Education on America

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
If I'm ever made Grand Poohbah, the first change I'll make in the education system is this:
Around 3rd grade, the kids get to work in a sweat shop for 6 months. Chinese kids can handle the work, so American kids should be able to handle some sort of tasks as well. They get paid minimum wage, but have to work their ass off for it. Then, from 4th grade on, if they're ever a pain in the ass - refusing to do work, disruptive in class, etc., there's a place to stick them so the rest of the kids can continue to learn.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Education in America was not the greatest but was OK until Republicans meddled in with No Child Left Behind.

Now every child is left behind as teachers are forced to brainwash answers to pre-determined questions in tests to advance to the next grade.

All critical thinking and learning is thrown out the window.

Also allowing religion to supplant science didn't help either.

Between the two Americans are destined to be at the bottom of intelligence indefinitely.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Education is a local issue and as such should be handled by the state/county/city. The federal government should have no part in public education.

Think of how much money local governments could tax in the bureaucracy which is the federal government didn't tax dollars, remove the majority of it to pay for the bureaucracy, and then give it back to the state/county/city.

Per the constitution, the powers not enumerated in it are granted to the local governments/the people.

Again, every time you bring up this "strict constitutionalist" agenda, I'm going to counter with this.

Where does it say, in the Constitution, that we should have an Airforce, Nasa, Cabinet, highway system, etc etc. Technically, speaking, those should be all things individual states should fund themselves, not the Federal Government. Of course this isn't the case because the Constitution isn't a cage, it's a framework. So stop being a tool with that strict constitutionalist argument. The 10th amendment has been dead for a long, long time now.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally Posted by Patranus
Education is a local issue and as such should be handled by the state/county/city. The federal government should have no part in public education.

Think of how much money local governments could tax in the bureaucracy which is the federal government didn't tax dollars, remove the majority of it to pay for the bureaucracy, and then give it back to the state/county/city.

Per the constitution, the powers not enumerated in it are granted to the local governments/the people.



Again, every time you bring up this "strict constitutionalist" agenda, I'm going to counter with this.

Where does it say, in the Constitution, that we should have an Airforce, Nasa, Cabinet, highway system, etc etc. Technically, speaking, those should be all things individual states should fund themselves, not the Federal Government. Of course this isn't the case because the Constitution isn't a cage, it's a framework. So stop being a tool with that strict constitutionalist argument. The 10th amendment has been dead for a long, long time now.

You're wasting your time on the Republican Ron Paul bot
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
You mean the same "no child left behind" bill that was pushed through the senate by Ted Kennedy?

Education had been struggling well before NCLB was passed. Sadly, it still hasn't become anything more than a backburner issue in politics. It gets lip service, but that is about it these days.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Again, every time you bring up this "strict constitutionalist" agenda, I'm going to counter with this.

Where does it say, in the Constitution, that we should have an Airforce, Nasa, Cabinet, highway system, etc etc. Technically, speaking, those should be all things individual states should fund themselves, not the Federal Government. Of course this isn't the case because the Constitution isn't a cage, it's a framework. So stop being a tool with that strict constitutionalist argument. The 10th amendment has been dead for a long, long time now.

:rolleyes: The Constitution is not just "a framework" - it most definitely was intended to be a cage. A cage that was purposely made hard to change by the founders. They understood what abuses came from an overbearing and powerful central gov't and they purposely wrote the Constitution to grant them(the feds) only certain and specific powers. But alas, people haven't been taught the Constitution and the history of each piece of it in school - they just get the fluff. Disgusting.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
:rolleyes: The Constitution is not just "a framework" - it most definitely was intended to be a cage. A cage that was purposely made hard to change by the founders. They understood what abuses came from an overbearing and powerful central gov't and they purposely wrote the Constitution to grant them(the feds) only certain and specific powers. But alas, people haven't been taught the Constitution and the history of each piece of it in school - they just get the fluff. Disgusting.

If it were a cage, then all those programs and institutions are unconstitutional and should be disbanded. The Constitution, specifically, says that we only should maintain an Army and a Navy, not an Airforce. Likewise, no where does it say we can harbor a missile corp, so that should be disbanded as well. NASA is also unconstitutional as well as the entire Cabinet. You see how absurd this gets? If it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's unconstitutional.

Where are the threads calling for the dissolution of these entities?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Education is a local issue and as such should be handled by the state/county/city. The federal government should have no part in public education.

Think of how much money local governments could tax in the bureaucracy which is the federal government didn't tax dollars, remove the majority of it to pay for the bureaucracy, and then give it back to the state/county/city.

Per the constitution, the powers not enumerated in it are granted to the local governments/the people.

I'm pretty sure a lot of education IS handled at the local level, and it's certainly at least partially PAID for at the local level. The fact that the quality of public education varies WIDELY from district to district should tell you how much influence the federal government has or doesn't have.

Calling something a "local issue" isn't going to magically make things better. The same problems that plague education at the national level show up at the local level as well. People not wanting to pay for public education, overwhelming red-tape not letting teachers just teach (just think about all the LOCAL school boards pushing religion in science class), etc, etc...they don't go away just because the federal government gives up.

On the other hand, when it comes to something like education, the federal government can do things no local district can. Research into teaching methods, textbooks, etc, cost the same whether it's 1 school or 1,000 that benefit. Small districts don't have resources for that kind of thing on their own, it makes sense to centralize as much educational framework as we can, to benefit from the economy of scale.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The proof is in the pudding. I work in a community college and an awful lot of what I see is students who can not pass or come close to passing up to a supposed high-school level exam for English and Math. They learned all the wishy washy liberal agenda but they cant do basic math or write a simple sentence. The question is what did they learn in High School and how did they graduate? The conclusion must be that they did not learn anything useful.

I am not saying it is all the school system, but if they were not at a high-school level they did not deserve a high school diploma. I think a lot of this is due to parents not being involved in their schooling.

I graduated from High School in 1976. Then I went back to college in 1998. I passed the english and was borderline on the math over 25 years later. What is even worse is that children are taking math at an earlier age, so they should be getting more math.

From what I saw when my children were in High School is that the school system was babying students and they were sending only the best students to the appropriate math and english courses. In College you can not advance in a lot of courses with a D. They dont let a nurse get credit for biology unless they have at least a C. I have seen some institutions that will not even allow a C in Biology for people in the Medical profession. In college we also require a C grade for Geometry. If you got a D in high school, you would have to repeat Geometry in College because it is a requirement for graduation established by the State Board of Education.

We need real standards for High School.

Textbooks are not required to teach. Also Algebra has not changed in the last 30 years.
 
Last edited:

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Education in America was not the greatest but was OK until Republicans meddled in with No Child Left Behind.

Now every child is left behind as teachers are forced to brainwash answers to pre-determined questions in tests to advance to the next grade.

All critical thinking and learning is thrown out the window.

Also allowing religion to supplant science didn't help either.

Between the two Americans are destined to be at the bottom of intelligence indefinitely.

NCLB did more harm then good. sure the idea is sound but it just didn't work in execution.

you are right that all critical thinking is punished. if you do not fallow the set guidelines that the teacher wants you ar talked to.

I also put blame on the "new age" teaching methods. many do not work and put to much priority on "self worth" or building character. not every child deserves a star on the paperwork.

one of the local schools around here wanted to discontinue a AR program (advanced reading) and testing to see where the childrens reading level is. All students were to read the what the lowest child in the class is reading. WTF!

that is one of the reasons i live in the country in a small school that has more traditional teaching. the kids start to slack off? parents are called in.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
If it were a cage, then all those programs and institutions are unconstitutional and should be disbanded. The Constitution, specifically, says that we only should maintain an Army and a Navy, not an Airforce. Likewise, no where does it say we can harbor a missile corp, so that should be disbanded as well. NASA is also unconstitutional as well as the entire Cabinet. You see how absurd this gets? If it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's unconstitutional.

Where are the threads calling for the dissolution of these entities?

Yep, there is much that the Feds do that is outside the scope of the Constitution.
AirForce - Are you really THAT stupid?
NASA - Yep
Cabinet - Depends.

It only becomes absurd when you don't understand it(which you obviously don't) and buy into the excuse that the stuff is already here and thus it must be OK. Well, it's NOT OK and the Fed should be reigned back in.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,591
3,807
126
Ugh....so many issues....where to begin?

I also put blame on the "new age" teaching methods. many do not work and put to much priority on "self worth" or building character. not every child deserves a star on the paperwork.

one of the local schools around here wanted to discontinue a AR program (advanced reading) and testing to see where the childrens reading level is. All students were to read the what the lowest child in the class is reading. WTF!

that is one of the reasons i live in the country in a small school that has more traditional teaching. the kids start to slack off? parents are called in.

The sad state of affairs is that a lot of schools are giving into parents. Parents do not want to believe their child is doing poorly. After all, it's their child so they must be doing well. These parents vote, therefore people who want to be on the school board listen to them and don't want to piss them off.

Parents are also lawsuit happy. Oh shit! Billy brought a plastic fork to school and scratched my Samy-kins. Oh wo-es me - won't someone think of the children?! Wait - if I sue the school I can buy that new house, car and TV and teach that dastardly school a lesson. I mean - how will Samy ever recover from the mental anquish?

Now - this is all assuming the parent actually even cares about their child's education. Where my wife works now the parental involvement is very low. When my wife called one parent to let them know that their child was consitently skipping class she was told to not bother the mother with such matters as they 'weren't important' (!!!)

Parents also want to be their child's friend - not parent. It's mean to teach discipline and manner. It stifles their creative development and will put your child in mental distress. Best to let them carry on - interrupting people and throwing temper tantrums. Now the teachers have to spend time teaching basic manners and getting them to shut the fuck up and pay attention instead of the actual lesson(There is no way I could deal with the disrespectful little shits and their parents my wife deals with on a daily basis.)

Not all the fault is with the parents. Administrators are so focused on meeting the standard test scores that actual learning suffers. That's because if they don't make the grade they lose funding. What's the easiest way to make the grade and secure funding (and therefore your job)? Teach the test.

Their job being based on voting parents and test scores makes the position more sensative to those two factors than any other considerations. Teach the test = better test scores. Coddle the children = parents happy to vote for you. Administrators are being rewarded with jobs/raises for doing these things

The administrators concerns with the items above and needing to provide the same amount of education with less money seems to be leading to a rift between them and the teachers.

There are issues with teachers as well. Tenure is a tough one for me to figure out. On one hand you have it protecting teachers who are towards retirement from being fired even though they are just coasting through and not actually trying to teach well. On the other hand it protects them some really idiotic administrators (Of which there are many). Anyway - something needs to be adjusted because there are way to many teachers who really dont care about their job and are all for just barely doing their job and getting their paycheck

Tenure also results in a system where the least senior teacher is cut regardless of the skill/ability equation. You could be the best teacher in the district but if they need to fire someone and you are low man on the totem pole, your ass is out on the street

On a side note I believe that if parents/students had to pay a bill to send their kids to school they would take it more seriously. It was a great motivator for me in college. I worked to put myself through school and when others were content to skip class I though "Fuck no! I paid a lot of money to be able to go to that class. I'm going!" It worked - well most of the time. Point being education needs to be more valued/prized and I think having to pay for it in a more obvious form would force parents to kepp more attention on their child.

Obviously more would need to be done to fix this mess and maybe thats not the best idea, but frankly I am at a loss as to how to make people value a good, solid education more
 
Last edited:

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Yep, there is much that the Feds do that is outside the scope of the Constitution.
AirForce - Are you really THAT stupid?
NASA - Yep
Cabinet - Depends.

It only becomes absurd when you don't understand it(which you obviously don't) and buy into the excuse that the stuff is already here and thus it must be OK. Well, it's NOT OK and the Fed should be reigned back in.

It's too bad that 200+ years of history is on my side and not yours. The Constitution is most definitely not a cage but a framework. Otherwise, the myriad of governmental offices would have been closed and forgotten, instead of expanding. You strict Constitutionists are funny, there was never a problem when Reagan, Bush I or Bush II was expanding the Federal government far beyond what was enumerated in the Constitution, but as soon as a democrat is in power, then it's fashionable amongst conservatives to emphasize a strict constitutionalist viewpoint.

And my point stands, if the Founding Fathers wanted a Missile Corps or an Airforce, they would have explicitly stated so in the Constitution. Likewise, if they wanted an intelligence wing, they would have said so. Otherwise, those powers are relegated to the states. If Nebraska wants an intelligence network, then Nebraska can pay for it's own intelligence network.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
It's too bad that 200+ years of history is on my side and not yours. The Constitution is most definitely not a cage but a framework.

lol, you couldn't be more wrong. History doesn't change the intent of the Constitution. It is supposed to be a cage and was written for just that purpose. I suggest you actually go back and study it's history and what was fought over when it was being written. The left's favorite founding father Jefferson argued for an even stricter and limiting Constitution than what was actually ratified. But hey, keep trying... someday you'll see the light, I have faith that anyone with enough time and effort can understand it. :)
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
As for education. Maybe we should make the parents "pay" for some of it? Ya know, if you get something for nothing then I think you take it for granted. Why should the majority of education come from home owners that pay taxes? Does it mean, that once you own a home your likely to have kids that will go to school? I think we should rethink or retool the way it get's paid and make the parents responsible for their kids. I believe if the parents start paying something for education then they will in turn try to help their own kids by actually being a parent... Maybe.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Part of the problem is political correctness and funding. Immersion techniques where a special needs student is placed with the regular students can be a good thing. However, often times this one student will slow down the whole classroom. Again, this varies with the wealth of the school districts. My wife teaches in a district with no funding for special needs children. Many times these students will get 20-30 minutes of specialized instruction per day. There are no teachers helpers so a disproportionate time of her day has to be spent on these students... slowing down the class progress as a whole. Then there are the children who just don't give a shit... which is handed down from the parents. Last year my wife was threatened by a parent (playing the NACCP card and all) because she had a hoodlum in her class and she could not do anything with. The office staff were so scared of being accused of discrimination that they let this child rule the hallways.

Regarding funding, my daughter was classified as a special needs child. She got 1.5 hours per week of special instruction from a specialist whose workload covered 5 schools. We moved into the neighboring school district and the schools there employ 3-4 special needs teachers per school.

Then there are the federal benchmark programs. Children are not taught to think but rather to score well on standardized tests. That is a whole other rant.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
Come on your god damned Republican revisionist history will not work.

It was Texas under then Governor Bush that first started it.

Lol, MY republican revisionist history eh? First time I have ever been accused of that...

So, you are saying that Ted Kennedy did not support the bill nor did he push it through the senate? Or are you saying that Bush was such a brilliant mastermind that he tricked Kennedy into pushing it through the Senate? Or perhaps you think Kennedy was really a closet Republican?
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
The problem is there is no "problem" with education in America. Every succesful school is the same, every failed school has failed in its own unique way. (apologies to whichever author's quote I just butchered.) There are a lot of small problems, so singling out one single source will not work. Different areas have different problems, some lack funding, many lack parenting, others lack teachers. A big issue though is often one problem tends to attract the other problems. In other threads it was discussed how parents will often pay tens of thousands of dollars more for a house in a school district that is just a few points better than others. We see that in this area, if you want to live 10 minutes north of here, house prices are well over $50,000 more for a comparable house just because of the schools reputation. This causes a snowball, a school that has only one problem then starts to loose the families with the most money,this causes them to lose funding, without funding they have to make cuts, this causes more problems and it just continues like a snowball. Once a school has attracted several problems they all need to be fixed, or the unfixed problems will bring back the ones that have been fixed. But every school is different, so no blanket fix can fix them all at one time.

I think "overhauling" the entire system is stupid. The systems are all administrated differently, they cannot all have the same problem so applying the same solution to them all will just cause different results. Some will get better, some will get worse. I don't see how the federal government can come in and start managing schools. The government could handle funding schools, but not managing them. At best, the government could have a central management structure, but the best it could do is have very local control. Therefore, the people closest to the schools have the most control, but at that point the federal government adds very little since local people are in charge anyway. The federal government cannot remove the local control of schools, these are not factories where we can standardize them. The school needs of an inner city chicago school are much different than the needs of a rural school in Iowa.

And finally, we can't teach students who think learning is not important. Learning requires actually thinking about the subject, and there is no way to force a person to think about something. Dr. Pizza's idea about making them work in a sweatshop may be the best I have ever heard. Make them see firsthand what life will be like if they have no skills or education to offer, they need to know firsthand how much they will suffer for their decisions. Children are too far seperated from the costs of their decisions in school to make a good decision. I have no idea how that can be fixed.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
lol, you couldn't be more wrong. History doesn't change the intent of the Constitution. It is supposed to be a cage and was written for just that purpose. I suggest you actually go back and study it's history and what was fought over when it was being written. The left's favorite founding father Jefferson argued for an even stricter and limiting Constitution than what was actually ratified. But hey, keep trying... someday you'll see the light, I have faith that anyone with enough time and effort can understand it. :)

Jefferson was left? What? From what I understand he was essentially an anarchist.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
As for education. Maybe we should make the parents "pay" for some of it? Ya know, if you get something for nothing then I think you take it for granted. Why should the majority of education come from home owners that pay taxes? Does it mean, that once you own a home your likely to have kids that will go to school? I think we should rethink or retool the way it get's paid and make the parents responsible for their kids. I believe if the parents start paying something for education then they will in turn try to help their own kids by actually being a parent... Maybe.

District budgets probably shouldn't be based on property values.