I'm not too stat crazy but I think 80-90% of the funding of public schools comes from property taxes, local and state taxes, so this wouldn't be as much of a proposal to the federal government as it would be to a state government. My solution to "education": Eliminate "free" public funding of schools k-12.. and INSTEAD, use a fraction of that money to support decent libraries, which mostly already exist. That right there, is a ticket to free, self-motivated education. Instead of cramming shit down kids throats that they don't even want to learn, let them choose what they wish to learn. So far in the past month or so of going to the library and reading up on things that actually interest me, I've learned far more in the past month than my entire public education experience. Why? probably because i forgot all the dumb shit that they made me memorize so I could pass the government standardized tests and took with me a very, very small fraction of what was taught. Expected questions.. "ok you have books, what about discussions and help from a tutor?", my answer, "buy it." Do you want help with something? Pay for it, because that's what you'll be doing in the real world. Also, understand this.. if you were to add up all of the money that is already put into education out of your taxes, you would have more than enough to pay for a tutor, or whatever class you need help with. By the time you're 18, or 16, or whatever age, you will be fully responsible and ready for college, because you'll already be used to the process. My suggestion for effective screening for getting into college: Entry tests. You shouldn't be required to have a HS Diploma or even a GED to get into a college (but then again, I advocate letting the market decide that, not government), because if you know enough from independent study, you should be able to prove it in an entry test. Who does this proposal benefit? Everyone. Teachers: Marketplace decides your pay, measured by your ability. Students: Opportunity to actually learn something and be given a chance to utilize that. Government: Well, it looks like we finally found a solution to the "education problem" you've been fiddling with, so.. I guess that really doesn't help you! No more green to line your pockets! What say you?
It's quite good Nate. But there will be no shortage of people on this forum who will tell you that they would rather confiscate the money from the people who work to pay for it. Of course, they will call it a tax, or that you have to pay your dues to live in a society... Check this out. I read it yesterday. http://www.openeducation.net/2008/0...to-be-learned-from-the-finnish-school-system/ Lower dropout rates by allowing students to leave earlier if they are not interested in a college education. Basically, allocate resources based on demand, not on state mandate that everyone attend. It's worth a read of the whole article. I think NZ and AU have similar systems for graduation, but the Finns are the first I have heard of starting school so late.
I understand how independent study could work for older high-school aged children (and probably could be an option for those who want it), but do you expect younger kids to be working independently in a library? Is this plan for no free public education for all grade levels. You would have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders doing independent study?
Yeah, or they can be taught by their parents, the way it should be. I guess a lot of this plan relies on that. Parents want their kids out of the house so that both can go out and hold a job and not feel guilty, so they are in full support of the current order. It will actually require a social change for this to ever work.
Not necessarily. You could have one parent teach a couple families kids or even grandparents teach. They could be subsidized by the parents of the kids learning. Let's face it, Social Security is flat broke, and people are going to have to start working past the age of 65 soon. Maybe these people should be minding young kids, providing supervision and whatnot. EDIT::__ I guess it comes down to what we think our future as a race is. Do we have tighter family enclaves, where parents have to work less due to economic, productive and technological gains, or do we scatter more, with those gains, sending children to state institutes while the parents pursue personal projects during the day hours they don't have to work any longer. I'm not really sure which is more likely, viable or desirable.
That's what we do. Works the best. In fact it's the only way it works. It's not the purpose of public school system to educate children. Its' purpose is to provide an excuse for taxation. There isn't any reason why a public school teacher should care about [somebody else's] child. I know I wouldn't. He gets paid the same amount no matter how much effort s/he puts into it. No wonder you see home-schooled children completing high-school program by the age of 13 and public school graduates working for McDonald's. In fact, even if teacher wants to teach the children something useful, he is prohibited from doing so by law You wouldn't believe how much public school administration hates home-schoolers. The school loses $60 a day on every child who is not enrolled, not mentioning they don't get to brainwash your child into statism
Decentralize the system - get the federal government out of it unless someone's individual rights are being violated by a specific discriminatory policy. Forget the tiny amount of money that D.C. adds to education and just let the states set their own curriculum and standards. Some states might go downhill, but I think creating systems of inter-state competition in public services would go a long way toward increasing the efficiency of American government operations.
Just about all of it, I don't think much outside the elementary school they teach is of any use. You'll really see my point when you start homeschooling, it's the difference between owning a business and working cash register at McDonald's. Teachers are banned from teaching anything outside the textbook, and neither teachers not parents have a say over what textbook is used. Everything is decided by bureaucrats with no clue whatsoever, you'd think these people never saw a child in their life. I dealt with them more than once and have stories to share. They are often related to the publisher of the textbook, like being former employee or having the same last name as CEO, you get the point Education doesn't really come into play here, it's about business
What law would that be? What useful information are they prevented from teaching by law? You didn't bother to answer either question. What, no idea what law you are talking about? What can't they teach, spell it out, stop dancing around the issue. You obviously think they are limited from teaching something, what is it?
Teachers are banned from teaching anything outside the textbook, and neither teachers not parents have a say over what textbook is used. Everything is decided by bureaucrats with no clue whatsoever. I don't know what law it is in your state, here in NY it's the Education law. It'd be more appropriately called Education sabotage law. You can find it here if it interests you - http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS
Is this about eliminating schools ? Don't forget that schools are also a place to socialise, make friends and meet other people.
Why do you say 'also'? Are you implying there is something else? It's certainly not a place to receive education, if you want to end up on welfare public school is the place to start. BTW, keeping children in artificial environment for most of the day doesn't do much for 'socialization'