How Do You Fix Education?

"How do you fix education?"

I'd start with the Teacher's Union.

Isn't an Education Problem:

People now have greater flaws. The easy route to a goal is bad bad bad for the Human Condition. My spoiled yougest has had it easy and her marks show it. My older two worked hard to get themselves to their present level, and are heads down "Get er Done" people (My Wife & I two) . So therefore hardship is just great for human character, the building of if I mean.

Our most esteemed folks from India can probably relate to this also. Sirs please tell us about your own path to success, and the paths you kids are taking.

Any Difference???

Our most esteemed folks from India can probably relate to this also. Sirs please tell us about your own path to success, and the paths you kids are taking.

Any Difference???

Sir,

FEAR is the KEY!! Fear of failure in education leads to abject misery in an "underdeveloped" world. Whereas educational success takes one to the other end of the spectrum-literally, the pot of gold at the other end of the rainbow-America, the land that recognises and rewards merit!!

This is instilled into the minds of most youngsters in their formative years and the rest is self-motivation! There is nothing better than this as a driver to excell! I hope that I have partly answered your query.

Thanks for the opportunity to express myself on a subject over which I have pondered very long. In the "developed" world, there is a lot that can be taken for granted and there is no (or very little) stigma attached to "failure", whereas, here it is treated as a calamity and a "failure" is stigmatised and ostracised in society.

Regards

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

I agree that the "failure is cool" mentality is something that has become a serious issue.

It amazes me that the correlation between the kids that continually fail and what becomes of them is never made for current high school kids. I am sure some do become successful, but I think a five year "Where Are They Now" would be good for all parties.

I know some might say that class reunions do this, but current high schoolers never see the results of a class reunion and no one whose life has been a disaster ever seems to attend a high school reunion.

Funny enough, at my own ten year reunion, I was just about 100% correct on who would be a successful lawyer and who would be working at the same gas station they worked at in the summer after we graduated. And it was the kids your parents always tell you will be "that kid". Very popular with terrible grades.

Age makes looks fade, but your transcript never has to.

I'd start with the parents.

Parents who don't teach their kids manners or self discipline, allow the TV as a constant companion and provide a poor role model are the first to complain when their little angel can't read.

I'd bet most schools have (unofficially, of course) a "smart" class with the kids that are properly socialised and a few other classes where the rest of the kids learn to fill in time.

Surprisingly they do... Now a days they call it Study Hall... Prepared learning... remedial skills. very discrete names for kids who are going nowhere fast. as for the smart classes... when was the last time you were in a classroom? anymore you pick your own classes, you chose if you want to take calculus or pre-algebra. the class that no one is sleeping in, is the class with smart kids.

TV a poor role model? Id have to beg to differ, If all they do is watch MTV cribs, maybe... however if they were to surf around the discovery channel, the Disney channel, the news "Heaven Forbid" they would learn people skills, excellent reading material, and world events.

Parents do play an important role, haven't you heard "It takes a village to raise a child" if teachers and mentors cease to care, the children will get careless

Outside a dog a book is mans best friend, Inside a dog is too dark to read-Groucho Marx

"It takes a village to raise a child". True, sounds like we're on the same channel.

Still, I think many people blame the teachers without recognising they share the blame as well. (Of course, as in any field, some teachers are better than others).

Watching TV can be educational, but it can only give an overview and hopefully whet the child's appetite. For example, no amount of watching programs about computers will give them the same knowledge or satisfaction as writing an actual program.

Yeah, throw more money at it, that fixes all the worlds problems.

I prefer the saying, "Spare the rod, spoil the child". Kids are ridiculously lazy and foul mouthed. Education needs to be far more strict. I understand there are many out there that just are not capable of higher math, language skills or comprehension of something greater or farther in the future then Saturday night.

The military ASVAB is now required of ALL students, "If" we structured society around education, we could give the labor jobs to the lower scored students, and better office jobs to higher scoring children. Also, a lot of high school students give the speech "I don't need school". Instead of forcing them to continue an education they refuse to use, kick them OUT!! Fewer ignorant students who will not accomplish anything other then working an assembly line and pro-creating, would increase funding and give a higher teacher-student ratio.

Outside a dog a book is mans best friend, Inside a dog is too dark to read-Groucho Marx

"language skills or comprehension"

Reading emails confirms this!

It's government targets and test and political correctness that prevent teachers doing a decent job...Ooooh yes and health and safety that means you can't do many decent physics or chemistry experiments without endless risk assesments, etc..which means the soft option is just not to bother. Link that with the historical preponderance of female (non science based) teachers in the primary schools. (I'm not criticicg women...but they tend not to have good scientific backgrounds for various reasons..). Hey while I'm at it..a lack of good male and scientific role models in general..the culture of celebrity (bunch of tossers).

Jeez I had to do a risk assesment before I could type this post...danger of RSI to the paws...eyesight damage...risk of being caught by my boss.

It's not the teachers it's the bloody meddling politicians who treat education as a political football.

Del _{<to exit rant mode feed cat>}

Hi all,

I think we must keep improving our teaching techniques and policies, but the main issue is the student attitude, which is the result of social environment among other.

My own case:

My father went orphan at 14's and came to Madrid from his small Navarra village. He began to work while studying and reach a BSc in economics, having then a good position. After our civil war he was sent to a court martial (even he never touched a gun) the Franco's regime expropriate all his properties and was damned to 7 years on jail.

I went orphan at 7's and from that age I was studying "subsidized" till I get my MSc on Chemical Engineering at 21. Obviously I did some efforts to do it.

My two daughters are BSc in IT, but they have found almost everything solved. It cost me a lot of effort to keep them on the (in my opinion) right way against the surrounding environment in which they were immersed. Sometimes they said to me: Hey dad, we seem aliens beside our colleagues in the school!!

But I think they now agree with what I did.

Kind regards

Education is the only industry that I can think of that uses its own poor performance to justify increased funding. Maybe what is needed to "fix" education is to give the educators a good lesson in economics. If you do not do a better job, then YOU will be out digging ditches for a living.

Education is the only industry that I can think of that uses its own poor performance to justify increased funding.

You've think just a few. If you look around you'll see a lot more.

Maybe what is needed to "fix" education is to give the educators a good lesson in economics.

I think you mean not "educators" but some beancounters in charge of education institutions.

As university lecturer on mechanical engineering for more than 20 years, I have some knowledge on economics even not an specialist, and sometimes I have to explain some economic aspects of engineering (materials, process, etc. selection). But I don't think if I increase my knowledge in economics it would solve the question posted.

If you do not do a better job, then YOU will be out digging ditches for a living.

That's a common place for all jobs (except for those who are already digging ditches)

Kind regards

Teachers are pressured by the school board to increase test scores so that the school gets funding and they don't close due to lack of funds. So, the teachers teach to the test and not to understand the material out of self preservation.

Yes, It's one of the problems. This year I've been lecturer on "Materials selection and control" for last year mechanical engineering students. None of the students have previous experience with me as theory teacher. I explained from the beginning my interest was that they "understand" the principles. Fortunately, the university has intermediate tests during all course. On my first test, 1/3 of students didn't pass and the average marks were low. The students said me that they were "studying" "thinking" in a different test type. I remembered them all my previous advises. On final test I changed again the test type and 100% passed. They finally studied to understand the principles and not to make some tests types.

BTW Here in Spain Education has no fix. It needs a new construction. The current government pseudo-leftist (they think they are leftists but act as SS and Gestapo) approved the last "Education Law" according to which, a primary school student can pass to the next course with up to 4 matters not passed. Consequence: students select 4 matters in which they don't attend. Imagine if these matters are, for example, language, maths, geography, history,....

Kind regards

As a member of the teachers union I have some insights.

First get rid of tenure.
Second go to merit pay.
Third get rid of the teachers union as it exists today.
Raise the salary of good teachers. I can triple my pay if I go back to the semiconductor industry. If this continues there will be no wise teachers left in the teaching industry.

The union is pro teacher which can be good but they go way past helping teachers to the point that many students are hurt because bad teachers are protected. I am aware of quite a few professors who have learned nothing new since they got tenure. Many in this same group have not upgraded their lesson plans in years.

Last get politics out of teaching. A good teacher teaches a student how to think not what to think. Industry partners can help here.

Silvcrow wrote: A good teacher teaches a student how to think not what to think. Industry partners can help here.

REPLY: I can relate to that. My best teacher taught drafting, not really an academic subject. He would spend 10 -15 minutes getting the class started then disappear out of the room. BUT! he also assigned us to write a 3000 - 5000 word essay which he told us would account for 50% of our year marks. We could pick any topic, but he had to approve it. I didn't realize it at the time, but he had us doing university level topic research and report writing in middle school. As an aside, he also taught a few of us something else. After class discussions with him got a few of us into doing "reverse engineering" of stuff. He encouraged us to take things apart that had quit working. Although he was supposedly just teaching drafting, he really taught me how to be an engineer in the true sense of the word. He also organized field trips to working steel mills, appliance manufacturing plants and automotive production lines. Perhaps one of the most important things he taught me was to go directly to manufacturers for the latest information, not the school library with outdated texts.

Sadly that kind of teaching style is no longer permitted in the school board system he worked in. They closed down the shop wing. So where do students go to get a technical education.

Dear Elnav

Thank you for the post on your best teacher.It reinforces my own teaching methodology. Now I feel I am not that unique after all. This is difficult in an environment where people resent "unconventional" teachers and do not appreciate;

"I didn't realize it at the time, but he had us doing university level topic research and report writing in middle school."

This is what makes a Nation itself great.

Regards

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

P.S. If you find time, please visit www.artecrobotics.com

As a teacher, I can say that I don't really care about tenure. I have been through the process twice now and nothing changed about how I was a teacher from before to after. I don't change lessons for observation days. Who I am and how I teach stays consistent from class to class. So as long as their is some form of due process and grievances can be redressed by both parties, I don't care if there is tenure.

Merit pay is a foolish idea. I teach (or have, at least, at some point) grades 9-12, alternative education, core level, Regents level, and university level courses. I have played in both ends of the pool, so to speak. I can tell you that If pay was based on students' achievements and scores alone, two phenomena would quickly develop in many areas:

1. When asked to teach core of alternative education level classes, merit pay teachers would have limited reason to agree. While my department can dictate what classes that I teach (within the confines of a contract), they want teachers who are excited to work there, so they try to reach an agreement between what needs to be taught and who is interested in teaching it. I like teaching core and alternative level kids because it can be very rewarding. But my overall numbers usually aren't quite as good as regular classes. My university level class is made up of extremely motivated kids who do difficult work and the quality is almost always excellent. The bottom line is no one would want to work with borderline kids if it meant that doing so would reduce their pay.
2. Grades would be inflated. Since everything would be based off of scores, the focus of education would be the alphanumerical grade and not what a kid learns. Even though New York has some fairly comprehensive state exams, there is no way that a test can accurately measure what a student has learned in a year, or two, or in the case of English, three years of education. There are so many more lessons to be learned in school than content, such as responsibility, humanism, team work, etc. That material is not tested or scored. The end result is you would see the slow increase, over time, of students test scores because we would care more about grades than learning (which is already a horrible phenomenon).

Finally, you would hold teachers accountable for poor funding, lack of materials, a poor physical plant, etc. Also consider home life. I had a student who spent the last three months of his senior year living in a tent and kids whose parents tell them that they didn't need education themselves, so why should their child because construction jobs pay very well. Yet, a teacher, or a school district, would have their pay impacted by learning factors outside their control.

Do I think educators need to be held accountable? Yes. Do I think that bad teachers need to be weeded out? Yes. But Merit Pay is not the answer. At least not as it is currently proposed by most pundits.

Also, there is some truth to the pay scale. I had the opportunity to get a job getting out of college with my Bachelor's Degree. I decided to go to grad school to get my Masters Degree and become a teacher. My first job as teacher was at a pay rate of 50% of what the job offer out of college was. While some say that teachers are overpaid, I suggest they shadow a teacher for a week before they make that call. One colleague asked me how many industries are out there where you could have a graduate degree, ten years of experience, and make less than $50K.

John Taylor Gatto was the NYS Teacher of the Year in 1991, and apparently has been named NYC teacher of the year 3 times. That is pretty much a quote from the Editor's introduction to his essay on the subject printed in the Anthology: Everything You Know Is Wrong. The Title of the Essay is: Some Lessons From the Underground History of American Education. The last line of Mr. Gatto's essay is: "Without addressing philosophies and policies which sentence the largest part of our people to lives devoid of meaning, we might be better off not discussing school at all." Everything You Know Is Wrong was published by The Disinformation Company Ltd. Editor was Russ Kirk. My copy is from Third Printing of 2003. Mr. Gatto is the expert on this issue I defer to. Essentially I believe I remember he said that respect for all had to be handed around, but that the teachers needed to be respected at a core level. He mentioned that there were too many women in charge. Brave of him to say so in my opinion. I'd be in deep trouble if it hadn't been for the Boy Scouts myself. The most difinitive essay on the subject I have read is by Mr. Gatto, and I hope you can find it and read it. Otherwise I'll reread it and summate if you ask me directly. Of course I am speaking of the US, though there is a modern Western spread of the flaws I have heard or read of in places like Spain.

Dear Sparkstation,

You are simply a great parent.That there is such a person in this gadget-ridden society, bucking such social "stigma" (of not posessing a TV!) with courage truly changes my perception of the stereo-typed "Westerner" as people spoilt with crass materialism, to the exclusion of the rest of humanity.

Reading, certainly broadens the mind and if the essence of all the reading is imbibed and manifests itself in one's benign interaction with the surroundings that one is blessed with -one can create heaven on earth.

Please accept my very high regards.

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

Dear Sparkstation, Certainly I am in general agreement, though I am of two minds about television. I think in the end it is what you watch on television that makes the difference. Television could be of great educational benefit especially in areas of the world that suffer poverty. Last time I was in Chicago, I watched some excellent educational programing that I believe you could respond to so as to become credentialed in the course of study. I do hope you get a chance to read the essay I recommended in my initial post to the thread. In the US there is a strain of anti intellectualism that is profoundly depressing. In the US it is extremely difficult for teachers in schools when students come into the classroom prompted by parents peers and preachers to disrespect their teachers. Obviously you were well equipped to educate your children. I say that your parents do not necessarily teach you what you need to know, but they teach you what they know. Students who come from homes wherein a Life of the Mind is valued will educate themselves regardless of the successes or failures of schools. If their parents accept that they need schools and other teachers in the lives of their children to help their children achieve their own particular destiny, education will be about as fixed as it can be. The machines you recommend being thrown out, are machines I struggle to understand how to use, and wish had been available to me in my youth. No particular tool is of itself bad, same as guns or money, it is what you do with the tool that is more important than the tool itself. I have great respect for your viewpoints that I have been grateful to be exposed to as a result of my participation in this forum. As to the issue of television, I feel it is flawed often in content. Another flaw is the passivity to it that is accepted. Children and students need to know how to read and write, and I feel that in this era, they need to know how to make television, as much as they need to know how to write. I have come across some very important information on even Youtube which shows how we have entered an era of mature technology. It is a wonderful thing that a relatively cheap camera can achieve worldwide reach so independently now. I feel that in the end, the institutions of learning, the schools, are only as perfect at educating as the culture, and society value a life of the mind, independent of money or status or fame. Essentially what I am saying is that as long as all of life is reduced to possessions and fame, education as an end in and of itself will be disrespected. -And that for education to be "fixed", having a life of the mind, and manners would have to be a generally accepted cultural value.

IMO, one of hte best ways to fix education is to get rid of the idea of public education and stop making it "free." Restructure how school taxes are taken out and if you don't pay school taxes then your kids don't go to school. It should stop being an entitlement program.

Stop having it state funded, allow private schools to compete for students and education prices will go down once the private sector is involved.

We have a large portion of the people who don't pay any taxes but benefit from the money taken in taxes. They have no vested interest in the programs that they participate in but don't have to contribute too. To anyone with common sense this creates an environment of not caring about ones own education because there will always be someone else to pay their way and figure out the tough decisions.

I see the ability to learn as a human right (i.e. being taught by your parents, reading on your own, etc) but state funded schools need to be removed as an entitlement. THis would also help get rid of the teacher unions.

Merit pay is a stupid idea, each person/child in different. It is the teacher responsibility to teach and the student's responsibility to learn, you can hold the teacher responsible for the student learning just as well as you can hold the student responsible for the teacher teachin. It must be a cooperative effort, it is not a one-way street.

When will we as a society realize that not every single child is a genius and will go to college, and more importantly when will we realize that this isn't a bad thing?

Do you think that will create a larger gap between affluent families and impoverished one?

I don't think it will create a larger gap between affluent and impoverished. But it would create a larger gap between between people who were once forced to attend school against their will and people who would choose to go to school and accept the fact that "learning" is not just done in a public school classroom but through the entirity of their lives.

Sometimes people are poor for a reason, and it is not society's fault, it is squarely on their shoulders. How many smart, motivated people who started with nothing created wealth and prosperity for themselves? Now ask yourself, how many people who were given something for nothing took that, became motivated by getting a handout and strived to improve their situation with their own abilities and didn't expect to receive continual bottomless "help?"

A perfect analogy for me is to ask think back to college and consider the students who were there on academic scholarships and/or were paying their own way and then think of the students whose parents paid it in full and the student doesn't have any of vested interest other than being reprimanded. Which student took responsibility and cared more about their education, (I know it is not 100%, but predominantly)?

No, Skeptical Guy, you do have a point. There is always a time when you have to say to yourself, "Yes, the circumstance are unfair/unfortunate, but what I am going to do about it". Those who have an internal locus of control will most often rise above circumstances. Those whose locus of control is external will play the blame game and disengage. The problem is that it is easy to say, "Well, too bad. That is their problem" when it comes to this group of people. It becomes our problem when they turn to crime and violence because they justify it through the notion that the world has done them wrong.

It is a cultural phenomenon passed down from generation to generation and without some major changes, it is not going anywhere.

I also agree that entitlement is a HUGE issue. Maybe school tax becomes like a secondary sales tax. I just feel like that all children should have the opportunity to learn despite their parents' or families financial situation. I have many former students who were smart kids but are not attending college because they simply cannot afraid it.

Our country and our youth DO need to start taking responsibility for their lot in life. Providing a continual crutch is not the answer, for certain.

Maybe China is on to something. Once you fail a grade, you are done. No redo's or alternatives. You fail and you are out. If you have "special needs" you are given support. But once you cannot hack it, you are done.

When I taught there (while I was in college) the high school I was at was for "kids not going to college" as their grades were not good enough in middle school. It was vocational training for most of them.

The end result was when a teacher friend of mine accidentally wrote down for homework to read pages 1-111 instead of pages 1-11, not only did none of the students complain, they all completed the assignment for the next class.

Maybe it is that you are entitled to an opportunity. What you do with that opportunity is your responsibility.

I also know that the kids who had their parents pay the full ride where I went to school were also not as motivated. But when they dropped out or failed out, they had "golden parachutes" awaiting them. That doesn't help the culture of entitlement either. It provides a cancer that life owes you. And for poorer kids, when they see that life in college doesn't open magic doors and automatically give you "the good life" that parents and teacher promised college would, just because you work hard, we create a cynical population who is angry. I feel like I am going to start quoting "Fight Club".

Sorry...I have so much ranting, I can't even stay on one topic long enough to complete a thought before I am spinning off somewhere else. Hope the above made some sense at all.

Skeptical guy - you are partly right, however -

Since the whole society benefits from the education of children, then it is right to fund education through public taxes. If there were no funds provided by taxes, many children would never see the inside of a school, because their ignorant, selfish, lazy, abusive, drunk or doped out parents would never pay to send them, Your solution would provide a mass of manual laborers, a permanent group of people in poverty and increase the crime rate.

It is more fair and just to collect taxes to educate every child and allow the child's parents to choose the school. Make all schools so they have to compete for students. There would be no "government" schools. Each child would be alloted a share of the total, which could be different according to age or for specific disabilities or handicaps. That share could go to accredited schools which would then educate them to reflect their parent's wishes and to best meet their needs. The schools could be frugal and save up money to buy educational equipment, rather than spend it all, as they do now, then demand more tax money whenever they need new equipment.

Some schools may want to offer more and for that the parents must pay the extra cost. A school that wants to teach students to ride horses, sail boats, fly planes, the arts, use sophisticated computers, have machine shop or teach the gifted in classes of 5-6 students, all of which are more expensive than a "government" school can provide, would have to charge more.

Your school taxes are not paid for "the opportunity to attend a government school" and should not be automatically lost because you want your child to attend a non-governmental school. Certainly if half of the students in a government school of 1000 students were to attend private schools the budget coming in to the government school would be cut in half, but SO WOULD THE EXPENSES! That is downsizing, not destruction of government schools. It might actually spur them into providing a better education so they wouldn't downsize. Also everyone pays property, ie education taxes either directly or indirectly, except for those in Government Housing and tax exempt housing. If we made everything funded by sales taxes that might help reform it, but there will always be some too poor to be taxed, who have children and they are in the most need of education so they won't always be poor.

Taganan,

It wouldn't exactly cut costs in half. Expenses such as heating, electricity, transportation, etc., are mostly constant. Granted, half of the students would result in less need for busing but longer bus rides (if you consolidated runs to use fewer buses - the same housing areas still need to be serviced) . You can't cut heating costs in half because you have half the kids.

I will note that the high school that I work in installed a new heating system last year. The building saved $100,000 in heating costs in the first year, which was my first indicator as to high those costs must really be.

Beyond that part, I'd agree with much of what you say. I think it is worth investigating a complete reworking of American education, but it won't happen. There are too many people already entrenched and too much at stake for politicians.

Education as a whole might just be too enormous for true reform. You are talking about millions of kids, hundreds of thousands of teachers, thousands of administrators. And it won't do to just toss all of them out on the street and start over, nor is it realistic.

The problem has really become that poorest class. I noted (AGAIN!!!) last night that there was yet another story about a 19 year old with her second kid. No job, dropped out of school, etc. etc. And it was being discussed by six adults (three couples) who have a total of ten college degrees and no children.

Where I live I see that phenomenon with new chapters ever week. Uneducated parents reproducing at an alarming rate, while educated adults have few, if any kids.

Where this ends up is scary as these are not the parents who have the skill set or the knowledge base to home school. Often, education is not valued in the home, and in many districts, that culture is the majority in a community, which makes it increasingly difficult to educate any child. Especially when those parents hated school, distrusted officials, and automatically assume that biological parenthood means that they know what is best for a child.

Just watch "It's Me or the Dog". Some people can't even train a dog. But we have no problems giving them sovereignty with human life. It's scary.

Hi all,

Sorry for being outline 10 days but I'm on holidays and it took me such time to connect my notebook to the cell phone ant to the web. (The cell phone manufacturer and the Web services supplier are still looking for a solution... I think they are trying to appoint a wise-men committee to study my problem)

First of all, I take off my hat before Sparkstation. I wish I were such a father!!!

Anyway, TV as many other things are by it selves neutral, it's the use we (as society) made which gives different results. TV nowadays is just junk stuff but I remember when I was 13-14 years old and the first TV set get into my home. I could watch many theater pieces, from ancient Greek tragedies to (at that time) more actual writers ones (T. Williams, Pirandello, A. Camus, etc) passing by the Golden Century ones (Shakespeare, Lope de Vega, Calderón de la Barca, etc). I could see many novels adapted to the screen. I think this helped a lot to the common people culture and education. Unfortunately money rules today.

Regarding the posts discussing about private/public school, at least here in Spain, the private one won the war some decades ago. We have "free" public schools, semiprivate ones (they get some subsidies from taxes and are cheaper than fully public) and private ones. Our politicians seem to be very worried about "public" education,and they say it's very good quality but all of them send their children to the most exclusive private schools (even out of Spain).

One idea that I think could give some good results at least here was proposed few years ago and it's called the "School ticket" by which the "subsidies" weren't given to the schools but to the parents and they give the ticket to the school they choose (private or public). That way the private and the public must "fight" to get the students or close the school.

Kind regards

That idea has been played here, as well. It is called the "Voucher System" and each year your "voucher" would be good for "one year of education".

Theoretically, students could attend any school they wanted (as long as they provided their own transportation). There has been opposition to it for a variety of reasons (and I am not saying all of these are good reasons to object):

1. Good schools don't want kids whose parents think that a good school alone will solve behavioral problems to all of sudden be flooding their building and destroying a positive culture, which is this day and time, are difficult to orchestrate and maintain among 1000 teenagers. They fear that it will destroy their school district or at least erode it to the point that it is not as good as it use to be and some of the better students will jump ship as it starts sinking.
2. Bad schools don't want the notoriety of a mass exodus.
3. Staffing would be logistically impossible. Assuming that migration would run as such, students would flock to new schools, requiring expansion in physical plant and staffing in a VERY short period of time for good schools and cost teachers lower on the seniority poll to be let go. Growing pains in the following year could lead to an exodus from good schools as they adjust, resulting in the new hires to lose their jobs and try to follow the students to the next "hot school". It would destabilize a lot of the continuity that helps good schools maintain their success.
4. The only way to manage it would mean to make a cap size on any school. That would really undo the point of the voucher/ticket.
5. Budgeting would be literally impossible unless students had to apply their voucher years ahead of time. This would slow the change, but the fundamental issues would still apply.
6. Behavior could be an issue. Why worry about your "record" if you can just transfer schools at the end of the year to wherever you want. Run what scams you want, move to a new school and start over.

I like the idea of not being handcuffed by where you live, but it is just not a feasible system as it is MOST OFTEN currently proposed in the U.S.

When I was supposed to go to a High School with other students who had spit on my clothes in the gym, attacked and insulted me in every way. Attacked my sisters and brother requiring me to fight them, I went to another school in the next town over by walking to the last stop of the bus to the other school. That was 9th grade in 1967. I simply did it. I was not asked to lie about anything and simply showed up for school where I wanted to go to school. One of my years in Community College my Equal Opportunity Education Grant didn't show up, so I audited all my classes till it did. I am really really sorry that I didn't do that sort of thing at Princeton or Harvard, but at least I know a few practical things. It is true that children do not have the rights of adults as far as vices or voting, but if a student is willing to work to go to the school they decide they need to attend for their mental health and education I would work to figure out how to support that choice. I was not meaning to be bold, but only to take care of myself, and in this era I do suspect I would have encountered more obstacles to what I did for myself at that time. Therefore I support vouchers and will let the chips fall where they may as far as the institutions are concerned.

In reply to ShakespeareTheEngineer-

1. If all schools were private and there were no government schools, then each school could set up its own admissions standards and rules about behavior and remaining in the school. Since the tuition paid from taxes could not be completely refunded, there has to be a penalty for expulsion, and the law still says the child must attend school, the troublemakers would rapidly find themselves in schools suited to handling them. Perhaps the type with bars, wire fences and uniforms if needed. Any school administration too lily-livered to maintain discipline should go under as they sink the school.

2. Government schools don't want any notoriety so they shuffle the bad students around and there is no place for the good students to escape.

3. All new systems have growing pains. Students would hardly flock to new schools just because they were new, as each would have an enrollment limit. Some of the government schools would change ownership, but there would not be a need for sudden increase in physical plant, because the number of students will not make a sudden increase. Since the number of students will not change suddenly they will still need about the same number of teachers or more if classes are smaller, so while teachers may change locations, there will be plenty of teaching positions. There is no reason to assume a good school will adjust for the worse and a new "hot school" will empty the classrooms. Schools are not like nightclubs with a new "hot spot" every season.

4. The government schools already use capacity guidelines and there is no reason that private schools should not. Above a certain size there should be another school campus built in another area and the staff could divide in two as well as the students. Government schools use attendance districts, so could private schools if needed.

5. Obviously enrollment dates and vouchers would have to be early enough to allow for ordering supplies, materials and hiring staff. Hardly years ahead of time. A school is little different from a small college in this way and they seem to manage and do their own budgeting. Perhaps by Feb. of the year of attendance, allowing 7 months to prepare. Since they would not be required to spend the entire amount every year, they could build up a fund for future educational expenses.

6. Because your record will follow you. It would be a stupid and irresponsible school that did not ask for full disclosure from prior schools. A record of scams and poor behavior would get a student into a tougher school, with more discipline, with each transfer.

All the money collected for new buildings and transport would also be tossed into the pot to be used according to enrollment. School buses would still serve multiple schools, but each school or group of schools would have to set their own areas.

It may not be easy to do the right thing, but changing the educational system away from government control and putting it in private hands is the democratic and just thing to do. It is freedom of choice in education. Now just why do the liberal, freedom-loving Democrats oppose it so vehemently? Is it possible they are the real totalitarian party and are just using liberal-speak to fool us? I hope not.

Taganan,

1. Are you suggesting that if each could set up their own standards, that there would be a great interest in having the trouble maker school? What you are describing for trouble makers sounds like a juvenile detention center. I can't imagine many communities clamoring to have that type of school, although I agree that it might fix a lot of the issues currently facing schools in that it would clear out many if the in class impediments that teachers often face. It also really answers the issue of giving kids a true consequence for their poor behavior. I have been teaching for almost nine years and I have seen, in that time, one student expelled. It was following one half-year suspension and one year long suspension. The kid should have been tossed at his year suspension point as he was a notorious trouble maker, but he came back again and again caused a massive problem everywhere he went, including costing another student an athletic scholarship to college.

Secondly, if that is the case, what do we do in regards to transportation? If each parent needs to be responsible for it, does that leave the disadvantaged family just at the whim of their geographical location. In that I mean if their town has a good school, great. If their town has a school for hoodlums, well, too bad?

2. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of shuffling of bad kids. I think the "change in scenery" idea that is often discussed in sports could also help some kids too, from time to time. It seems that many "bad kids" stagnate at one place and that may even be more of a problem because they have the system and the rules learned so well that they can push it right to the edge without getting catastrophic consequences (at least the pro's can). Granted, this is just in my experience in upstate New York. I am sure that varies from community to community (and I have only really taught in two).

3. If you place enrollment limits, is that really a fair system? That means kids would not have the ability to go where they want. And I wasn't talking about flocking to new schools, I was talking about flocking to good schools. Some informal polls among my classes have shown that most of the kids at the last school I taught at would like to go to the new school I teach at. Conversely, most of my current students want to stay put. Do you toss out some kids from my current school to make room for new kids from old school? And while the issue of "hot spots" might not be as drastic as I suggested, I don't think it is as simple as you suggest, either.

Teachers moving from school to school can destroy any chance of a teaching community. It takes years to create a true cooperative environment. And some would have longer commutes that would make it impractical to constantly have to move where the teaching position was. I understand that in business, this is how it is for many people, but this would truly be an annual swing for a lot of educators. It would mean acclimating to a new community and it's values with every change of location. Many people in the business world don't have to have their finger on the pulse of community values as thoroughly as educators do. I am not saying that a successful business can be oblivious, but they don't have to be as in touch because they don't deal with as much of a community on such a personal level. People don't care about Chinese sweatshops as much as they care about their own children.

Maybe it would just be a mad dash until everything shook out and the dust settled. A few years of the shifting back and forth of students and staff and then it would be much calmer. But there are still issues that exits beyond simple "growing pains". Support staff would also have to move to reflect changes in faculty staffing. And what happens to the schools that empty? Do they become the "Juvy Halls" and need to get wire fencing"? Each school gets to set it's own criteria. But what school wants to set low criteria? Every school I know prides itself on being top of the line, even if they aren't.

4. You said "Above a certain size there should be another school campus built in another area and the staff could divide in two as well as the students." That is true but building a new schools is talking about an expense of millions of dollars. The school I work in is over 50 years old and there is no talk of building a new one because of the expense and lack of state and federal funding. Where does that money come from?

5. I think making the correlation to a small college is good, but not perfect. You are talking about kids as young as 5 years old. There are MANY MANY more students to handle. College is four years worth of students. Public schools house 13 (including kindergarten). Triple the students makes for a lot more movement of everything else.

6. I do agree with you on many fronts and find myself arguing with myself at some of my own points. I respect that you see the need for reform, as I do myself, I just shake at the thought of what vouchers would do to education. I fear it would be mass confusion for a long time and "redistricting" is not as easy at it sounds. Just building up a finance pot based on enrollment isn't the easy answer because some schools cost more to operate than others when you consider payroll, physical plant, etc. There are so many variables that exist is just running a school, that adding the shifting that would go on based on a year by year basis seems mind numbing.

I feel like it is a system that could work, but the transition to a system that is run like our current college system is so daunting that I am not sure if it would survive the the transfer.

It seems like one of those systems that could exist in the ideal world, but with politicians, lobbying groups, unions, self-serving parents, self-serving educators, and a public that wants it "to just be done" without having to also put in the hard work, it is not realistically possible and kids would be the ones who lose out.

This would take a monumental shift and sacrifice by not only a community but an entire region for this to be successful. I have not seen that type of singular, self-sacrificing mentality, at least where I live, almost ever.

Sorry for the epic novel. It probably made my head swirl more writing it than anyone reading it.

Shakespeare-

1. School attendance laws would still be in effect. Most systems have "Alternative Schools" where the troublemakers are placed. If they mess up there, yes they go to juvenile detention centers with wire fences, guards and uniforms, That already happens. But there are many parents who would place their children in a tough school, so there would be enough interest to operate such a school. Most schools are already fenced and guarded and that is for the normal students. Some private schools like that already exist and are generally well received by the communities, they are military academies.

Education taxes are to pay for all costs, including transportation and new buildings. Obviously the schools would have attendance zones based on bus transportation and allow parents to drive the children to school and school buses would still run throughout an area, delivering children to different schools. The structures which are now government schools would just have to attract their students by providing decent education. Each one would operate as a private school served by public transportation or school buses. There may be some parents too poor to drive their children to a school they want, but nothing is perfect. "In that I mean if their town has a good school, great. If their town has a school for hoodlums, well, too bad?" My town has less than 2000 population and there are many schools here, including the alternative school for the troublemakers. All towns will have many schools serving all types of students, so your statement is meaningless.

2. Having taught in a system having more than two high schools and from listening to local teachers I have heard of many students who were transferred from one school to another in rotation because it kept making them the new kid and it could take a semester for them to get into another gang.

3. "If you place enrollment limits, is that really a fair system?" A building can only hold a set number of students. Colleges set enrollment limits based on the number of students they can handle. There is nothing unfair about taking no more students than you have facilities to accommodate. Basing enrollment on previous attendance and grades is fair. Colleges tell some students to leave every year. More applicants than available slots allows the school to be more selective in admissions. Yes, tossing out some kids to make room for more qualified students is fair. Tough, but fair. What if the school specialized in handicapped students? Wouldn't it be fair to send away those using crutches to admit more in wheelchairs? And I still maintain that there would be little problem from "hot spot" schools.

Since the classrooms would mostly be in the same places I don't see teachers moving from school to school as a problem. In 12 yrs I taught at 4 different schools. The last 3 were at a state residential school for troubled children. They were generally better behaved than in public school. In the public schools there was not much "community" among the teachers, unlike the state school. I had a commute ranging from a few miles to 26 miles. Since the students and facilities would not be moving from their areas there is no reason for the teachers to be moving annually. Good teachers would be rehired year-after-year. Poor teachers might drift about for a time. Acclimating to a new community and its values? There is little difference between Ithaca and Cortland or Rochester and Syracuse other than the maps and locations, the people are the same.

Each building complex would need about the same support staff so there would likely be no drastic changes there. What empty schools? Former government schools would simply be operated by new management. All schools I have seen have wire fences. If there are students in need there are teachers and administrators who would set up a school to provide for them. It would be a business under government oversight as to standards. Some private schools presently pride themselves in being able to handle tough students and this would help to have more.

4. The age of the building is not as important as upkeep. New buildings could be financed by using education tax money to loan the cost to a school business. Since all the money raised for education, including that used for buses and construction would be divided roughly equally per child, the schools could save up a building fund and repay loans from the education money. Private schools could raise money on their own too and operating by business rules would not have to spend every cent every year even if it was wasted.

5. In the early years there would be less differences between children and simple tests could aim them in the right direction even at an early age. 7-8 months is ample time to prepare and it would not be starting completely fresh every year. My college had 7,500 and there are many high schools that large, most middle and elementary schools are smaller. Since you would not likely have all 13 yrs in the same school structure it would simplify things.

6. Lose the fear, show some courage. Don't let others tell you how horrible privatizing education would be, but try to consider how it could be done successfully. Try one step at a time, vouchers only for existing schools at first. Then after a couple of years vouchers for newly founded private schools, then go to vouchers for all students, no matter what school they go to. Gradually let private educational companies buy up the physical plants of the government schools. Divide all tax money equitably, not necessarily equally, among all students and give it to the schools they attend. You are a teacher, therefore supposed to be intelligent and you should be immune to "mind numbing". If you feel it could work, stand up and say so, you have a right to your opinion without being intimidated by your colleagues and other nay-sayers.

How do you know it is not realistically possible? There are many successful private schools where working class parents make incredible sacrifices to have their children get a better education for less cost. Schools where teachers actually take less pay because the working conditions are so much better. Which party has the politicians who are dead set against private school vouchers, which labor group supports them even against the interests of their own members. The wants it "to just be done" segment of the public won't care and will send their children to mediocre schools because it requires no effort and they won't care how the school is financed. Those who care about their children's education and can't do anything about it under the present system are the ones whose children lose out. Yes it would be a shift, but not a sacrifice for the parents or students. The politicians and unions want to keep the government indoctrination facilities in operation because they actually fear freedom.

Power to the people, from a staunch conservative.

Alternative schools are a type of individual learning. Students gain knowledge in individual lessons. This method helps to better understand the material. You buy the services of a teacher, you buy an essay or a solution. Alternative schools are attended by rich students and schoolchildren. I know that there are online courses and resources that help with writing tasks. You can check out this page. This alternative will help save money and time. My son uses such resources for self-education.

Which online course is best now a day? kindly guide me thanks.

As a former teacher there are some things that I have to add. School funding is based on average daily attendance. Having warm bodies in the classrooms for the requisite number of hours. The process of education is way down the scale of importance. If a school system can keep the warm bodies in the building then the administrators can justify their bloated salaries and the marble and walnut palaces they use for offices. Each year they must spend everything, even if wasteful, because if they don't they will get less next year. There is no such thing as saving up or being frugal in government. This creates a constant demand for more money, but no demand for results.

Educating children is of benefit to all of society, therefore all of society should pay for it directly or indirectly. Property owners pay directly and renters pay indirectly, which should cover everyone. Every child has an equal right to a suitable education paid for by education taxes. The operator of the school should not matter, only that the child's educational needs are being met.

Government schools are very flawed by being run by politicians who want to indoctrinate the students with their PC views, despite the wishes of their parents. These "pro-choice" types refuse to allow choice of schools by withholding the funds collected to educate their children. They say, "Attend the government school or pay out of your own pocket for your child's education." When the taxpayer says he has paid for it through his taxes, they say he has paid only for the opportunity to send his child to a government school. Another argument they use is that paying for private schools will cost the government schools so much money they will be "destroyed". Every child attending a private school would mean less cost for the government school. The arguments against using tax money to equally support the education of every child are unfair, undemocratic and politically motivated. Make all schools compete for students by really meeting their educational needs and those which need to use entrance standards, behavior and learning standards, physical standards or whatever other legal standards, to admit and retain the students can set their own. No two children are exactly alike, despite what the government schools say and the government schools simply cannot and do not adequately serve all students.

Teachers unions are best at protecting teachers jobs and getting more money, they do not make for better teachers. Merit pay based on grades or students passing leads to cheating, teaching to the test and fails because of the GIGO factor. About 1/3 of your students are being promoted in grade due to their age, another 1/3 is destined for manual semi-skilled work and the rest may be able to operate at a college level once they graduate. How can you be held accountable for your product if you cannot set standards for the raw material? Try making timing chains for autos from assorted scrap steels and being held accountable for the finished product.

The PC attitude that would make almost every form of discipline that would work be abuse, that requires all children to be treated exactly the same is ridiculous. It is zero tolerance taken to the point of zero thought. A paddle applied to the rear in front of witnesses can do wonders for attitude sometimes. Other forms of discipline work too and we need more of it in our schools.

I have also seen generations of parents who did not value education, because they worked on the farm, in the mill, on the assembly line and they pass this attitude to their children. Many of them are churchgoers during the week and their children spend one or two evenings a week there and do not study their schoolwork, using church as an excuse. Many children in large poor families quit school to work and support the family. All too many girl children are having babies out of marriage and quit school to work. Other parents are so concerned with "getting along" with their children that they are not parents at all. All these failings are passed along. That is also part of the problem.

TV, computers and movies can be beneficial to education, but as presently constituted requires parents who can say "No!" and mean it. Limits need to be set and kept. Parents who value reading and learning help too.

Requiring children to stay in school until they graduate, plus tracking them toward the skills they are capable of learning would help. Some are just not going to be suited for a college degree. Some will be great custodians, waiters, cashiers, stockers and other unskilled work, some will be good office staff, nurses aides, machine operators and some will be doctors, auto mechanics, computer systems analysts. Some have learning, emotional, mental or physical disabilities that require schooling beyond that offered by the government schools, which often just warehouse them in special classes to keep them under control. They need specialized private schools which should be paid for by taxes. Using some variation on the voucher system that would allow accredited private schools to take students based on the wishes of the parents and the requirements of the schools would help do that.

Sorry about the tendency to ramble, many interruptions.

This is an interesting discussion about improving education systems and making learning more effective. Many students today also rely on online exam help to better understand complex subjects and improve their preparation for exams.