Blog Spectrum

First TCL

Perhaps if we spend more money on things like education and tools for education (libraries, museums, art, music and culture), we might get more kids interested in learning on their own. Back in Illinois, my school took us on field trips to Shedd Aquarium, the Museum of Science and Industry, and the Museum of Contemporary Art. It got me interested in learning about things outside of school, and instead of sitting in class, staring at the chalkboard for 6 hours a day, we got to watch SCUBA divers feed sharks, and look at rocks that fell from space! I became extremely interested in geology for a number of years, all because of trips to museums. In turn, I went to the library to learn more about xeolinths, lava flows and geologic faults, which nurtured an interest about natural disasters and the earth in general, which is a hobby that I still pursue to this day.

I do agree that more hands on and participatory education is needed in the form of field trips, unfortunately with this you are again running into a nasty area. America, as I touched on is as much or more a fear ruled society as it is reason ruled one. The odds of a terrorist attack, or even ‘ordinary’ accidents are miniscule, yet many if not most schools have either severely curtailed or eliminated such trip since 9/11.

Now James

Our CO and the Cunning Linguist try very hard to escape the gravitational pull of this huge planet, this personal experience, but in the end they, too, crash and burn.

I beg to differ. My driving has got to be the closest thing to wingless flight one can accomplish, and I’ve not had an accident in oh, hours.

That is the genius of public education in America. We did have something in common back then, and we still do, no matter what academic track we were on, no matter what occupational destination we shared. Not because we came from the same class or race or gender, but because we were taught—not necessarily by our teachers--to negotiate our differences by reference to the inheritances we call American history and literature. (For some of us, yes, by reference to Mathematics, as well, a universal language, to be sure, but the fissures and consequences were narrower in that domain.)

While there is something to be said for shared experience in school, and I do believe to some experience it is needed, it is not the be all end all of education, not even close. Teaching children the mislabeled “three r’s” is the responsibility of the education system. Teaching children to be sociable like providing religious and or personal philosophical guidance is, and should remain the job of the parents.

The CO and Sidial agree on the need for what we used to call tracking. "Separate out the kids according to ability, intelligence, and zeal for learning," as the latter puts it. I wonder. My most boring moments in high shool came in my "honors" classes, and my most electrifying moments came after I was kicked out of them, after my junior year.

Doesn’t this go back to the personal responsibility that you were preaching about a few paragraphs ago? I reveled in my advanced classes. I could read on a high school level by fourth grade, and a college level by sixth. If you failed to learn in the more challenging classes it presents one of three major problems and their associated subsets:
1) The ‘advanced’ classes were nothing of the sort and only dubbed that way to stroke the ego’s of parents and some students.
2) You did not appreciate the challenge of the advanced classes and were content getting “easy A’s” in the mainstream classes.
3) You were on the borderline between ‘average’ and ‘advanced’

Of these problems number three is by far the murkiest, if that is for the sake of discussion the best answer it immediately raises several questions: “Could you have done better if you stuck to books and not sports?”, “Should students be enrolled in ‘advanced’ classes on a course by course level and not on an all or nothing basis?”, “Were you really motivated to be there, and did you understand enough of what being a part of those classes could mean to your future?” the list goes on and on, and varies quite widely from student to student. I for example excelled at English, history, and science but struggled with math classes, my brother was just the opposite, he did wonderful in math and hated English and history. There are differences including how people learn: visual, auditory and the other variations, that effect the outcome of how much people learn more than simple “IQ” explains.

Tom's responce to TCL

The only way to fix this problem is to create a societal situation where the consequences of having more children than you can support (from both the male and female prespective, of course) are unacceptable. How do we do that, you ask? We first warn everyone that we're about to take some drastic action. Then we give them a chance to shape up with continued warnings. Then, we follow through with our drastic action, namely we stop supporting them beyond what we are already giving away.

This one you are going to need to explain carefully. What kind of consequences? Not helping the kids? And if so isn’t that punishing the children at best, and potentially negligent homicide at worst? Taking the kids away? Sure, our foster care system is a lot better than the lack of safety net in a lot of countries but its already overburdened. Further we need to stop the revolving door that some judges and policy makers have put into place where the birth family is by default the best place for the all parties concerned. Not to be too crass, but I don’t give a $@#% about the parents, grandparents or the ninety-some cousins. They can all fall off the end of the planet. Putting a child back with a child molester is inexcusable, putting them back with people who have failed to complete alcohol and drug counseling likewise.

Derek (not quite in order)

The Democrats--well, they're lost. The Republican drift to the left has pushed Democrats somewhere to the far side of George McGovern.

Oh Boy is that one for another day...

I am no expert on education. I do, however, have a little insight into human nature. Those in power tend to consolidate power. Controlling the system of education is a goal of every despotic regime; if you lead them while they're young, they'll willingly follow you as adults.

I’m not a huge fan of government sponsored education, however, it does have a much better chance of getting people all on the same playing field than each city block having its own privately run school. Also, if for no other reason than making sure people are being educated there needs to be someone saying ‘the standard is here’. I happen to think that for a lot of things the standard is set to low in the public system.

Some of the friends I admire most teach in public schools, and our daughter has attended the local schools since kindergarten. I assure you, though, that we've been very aware of what's been taught, especially in the early grades. My wife used to volunteer at the school during the day and was on a first-name basis with the principals of the elementary and middle school.

It is good to see their are parents who pay attention. I work with a youth group where half the parents drop their children off and disappear, i think most of the parents have only met myself or the club leader once and yet they leave their kids there for 3-4 hours.

J'Myle

That touches on what the answer should be. Schools, above all else, should attempt to equip our children with the ability to think critically, with the ability to reason. All else follows. James' goals—literacy, social mobility, civic discourse—can only be achieved in schools whose pupils are able to think critically. Solving every problem on Sidal's laundry list is meaningless if students are still unable to think for themselves. Find students who can do that, and solving those problems becomes much easier, because the students will be right there with you.

Again this goes back to ours being a society of fear. No it is not to the extent of North Korea, China, or a few other hellholes, but one where fear is the preferred motivator. There are a lot of parents who want their parents to learn what to think, not how. I personally have several very, very good idea’s where this comes from, but I’ll leave that for later. Where it comes from is important, getting rid of it, is more important.

...enough cash to keep the student:teacher ratio at no more than 20:1—twenty-five, tops. A bad teacher with twelve students will teacher better than a great teacher with fifty-four. If any of you doubt that for a second, I will give you a tour of my old high school and prove it.

I think, that if public school alternatives got enough (non financial) support that this could go a long way towards shrinking class sizes.



And that folks is all i have time for right now, more later.

TLC, you asked how I think the breakdown of the family can be fixed. The short answer (without getting to far afield of the education question) is exactly what I suggested would fix education: Personal responsibility. For too long we have subsidized behaviors that are contributing to the problem. Although Welfare reform is now in place, it used to be that we had a bit of Communism (or at the very least, Socialism) running amok. The deal was: Have more babies, you get more money. Humm...I wonder that's going to work out...

The only way to fix this problem is to create a societal situation where the consequences of having more children than you can support (from both the male and female prespective, of course) are unacceptable. How do we do that, you ask? We first warn everyone that we're about to take some drastic action. Then we give them a chance to shape up with continued warnings. Then, we follow through with our drastic action, namely we stop supporting them beyond what we are already giving away.

[Warning-Preemptive Strike Imminent] Before anyone levels the nasty charge of racism at yours truly, this sort of thing applies to everyone. I have no problem with short-term safety nets (we don't want children starving in the streets); they are at least less noxious, harmful (and, might I add slightly 'less unconstitutional' (if such a thing exists)) than what we had been doing in the past.

Here’s my response to James (related posts by me, James 1 and 2).

I realize very well that “the” government does not directly run public schools. I also realize, however, that government money (by which I mean my money and your money) always comes with strings attached. On top of that, the government’s unwillingness to face down “the” Teachers’ Union has lead to a noncompetitive situation. Why? Well, as you say the Teachers’ Union is a private institution. The problem is that it is a private institution that has a goal that is not the education of children. Rather, their goal is the continued and ever-improving employment of teachers. I have no problem with the concept of a Teachers’ Union. There are lots of unions in the country and they all have various benefits and drawbacks. This one has a particular advantage in that they have gained so much power by lobbying “the” government, who controls the $$, that they are causing harm. If the Teachers’ Union were dealing with a private business then the situation would be no different than that of other unions.

I’ve got no problem paying for my (future) children’s’ education. I’m not asking “the” government to give me a thing. I’m only asking that I not have money taken from me (under threat of jail) to subsidize the education of other parent’s children if I’m going to opt out of the system.

The question: What in school changes need to me made to our educational system?

The answer is simple. We need to get the government out of the business of educating our children. I could go on and on berating the government for its terrible handling of education, but the problems are obvious. There are certainly those who would try to make the argument that without government-run schools poor children will not get an education. The answer to that contention is two-part.

First, we already know that children in poor sections of town get, on average, an inferior education to those in more affluent neighborhoods. This is a function both of local resources and social matters. Whether schools are run by the government or private organizations, local resources will be what they are. Currently, tax dollars do come from outside of a local school district to help out, but they are either insufficient or being squandered. More on that later. With respect to social matters, the most pressing is the structure of the family. Without painting with too broad a brush, the family structure in the inner city (primarily black families) is in an abysmal state relative to other racial/social groups with nearly 70% of children being born out of wedlock. Until that changes it’s going to be very difficult to effect positive changes in any aspect of life, including education.

That being said, there are steps that we can take to improve the educational situation…which brings me to the second part of my answer. As I mentioned above, the argument in favor of government-run schools is that everyone gets an education. But let me ask you which is worse, getting absolutely no education and knowing that you got absolutely no education or getting essentially no education (i.e., you can’t read after graduating from high school) while being convinced that you got an education? I think that former is far better for a simple reason. It is simply easier to identify the problem. If everyone could see that inner city children were not being provided any education at all, then we could perhaps doing something about it. On the other hand, the current situation of sub-sub-sub-par education is that we can say, at least they’re getting an education, which is a lie, but one that is all too easy to swallow. The only way to fix the situation is to rock the boat. We must remove government from the classroom. While it is tempting to suggest all sorts of reforms we must remember who got us here in the first place and realize that huge bureaucracies are nearly impossible to change in significant ways.

Aside from the typical bureaucratic problems with government-run schools, there is a more basic reason why they cannot work. Well, perhaps they can work (here I sit), but they cannot work as well as a private system. The reason is that the purpose of the government-run school system is educate children…but there is no way to make them do it. Add to that the fact that the teachers’ union's reason for existing is to keep teachers employed (as opposed to educating children) and you have a recipe for disaster.

A privately run school system, on the other hand, would incorporate all the aspects of a free-market system…both the good and the ‘bad.’ First the good: competition. Assuming that parents actually care about their children’s education (which is a social issue outside education reform’s sphere of influence), schools will either sink or swim based on the quality of the education they provide. That means that the purpose of these schools is to educate children. If a teacher is not performing, s/he is fired and replaced with a more effect individual. This would be a huge improvement over the current system focused on keep teachers happy regardless of student performance.

Now on to the ‘bad.’ I say ‘bad’ for a reason that I hope will become clear as we move long. One aspect of a free-market system is inevitable failure. This failure is necessary to keep a market running efficiently. Failure is accepted as a matter of course when speaking about small businesses (as we know, nearly 60% of them fail), but people recoil at the idea of failure in education because we’re supposed to be protecting The Children^TM.

Let’s take a quick look at failure in education. We all know that currently it takes quite a bit to expel a student. There has to be a long-running history of extreme behavior problems recalcitrant to adjustment measures before s/he is removed from school permanently. In the meantime, that expulsion-deserving student is typically causing disruptions in class, acting as bully outside of class, etc. Our first societal instinct these days is to see that child as a victim of his/her environment and not responsible for his/her actions (until s/he turns 18…then all bets are off). Therefore, we reason, we cannot deprive him/her of an education. Of course, in a privately run school (where there is competition for good students) such a troublemaker would be tossed out as a matter of course. This is one of the ‘bad’ consequences envisioned by adversaries of school choice etc. Such situations are a societal gut check. Whom do we care about more; the good kids being deprived of learning time or bad kids causing the deprivation? The answer will greatly effect the outcome of the debate.

Finally, one of the most common objections brought to bear against a completely private education model is that there will not be equal access to education. Since it’s obvious that this is already the case, I don’t quite see how this is an issue. However, do we believe that things would get worse or better by kicking government out of the classroom entirely? Well, let’s see. Americans have found a way to make money at just about everything imaginable. Why not education? Do you honestly believe that there are not individuals out there with the ability to run a school for a profit? Are there no people who grew up in the inner city, made a bundle of money and might be willing to invest in a school…especially if they see a total lack of educational opportunities otherwise?

What it all comes down to is individualism and capitalism. To maul one of my favorite Churchill quotes: Capitalism is the worst economic system…except all the other ones that have been tried. Inject competition and individual accountability into anything and watch people and intuitions flourish. There will surely be some left behind…but is that any worse than what we’re currently doing: leaving everyone behind.

And three links for each search


Education Reform 2005
CER
CTER
EdWeek.org

Charter School performance
Rand.org
DC Charter School
TopSchools.com

Homeschool rates
HomeSchoolyellowpages
ActsChristian
HomeEducation

“Education would be much more effective if its purpose were to ensure that by the time they leave school every student should know how much they don't know, and be imbued with a lifelong desire to know it.”

—Sir William Haley

It seems to me that James got closest to the root of the matter when he reminded us that “the current educational system...Appeared only about a century ago” and asked “What are the goals of education?”

I am always in favor of radical solutions, because “radical” means “to get to the root of the matter” and we should, when addressing an issue, go to the root of the matter and ask ourselves the Fundamental Questions about what a school system or religion or new speed bump on Grover Street is all about. And James has asked a Fundamental Question when he asks, what do we want from our educational system?

Since no one asks that question, it's not often answered. But when you ask the party operatives what the GOP or Democrat stance on education is, you get the sense that both are interested in identical outcomes. On the Republican side, they want every student to be able to pass the same test and memorize the same facts, and generally bring every public school a little bit closer to being what Derek called a “factory for turning out happy little worker bees.” The Democrats often scare me even more, because they don't want kids to be able to regurgitate facts without thinking; they want our children to regurgitate ideas without thinking. While these ideas liberals want to indoctrinate are good ideas—tolerance, diversity and so on—to simply repeat an idea without understanding it is worse than useless.

Even James doesn't quite get there when he tries to answer the Fundamental Question:

Historically speaking, the goals of education in this country are to (1) equip everyone with the skills necessary to appropriate the texts once decipherable only to the literate minority; (2) offer everyone the possibility of social mobility by virtue of their access to education...; (3) teach everyone that the only thing we have in common as Americans is our ability to argue about what it means to be American.

Having thus summed up the traditional answers to the Fundamental Question, James moves on to evaluate how well we're accomplishing those goals without asking if they're good goals, or if they're flawed or simply incomplete. At the end of his post, he even suggests that there is a better answer to the fundamental question, when tell us that the best teachers say “I am here to show these kids how to think, not what to think.”

That touches on what the answer should be. Schools, above all else, should attempt to equip our children with the ability to think critically, with the ability to reason. All else follows. James' goals—literacy, social mobility, civic discourse—can only be achieved in schools whose pupils are able to think critically. Solving every problem on Sidal's laundry list is meaningless if students are still unable to think for themselves. Find students who can do that, and solving those problems becomes much easier, because the students will be right there with you.

Even the most stubborn problems in our schools disappear when the students are able to think critically. A student with the ability to reason can be safely taught evolution and creationism, because that student will figure out which one is science and which one is “science” all on her own. Don't try and teach which side of any controversial issue is “right”—a student who can reason needs only a quick overview and some op-eds from different sides, and he can make up his own mind.

So how exactly do we do this, how to we teach children to reason? Well, we must shift the focus from high school to elementary school. The basic ability to reason must be done in the first few grades at the latest. By seventh grade you need only a few vigilant parents to try and keep Principal “Barbie-Wannabe” on her toes (maybe even get her fired, if you're lucky) and enough cash to keep the student:teacher ratio at no more than 20:1—twenty-five, tops. A bad teacher with twelve students will teacher better than a great teacher with fifty-four. If any of you doubt that for a second, I will give you a tour of my old high school and prove it.

Okay, so, we're thinking about kids still in their formative years. Now what? Consider that TCL reminisces about field trips to museums as kindling his interest in learning. I, too, credit something outside the schools: the weekly story-time at my local library. By taking me every week until I was nine or ten, my mother almost single-handedly gave me my love of reading.

In school, my best teacher was Ms. Sharp, who, as a third-grade teacher, repeatedly ditched the curricula and would take us outside on a warm spring day to mess around in the shrubbery all afternoon. Years later, I found out later that our bureaucratic principal took her aside to complain about that. Ms. Sharp grabbed two of my classmates and proceeded to have them prove that they knew far more than our principal did about worms.

We learned more than just worms. We learned that facts don't just exist in a book, they exist in the real world, all round us. That what we get in our classes can sometimes mean more than just a good grade. In high school, a lot of kids from my elementary school were in the AP and IB classes. You could still tell which ones had Ms. Sharp in third grade, and which ones had someone else.

My point with these examples? Well, everyone is different and will respond to different things. Different “sparks” will light the flame of reason in each child's mind. And this has nothing to with innate intelligence or ability. Putting the advanced kids in their own program (G&T for Sidal was ELP [Extended Learning Program] in my district) doesn't help a lot until kids are ten or eleven. What we need for four and five year olds is something the GOP values: local control.

Local control is looked down on by liberals, and for good reason. Too often it means allowing a small group of local busybodies and Protectors of Decency to hijack control of your children's school. Utah was a lighting rod for such inanity. A teacher was suspended for not allowing a girl to read the Book of Mormon during free reading time. My drama teacher nearly got pay docked simply for attending an independent-from-the-school show put on by some of his students because it had profanity in it. My father's best friend was in a band that wrote a song about another incident—guess why the Protectors of Decency tried to get this teacher fired: “Spanish Fork High School took back Wendy Weaver/Wouldn't she be happier/teaching in Beaver?”

But what local control can and should be is an acknowledgement that before you can have standardized tests and achievement expectations, you must first get those “sparks” I talked about. As many as possible, to help as many students as possible. And because every community is different, they all need as much no-strings money and—more importantly—curricula-free days as possible to take the first graders and Head Start kids out to do the unique things that only a on-the-ground teacher can know about. Kids in semi-rural areas of South Eastern Pennsylvania are close enough to Philly's Regional Rail that a teacher with some cash and time can take them downtown to see skyscrapers for the first time. A teacher at P.S. 608 in Brooklyn can take her class to a community garden no Washington bureaucrat will ever know exists. And, of course, a particularly Sharp teacher needs only the time to take her class outside to play in the dirt.