instead of Public School B, than they have no further say in John's education at that school unless they wish to withdraw him from school. If they send John to the Public School B instead of Private School A, then they have a voice in his education at that school because that school is run by a school board which has meetings periodically at which John's parents can voice their opinions and influence the public and the board.

Quote:

Quote:

So now the government and the public are paying for these students' education, but they don't get any say in it at all.

How would they not have a say? Now they don't have a say, the voucher system is an improvement because it allows them a say in it.

See above.

Quote:

Quote:

Private schools aren't run by a democratically elected school board, so the general public doesn't have the same sphere of influence as they otherwise would. Also the operators of these private schools wouldn't like being mandated to accept students, it goes against the idea of being a private school, and they wouldn't appreciate the large influx either.

Why would they be mandated to accept children? Just like when the government provides grants for college, the money goes to the college you attend, and has no influence on what college accepts you. And private schools are like a business they would love more students, because that means more money.

Fair enough. So the public schools continue to lose money for their students.

Quote:

Quote:

That's just one part of the problem. Teachers at private schools don't have the same requirements as those at a public school, so there's no way to ensure that they are quality teachers or that they're teaching the right classes or even teaching the classes in the best way.

And the system we have ensures this? Are you kidding me? If anything this only makes the private school teachers better, because they are hired on ability, not what college classes they've taken or what seminars they've attended.

Not necessarily. Private school teachers can be hired on whatever criteria the school wants to hire them on. Hiring on ability is probably part of that, but I wouldn't count on it. Currently to be a public school teacher you either need a state teaching license, which involves passing the Praxis exams (the last of which is evaluating your teaching directly at the end of your first year), or you need to go through an alternative training program such as Teach for America which does accept people based on ability and then trains them to be better.

Quote:

Quote:

And what about transportation to and from school? Private schools aren't under the same obligation as public schools to provide any. They also aren't under the obligations to provide food at breakfast or lunch that public schools are. And if you just limited the vouchers to public schools only, what would be the point?

If they parents can't get the child to the school then don't send the child there. Problem solved.

Quote:

Some parents might want to send their children to a school all the way across town, but most would probably just elect to put them in the local school anyways. (Again the issue of transportation.)

So? That's there choice. I don't see an issue here.

My point is that it would make the vouchers a moot point for some people, meaning that their children would stay in the same local public school as before. My guess is that you probably want that school to teach your child well, which means it needs support, which vouchers would take away. So in that respect I suppose it's not moot at all, simply detrimental.

Quote:

Quote:

Vouchers are great to talk about but few people would actually want them. Even if they did make teaching programs more competitive and produced higher quality teachers, public schools usually have a lot less funding than private schools do, especially in highly urban or highly rural areas. That means fewer people would send their students to public schools, public schools then get less money, they can't pay teachers as much, they can't attract high quality teachers, and they can't maintain their schools so school quality drops which then makes attendance drop and so it repeats. It would also make things harder for new teachers that didn't come from a high quality training program to get started.

And then that school would go under and I wouldn't be the least bit upset because if the school was so poorly run that no one would attend it, then it shouldn't have been open to begin with.

So if you lose a school in one area where do those students go? Other schools. And what if those schools don't have facilities or funding for them? Although, if schooling wasn't mandatory after middle school, I suppose it wouldn't matter as those students probably wouldn't go to school anyways.

So if you have these students who aren't in school and you have an economy which is rather unfavorable for teens, what do you do with all these kids?

[frozen_water]

Dryctarth

frozen_water

Dryctarth

Many specialist high school classes aren't offered in middle school but are quite important for life after graduation: Algebra, History, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry, for example.

What average job requires that the person have taken any of those besides algebra?

Teaching requires all of them. Any medical career requires History, Bio, and Chem. Going into politics or law definately requires History. Any engineering position requires Physics and Calculus. No, the cashier at Walmart (as an example) doesn't need to know Newton's Third Law of Motion, or Beer's Law, or what the Treaty of Versailles was, but how many people really want to be the cashier at Walmart?

So you mean any profession that requires you to attend college? Then the point is moot as anyone attending college would have attended highschool, or would pick up the needed information at college.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Some high schools don't even offer basic Calculus (which isn't that advanced compared to things taught in college classes). These aren't taught in middle school and yet not only are they quite important in most careers, but they help students learn what interests them.

How is calculus important in most careers? And what's to stop students from taking these classes if they continue to pursue their education?

Calculus is very handy in the world of business and economics and necessary in any job related to science or engineering. And you really shouldn't be a teacher without taking at least one Calculus course. And if students continue to pursue their education then good for them. My argument is that most students wouldn't continue to pursue their education if they didn't have to.

So what if they don't pursue their education? That only leaves positive benefits for those who do.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Visual art, music, and drama are also offered in high school to assist students discover their interests and to continue to improve their skills. And then let's not forget sports and athletics, which just aren't that impressive in middle school. Without high school, a lot of students would be left with an insufficient education, by American and global standards.

Nothing would stop students from taking these classes.

True, but would they take them at all?

Would they need to? And if by chance they did, chances are if they are already attending a non mandatory school and going through the trouble of a higher education, then they would know that they needed to take all the classes, and sign up accordingly.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The idea of vocational schools as a replacement for high schools is a very good one, but they have a major flaw that high schools are relatively free of: they are dependant on the economic wellbeing of the trades they teach. If the economy is doing poorly and people aren't spending, then they aren't going to be building houses or battleships, where does that leave carpenters and welders?

Same place it leaves high school graduates now. I assure that someone who has experience welding and doing carpenter work would be much better off that the average high school graduate at finding a job.

Yes, I won't argue with that. Instead I'll say that the average high school graduate isn't looking for a job at this point, they're looking for college. Time magazine just ran an article last week about the unemployment rate among teenagers. It said that companies or professions which used to be good sources of teen employment are now dropping their teen workers in favor of older workers whom companies feel are more reliable than teens. Yes, the student who graduates with a certificate in welding would be more favorably looked upon than one who hasn't, but what about when the second comes back from college with a degree in engineering or physics?

What's preventing the first from attending college as well?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Arts schools are another option, but they shouldn't ignore the important subjects as mentioned above. Who knows what sort of career a graduate from an arts school might pursue?

Vocational schools would be optional compared to the standard high school, and no where did I mention art schools.

So if the vocational school is optional compared to high school, does that mean that students don't have to attend either if they don't want to? You don't want mandatory schooling after middle school, after all.

Also I was just trying to keep the artsy people off my back as three of my siblings graduated from or are attending an arts school. The argument about being prepared for a job right away is one they use a lot as well and I felt I should at least mention them.

You're catching on.

And the "artists" can learn viable skills rather than seeking an education solely in art. Let's face it, chances are they won't be able to support themselves on art alone.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I've heard a lot about the idea of vouchers and it seems like a good one for the parents and students. But let's say the public school district, paid for by taxes and charitable donations, grants vouchers to every student for any school, public or private. Obviously the schools perceived as the best fill up first. A lot of the time private schools are perceived as being better, so suddenly there's a large influx of students into these schools, all for free attendance, of course.

What? Do you understand how the voucher system works? The school receives money upon the acceptance of the child. Currently the government pays for each child attending a public school, only the money is sent to the school based on the child's attendance, and the parents have no say.

If John's parents send him to Private School A instead of Public School B, than they have no further say in John's education at that school unless they wish to withdraw him from school. If they send John to the Public School B instead of Private School A, then they have a voice in his education at that school because that school is run by a school board which has meetings periodically at which John's parents can voice their opinions and influence the public and the board.

Are you telling me parents have no say about what goes on at a private school? Again, private schools are like a business, and they want happy "customers" they take feedback and suggestions as well.

Not to mention if parents really need much more of a say, then they can choose to enroll their students in a public school which you claim allows for more involvement.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So now the government and the public are paying for these students' education, but they don't get any say in it at all.

How would they not have a say? Now they don't have a say, the voucher system is an improvement because it allows them a say in it.

See above.

See above.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Private schools aren't run by a democratically elected school board, so the general public doesn't have the same sphere of influence as they otherwise would. Also the operators of these private schools wouldn't like being mandated to accept students, it goes against the idea of being a private school, and they wouldn't appreciate the large influx either.

Why would they be mandated to accept children? Just like when the government provides grants for college, the money goes to the college you attend, and has no influence on what college accepts you. And private schools are like a business they would love more students, because that means more money.

Fair enough. So the public schools continue to lose money for their students.

Only if their school performs poorly.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

That's just one part of the problem. Teachers at private schools don't have the same requirements as those at a public school, so there's no way to ensure that they are quality teachers or that they're teaching the right classes or even teaching the classes in the best way.

And the system we have ensures this? Are you kidding me? If anything this only makes the private school teachers better, because they are hired on ability, not what college classes they've taken or what seminars they've attended.

Not necessarily. Private school teachers can be hired on whatever criteria the school wants to hire them on. Hiring on ability is probably part of that, but I wouldn't count on it. Currently to be a public school teacher you either need a state teaching license, which involves passing the Praxis exams (the last of which is evaluating your teaching directly at the end of your first year), or you need to go through an alternative training program such as Teach for America which does accept people based on ability and then trains them to be better.

Never said they couldn't be hired based on any criteria. :/

Why would they not hire the best teacher? That's ridiculous, a good teacher can only make them more money and a bad one loose them money.

Which is the problem with public school teachers, they pass that and their in, regardless of true ability to teach. You don't have that, and you're out, regardless of your ability to teach.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

And what about transportation to and from school? Private schools aren't under the same obligation as public schools to provide any. They also aren't under the obligations to provide food at breakfast or lunch that public schools are. And if you just limited the vouchers to public schools only, what would be the point?

If they parents can't get the child to the school then don't send the child there. Problem solved.

Quote:

Some parents might want to send their children to a school all the way across town, but most would probably just elect to put them in the local school anyways. (Again the issue of transportation.)

So? That's there choice. I don't see an issue here.

My point is that it would make the vouchers a moot point for some people, meaning that their children would stay in the same local public school as before. My guess is that you probably want that school to teach your child well, which means it needs support, which vouchers would take away. So in that respect I suppose it's not moot at all, simply detrimental.

So, you're telling me you object because a parent might be forced to send their child to a better school because the crappy one shut down?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Vouchers are great to talk about but few people would actually want them. Even if they did make teaching programs more competitive and produced higher quality teachers, public schools usually have a lot less funding than private schools do, especially in highly urban or highly rural areas. That means fewer people would send their students to public schools, public schools then get less money, they can't pay teachers as much, they can't attract high quality teachers, and they can't maintain their schools so school quality drops which then makes attendance drop and so it repeats. It would also make things harder for new teachers that didn't come from a high quality training program to get started.

And then that school would go under and I wouldn't be the least bit upset because if the school was so poorly run that no one would attend it, then it shouldn't have been open to begin with.

So if you lose a school in one area where do those students go? Other schools. And what if those schools don't have facilities or funding for them? Although, if schooling wasn't mandatory after middle school, I suppose it wouldn't matter as those students probably wouldn't go to school anyways.

So if you have these students who aren't in school and you have an economy which is rather unfavorable for teens, what do you do with all these kids?

Are you assuming no other schools would be started? I guarantee you people will be jumping at the opportunity to make money on schooling.

And what to do with the kids? Same thing we do with the lazy teenagers who do nothing after high school now.

[Synthetic Violets]

Well I'm a senior so I didn't have to do the 4x4 plan. I'm on my 5th fifth of math (Calculus), but I didn't take a science class this year. Pretty cool. But... school does suck. I hate the stupid a** rules and regulations. Grrr.....

[HatredBearOmNomNom]

You should not be asking, How has the school system failed you? A better question would be, how has our society created a youth that is stupid, ignorant, unmotivated, lazy, and arrogant? These are the underlying causes of poor school behavior and performance. The problem is 90% individual 10% system. I've seen people go through some shitty a** schools and come out as a success.

[lobservatrice]

The public school in my area (which has 2,500 students and a budget failure) is dropping the German classes. German 1 this year, German 1 & 2 next year, etc. The German program has never had problems getting students to sign up for classes. However, some of the other very specific interest classes (parenting, autos, intro to cooking) are losing students every year and are more expensive to teach than the German program is.

Tell me that's not ******** up. stare

Also many of the local elementary schools are getting rid of their music programs, and there's a facebook community dedicated to convincing the school board that this is a bad idea.

And isn't public education supposed to be free? Because their tuition is $50/student/year, and I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be $0.

I go to a private school now (because I used to receive my education from this school system, and when I got through my freshman year of high school I couldn't take the bullshit anymore and switched to a Catholic school, where thankfully, most of the students are not Catholic). There's more money in the budget and a better education to be had. Yay private school (which costs way more money to attend, but it's worth it for those who can afford it).

[Le recepteur]

Being in ninth grade, I find it kind of awkward to say I haven't found much wrong in the education system. But, from experience, I'd say the only real problem I can find is how the school boards focus on the kid's who are exceeding, and just kick the struggling kid's off to the side. I mean, there's so many different options for advanced student's to skip courses, take collage classes, and graduate young. However, the kid's who are struggling get stuck in horrible, noisy classrooms with teacher's who don't really give a s**t, which is the exact opposite of what they need. Sure, I've had a few non-Honors classes that had a slightly worthy teacher, but most just don't care when it comes to their regular classes. A struggling student needs individual help from the teacher's. They need more programs to help them, more opportunities then just an after-school tutoring session with the same lousy teachers once a week.

So, really, the kid's who are the top of their classes don't have much to worry about if they know how to apply for additional courses, and how to get a course above their grade level. But, the kid's who aren't of high academic intelligence are just told to study and turn in their homework, with no other support.

Yes, the education system is bad because we only value those who are abnormally intelligent, and pay almost no mind to those who need to go beyond what is given to finally understand what is being taught.

[Cpt Verd]

My high school didn't screw me over at all. For a public high school, it was really very good. This year it was rated as one of the top public high schools in the country <3

[Dryctarth]

frozen_water

-snip-

You're catching on.

And the "artists" can learn viable skills rather than seeking an education solely in art. Let's face it, chances are they won't be able to support themselves on art alone.

So this all boils down to the argument about people attending high school. If high school is not mandatory, people won't attend because there are other things they'd rather be doing in the morning, such as sleeping or eating or watching TV, and there are other things they'd rather be doing at night such as hanging out with friends, playing games, reading, etc. Teenagers are well known for their preference of short-term goals over long-term goals. A lot of them are going to skip out on high school, and I mean more than those who would attend high school. They're not going to want to go back to high school for a while. They're essentially drop-outs. They won't be able to get a job because they have no skills or training or education. No, nothing is preventing them from going to school, but there isn't anything keeping them in there either.

The really big part of the problem is that overall we'll have a less educated population. As mentioned, they won't be able to get jobs so we'll have to look elsewhere for said jobs. We can assume all of the educated students will find them, but they aren't going to fill the eventual vacancies. Even if companies downsize to fit the workforce and to cut costs on products, who is going to be buying anything? If you can't get a job then you can't earn money to buy anything. Things continue and it leads to economic stagnancy, or at least a reduction in growth. Furthermore it makes us look even worse to the rest of the world where education is still compulsory up through the high school level.

There is nothing going badly because of mandatory high school education except for students voicing the ages old and almost beloved complaint that they don't like school. But without mandatory high school education, things aren't going to get any better and are likely to get worse.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Private schools aren't run by a democratically elected school board, so the general public doesn't have the same sphere of influence as they otherwise would. Also the operators of these private schools wouldn't like being mandated to accept students, it goes against the idea of being a private school, and they wouldn't appreciate the large influx either.

Why would they be mandated to accept children? Just like when the government provides grants for college, the money goes to the college you attend, and has no influence on what college accepts you. And private schools are like a business they would love more students, because that means more money.

Fair enough. So the public schools continue to lose money for their students.

Only if their school performs poorly.

Students attend better looking private schools.
Public schools lose attendance.
Public schools lose funding.
Public schools have to cut back on programs and teachers.
Public schools look even worse.
Repeat.

I'm sorry I care about and support public schools. But I'd rather see a school powered by a desire to teach and learn rather than private business interests. And I'd rather see a school which can be checked and regulated by the government and third-party examiners rather than one which is subject to a corporation's guidance or misguidance.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

That's just one part of the problem. Teachers at private schools don't have the same requirements as those at a public school, so there's no way to ensure that they are quality teachers or that they're teaching the right classes or even teaching the classes in the best way.

And the system we have ensures this? Are you kidding me? If anything this only makes the private school teachers better, because they are hired on ability, not what college classes they've taken or what seminars they've attended.

Not necessarily. Private school teachers can be hired on whatever criteria the school wants to hire them on. Hiring on ability is probably part of that, but I wouldn't count on it. Currently to be a public school teacher you either need a state teaching license, which involves passing the Praxis exams (the last of which is evaluating your teaching directly at the end of your first year), or you need to go through an alternative training program such as Teach for America which does accept people based on ability and then trains them to be better.

Never said they couldn't be hired based on any criteria. :/

Why would they not hire the best teacher? That's ridiculous, a good teacher can only make them more money and a bad one loose them money.

Which is the problem with public school teachers, they pass that and their in, regardless of true ability to teach. You don't have that, and you're out, regardless of your ability to teach.

You missed the part where the Praxis exam evaluates your ability to teach! If you can't teach then you can't pass and you can't get your teaching license.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

And what about transportation to and from school? Private schools aren't under the same obligation as public schools to provide any. They also aren't under the obligations to provide food at breakfast or lunch that public schools are. And if you just limited the vouchers to public schools only, what would be the point?

If they parents can't get the child to the school then don't send the child there. Problem solved.

Quote:

Some parents might want to send their children to a school all the way across town, but most would probably just elect to put them in the local school anyways. (Again the issue of transportation.)

So? That's there choice. I don't see an issue here.

My point is that it would make the vouchers a moot point for some people, meaning that their children would stay in the same local public school as before. My guess is that you probably want that school to teach your child well, which means it needs support, which vouchers would take away. So in that respect I suppose it's not moot at all, simply detrimental.

So, you're telling me you object because a parent might be forced to send their child to a better school because the crappy one shut down?

No, I object because the crappy one won't have a chance to get better. And I object to thinking that says crappy schools shouldn't get better.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Vouchers are great to talk about but few people would actually want them. Even if they did make teaching programs more competitive and produced higher quality teachers, public schools usually have a lot less funding than private schools do, especially in highly urban or highly rural areas. That means fewer people would send their students to public schools, public schools then get less money, they can't pay teachers as much, they can't attract high quality teachers, and they can't maintain their schools so school quality drops which then makes attendance drop and so it repeats. It would also make things harder for new teachers that didn't come from a high quality training program to get started.

And then that school would go under and I wouldn't be the least bit upset because if the school was so poorly run that no one would attend it, then it shouldn't have been open to begin with.

So if you lose a school in one area where do those students go? Other schools. And what if those schools don't have facilities or funding for them? Although, if schooling wasn't mandatory after middle school, I suppose it wouldn't matter as those students probably wouldn't go to school anyways.

So if you have these students who aren't in school and you have an economy which is rather unfavorable for teens, what do you do with all these kids?

Are you assuming no other schools would be started? I guarantee you people will be jumping at the opportunity to make money on schooling.

And what to do with the kids? Same thing we do with the lazy teenagers who do nothing after high school now.

People aren't going to make money on building new schools to replace the ones which just got shut down. It's too expensive to survive on the money from vouchers and tuition alone, especially seeing as there probably wouldn't be much tuition money to be gotten from the kids who attended a public school which was shut down for lack of performance (actually it would've been lack of attendance, but under a voucher system a lack of attendance really means lack of performance).

And what exactly do we do with lazy teens? We try to get them education or a job. Obviously the job part isn't working without the education, and if they decide not to go to school that's the same thing as being a drop-out. There is a strong correlation between drop-outs and a poor quality of life. And having to deal with the drop-outs there are now is hard enough for friends, family, and potential employers. Do you really want to encourage people to drop out, even just passively?

[frozen_water]

HatredBearOmNomNom

You should not be asking, How has the school system failed you? A better question would be, how has our society created a youth that is stupid, ignorant, unmotivated, lazy, and arrogant? These are the underlying causes of poor school behavior and performance. The problem is 90% individual 10% system. I've seen people go through some shitty a** schools and come out as a success.

I'm not talking about poor performance. I am doing well despite the system's failures.

However, just because people are passing does not mean it's not riddled with flaws. My position is not that it fails to teach us anything, but that it steadily becoming worse and worse when so many options are available for improvement and not being utilized.

Oh, and anything to back that a majority of children fail due solely to themselves?

[frozen_water]

Dryctarth

frozen_water

-snip-

You're catching on.

And the "artists" can learn viable skills rather than seeking an education solely in art. Let's face it, chances are they won't be able to support themselves on art alone.

So this all boils down to the argument about people attending high school. If high school is not mandatory, people won't attend because there are other things they'd rather be doing in the morning, such as sleeping or eating or watching TV, and there are other things they'd rather be doing at night such as hanging out with friends, playing games, reading, etc. Teenagers are well known for their preference of short-term goals over long-term goals. A lot of them are going to skip out on high school, and I mean more than those who would attend high school. They're not going to want to go back to high school for a while. They're essentially drop-outs. They won't be able to get a job because they have no skills or training or education. No, nothing is preventing them from going to school, but there isn't anything keeping them in there either.

If they aren't willing to attend that's their own damn fault, the same as college.

Quote:

The really big part of the problem is that overall we'll have a less educated population. As mentioned, they won't be able to get jobs so we'll have to look elsewhere for said jobs. We can assume all of the educated students will find them, but they aren't going to fill the eventual vacancies. Even if companies downsize to fit the workforce and to cut costs on products, who is going to be buying anything? If you can't get a job then you can't earn money to buy anything. Things continue and it leads to economic stagnancy, or at least a reduction in growth. Furthermore it makes us look even worse to the rest of the world where education is still compulsory up through the high school level.

There are more than enough people trying their very hardest just to get accepted to college, if just attending high school gave people an edge attendance wouldn't be an issue for people who plan to do something with their lives that requires education.

Quote:

There is nothing going badly because of mandatory high school education except for students voicing the ages old and almost beloved complaint that they don't like school. But without mandatory high school education, things aren't going to get any better and are likely to get worse.

Nothing else? Except you know, all the things in my OP, all the countless things covered by other topics in the ED, and just general lack of valuable education.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Private schools aren't run by a democratically elected school board, so the general public doesn't have the same sphere of influence as they otherwise would. Also the operators of these private schools wouldn't like being mandated to accept students, it goes against the idea of being a private school, and they wouldn't appreciate the large influx either.

Why would they be mandated to accept children? Just like when the government provides grants for college, the money goes to the college you attend, and has no influence on what college accepts you. And private schools are like a business they would love more students, because that means more money.

Fair enough. So the public schools continue to lose money for their students.

Only if their school performs poorly.

Students attend better looking private schools.
Public schools lose attendance.
Public schools lose funding.
Public schools have to cut back on programs and teachers.
Public schools look even worse.
Repeat.

Nope. It goes something more like this:

Students attend most appealing school (may or may not be private, as many people don't want religious influence present in many private school, nor do they want uniforms, nor do they want to deal with transportation to said school, nor does everyone agree with the particular social group that attends that school, etc...)

Public school that has failed to have good test scores or make itself appealing enough in any academic way loses attendance to better schools.

Crappy public school cannot support its failing education system.

Crappy public school shuts down.

Crappy public school is replaced by Privately owned school (that has a vested interest in providing the best education as other wise it doesn't make money) takes its place.

Quote:

I'm sorry I care about and support public schools. But I'd rather see a school powered by a desire to teach and learn rather than private business interests. And I'd rather see a school which can be checked and regulated by the government and third-party examiners rather than one which is subject to a corporation's guidance or misguidance.

I don't think you understand how private schools work at all. They are subject to the same 3rd party examiners. AP tests? Not just for public schools. SAT and ACT? Not just for public schools. Not to mention they all have to apply to college the same way, and clearly private schools are doing some real teaching other wise they wouldn't be able to do well in these "3rd party" tests.

And the business interest are aligned with that of student seeking a good education. Better test scores=higher attendance=more money.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

That's just one part of the problem. Teachers at private schools don't have the same requirements as those at a public school, so there's no way to ensure that they are quality teachers or that they're teaching the right classes or even teaching the classes in the best way.

And the system we have ensures this? Are you kidding me? If anything this only makes the private school teachers better, because they are hired on ability, not what college classes they've taken or what seminars they've attended.

Not necessarily. Private school teachers can be hired on whatever criteria the school wants to hire them on. Hiring on ability is probably part of that, but I wouldn't count on it. Currently to be a public school teacher you either need a state teaching license, which involves passing the Praxis exams (the last of which is evaluating your teaching directly at the end of your first year), or you need to go through an alternative training program such as Teach for America which does accept people based on ability and then trains them to be better.

Never said they couldn't be hired based on any criteria. :/

Why would they not hire the best teacher? That's ridiculous, a good teacher can only make them more money and a bad one loose them money.

Which is the problem with public school teachers, they pass that and their in, regardless of true ability to teach. You don't have that, and you're out, regardless of your ability to teach.

You missed the part where the Praxis exam evaluates your ability to teach! If you can't teach then you can't pass and you can't get your teaching license.

So are you making the claim that everyone that passes that examine is automatically ready to teach?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

And what about transportation to and from school? Private schools aren't under the same obligation as public schools to provide any. They also aren't under the obligations to provide food at breakfast or lunch that public schools are. And if you just limited the vouchers to public schools only, what would be the point?

If they parents can't get the child to the school then don't send the child there. Problem solved.

Quote:

Some parents might want to send their children to a school all the way across town, but most would probably just elect to put them in the local school anyways. (Again the issue of transportation.)

So? That's there choice. I don't see an issue here.

My point is that it would make the vouchers a moot point for some people, meaning that their children would stay in the same local public school as before. My guess is that you probably want that school to teach your child well, which means it needs support, which vouchers would take away. So in that respect I suppose it's not moot at all, simply detrimental.

So, you're telling me you object because a parent might be forced to send their child to a better school because the crappy one shut down?

No, I object because the crappy one won't have a chance to get better. And I object to thinking that says crappy schools shouldn't get better.

Why should we continue to support those institutions that continue to fail, when for the sake of a better education for children we could simply let those that should fail, fail. Why support a dying system?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Vouchers are great to talk about but few people would actually want them. Even if they did make teaching programs more competitive and produced higher quality teachers, public schools usually have a lot less funding than private schools do, especially in highly urban or highly rural areas. That means fewer people would send their students to public schools, public schools then get less money, they can't pay teachers as much, they can't attract high quality teachers, and they can't maintain their schools so school quality drops which then makes attendance drop and so it repeats. It would also make things harder for new teachers that didn't come from a high quality training program to get started.

And then that school would go under and I wouldn't be the least bit upset because if the school was so poorly run that no one would attend it, then it shouldn't have been open to begin with.

So if you lose a school in one area where do those students go? Other schools. And what if those schools don't have facilities or funding for them? Although, if schooling wasn't mandatory after middle school, I suppose it wouldn't matter as those students probably wouldn't go to school anyways.

So if you have these students who aren't in school and you have an economy which is rather unfavorable for teens, what do you do with all these kids?

Are you assuming no other schools would be started? I guarantee you people will be jumping at the opportunity to make money on schooling.

And what to do with the kids? Same thing we do with the lazy teenagers who do nothing after high school now.

People aren't going to make money on building new schools to replace the ones which just got shut down. It's too expensive to survive on the money from vouchers and tuition alone, especially seeing as there probably wouldn't be much tuition money to be gotten from the kids who attended a public school which was shut down for lack of performance (actually it would've been lack of attendance, but under a voucher system a lack of attendance really means lack of performance).

Same way private schools make money. With the facility already built, the cost has already drastically decreased. Not to mention with today's system lack of attendance means lack of performance. Public schools are paid based on their attendance in today's system.

Quote:

And what exactly do we do with lazy teens? We try to get them education or a job. Obviously the job part isn't working without the education, and if they decide not to go to school that's the same thing as being a drop-out. There is a strong correlation between drop-outs and a poor quality of life. And having to deal with the drop-outs there are now is hard enough for friends, family, and potential employers. Do you really want to encourage people to drop out, even just passively?

No, I think they should attend the high school, but I don't support forcing them through the system to bog down those who want to get a good education.

[Pineapple222]

Hmmm. Interesting but I have several things I would like to bring up.
One is that the 4x4 system is only an additional science. Everything else was already required. One more class than usual. In that idea it seems progressive to attempt to educate students to a higher standard. Alot of your problems with the school system, while seemingly big issues, appear rather as petty and misguided anger. Ex. no mp3 player in class, school rules, etc.

Misguided and awful counselors occur in many places. Even nice schools. It is entirely hit or miss it appears. However, there are plenty of places one can inform themselves now anyway.

I do not see a voucher system... working optimumly. It might be interesting to see how it works in a small enviroment or case study. However, better than a voucher system would be a vocational system... which also has a lot of problems. This is what the majority of the industrial world has established. However, it is unlikely that that will occur.

[frozen_water]

Pineapple222

Hmmm. Interesting but I have several things I would like to bring up.
One is that the 4x4 system only an additional science. Everything else was already required. One more class than usual. In that idea it seems progressive to attempt to educate students to a higher standard. Alot of your problems with the school system, while seemingly big issues appear rather as rather petty and misguided anger. Ex. no mp3 player in class, school rules, etc.

Misguided and awful counselors occur in many places. Even nice schools. It is entirely hit or miss it appears. However, there are plenty of places one can inform themselves now anyway.

I do not see a voucher system... working optimumly. It might be interesting to see how it works in a small enviroment or case study. However, better than a voucher system would be a vocational system... which also has a lot of problems. This is what the majority of the industrial world has established. However, it is unlikely that that will occur.

4x4 plan added both a science, and a math credit. Which in my areas equates to another semester of school. Also, now Texas has taken away other mandatory credits to allow children more freedom with their schedule not given to those who were first put on the 4x4 plan, because they didn't take the time to check what they did.

MP3 player was just one example, and by no means a "a lot of my problems". It shows all the effort the school system puts into preventing things that should be a teacher's decision to begin with. Instead of wasting effort deciding that phones can't be used on campus, or that rubber bands shouldn't be allowed, they should take the time to fix the problems that matter.

I'm not talking about misguided, I'm talking about counselors who don't have the interests of the students in mind and shouldn't be hired to begin with.

Want to elaborate on the problems?