Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to not have American public schools resemble prisons as mush as in OTL.
AHC: Save American Public Schools
- Thread starter Pokemon Master
- Start date
Flocculencio
Donor
Im an educator in one of the worlds highest rated educational systems (Singapore) and that's a massive generalisation for you to make. Good American public schools are world class. Your problem is that the average ones are below world standard and the poor ones are terrible.
The problem is that American schools are mostly funded locally so schools in poorer states are handicapped and in poor neighborhoods are shit out of luck. The solution would be to have a stronger Federal department of education with a mandate to set a national curriculum with State and Local authorities only authorised to top up beyond the federal level. Thus, no matter what there'd be a federal baseline.
Artaxerxes
Banned
Problem is that schools themselves are not always part of the problem, problem lies in the culture and catchment area.
Can pump all the money you want into the school but if the parents don't support the kids or its a bad area its pouring money into a black hole.
God knows I wish Daily Mail and the UK Government would realise this and not faf around so much with our education system, easier to blame the teachers than fix the problem though.
Can pump all the money you want into the school but if the parents don't support the kids or its a bad area its pouring money into a black hole.
God knows I wish Daily Mail and the UK Government would realise this and not faf around so much with our education system, easier to blame the teachers than fix the problem though.
Craig_Truglia
Banned
Get rid of the attitude "$20,000 per pupil spending will fix everything."
A modest voucher system, which entitles each child to about $6.5K in spending on schools would bring cheaper education and ironically a ton of creativity in the education
A modest voucher system, which entitles each child to about $6.5K in spending on schools would bring cheaper education and ironically a ton of creativity in the education
Faeelin
Banned
Also, those awful teachers' unions.
Interestingly, the Guardian suggests that as a percentage of GDP the US doesn't spend an absurd amount:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/sep/11/education-compared-oecd-country-pisa
Another interesting article: http://blogs.rgj.com/factchecker/2012/08/26/does-more-money-lead-to-better-school-results/
Craig_Truglia
Banned
Unions aren't technically bad, as people have a right to voluntary association, but obviously that isn't the case now.
I find it mind numbing that people think that monopolies are bad for everything when it comes to innovation, aside from education. A lot of "bad kids" would florish in an educational environment that suits their needs better. Plus, a private institution maintains the right to kick out problem students, and from what I remember from my school days, problem students essentially required 50% of the school's resources and time, and hampered my own personal education. I think a big reason why I learned more in college is generally people stuck to themselves and if they didn't want to learn, they just wouldn't show up to class.
NothingNow
Banned
Any fix needs to be a lot deeper than that. Just throwing vouchers around would likely only make the situation worse.
Saying that we want Equality of Opportunity in schools nationwide, and then doing everything needed to make that a reality would be a hell of a start (that's it, just every student in every school having the ability to end up in the same places, depending on their own ability and desire to learn.)
That means federal funding of poorer districts to bring them up to the same standard as wealthier districts, and working toward a complete reversal in attitudes about educators, while at the same time giving teachers enough breathing room to actually teach (meaning far fewer standardized tests, and developing curriculums tailored to each class while still meeting certain requirements.)
After all, Teachers are highly educated civil servants performing a necessary good. We should definitely pay them like it, and make the position prestigious and respected enough that it attracts the best and the brightest, so that we could screen for the most capable candidates. People who children can look up to, and respect, making them much more likely to be effective educators.
Oh, and helping parents get involved in their children's schooling in ways that aren't fundraisers made necessary by fiscal malfeasance at higher levels would do a lot as well. They do a lot more than people give them credit for, even if it is usually in ways that aren't actually effective, again, mostly just covering budget shortfalls. Getting them to just ask "What did you learn today?" and helping the kids with homework would do it.
All of that is shit that could reasonably be pushed through under FDR, or as part of the Great Society, and as one of the concrete end goals of the Civil Rights Movement (being of course, the mechanism through which true Equality might be maintained, as well as being an admirable goal in and of itself.)
This would be a great start. I work for something of an education policy non-profit and we frequently host foreign delegations on fact-finding missions. Our chief handler always starts his presentation with this trick question: "How many of you have come here to learn about national education policy in this country?" [All hands go up.] "Well, I'm sorry to have to tell you this: there is no national education policy in this country."
And he's basically right. We have no ministry of education that can dictate major goals and policies. But a POD that sees the creation of a ministry-like system is hard to imagine.
When we talk about progressive policy wanking in the US, FDR is the old standby. But unfortunately, it would make no sense for FDR to totally revamp education. Our education system as it stands today is basically thanks to the policies made in the 30s, 40s, and 50s already. You needed tracking to help filter out the laborers from the clerks from the management class because that's how the economy was structured.
You'd have to have an idea out there that somehow the system as it stood wasn't doing a good job of educating children (even though for their goals it was.)
Anything after FDR gets shot down by the Conservative Coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats crying, "Federal overreach!"
Orville_third
Banned
Two religious changes, plus one political.
Political change: Defeat the John Birch Society and its attempts to take over the Republican Party more soundly in 1964. This ensures the Goldwaterites and others don't take over the party on the local levels and avoids the Kanawha Textbook controversy.
Religious Change 1: Target those Fundamentalists who push for segregation for criticism. This was a major entry point for a number of religious groups into politics. (In fact, one commentator said the Religious Right's beginnings were NOT Roe vs. Wade but supporting religious segregated schools.
Religious Change 2: Prevent the Fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. This has not only shifted SBC influence in a very rightward direction, it has also allowed the SBC to abandon what once was a core doctrine of opposing state sponsorship of religion.
Political change: Defeat the John Birch Society and its attempts to take over the Republican Party more soundly in 1964. This ensures the Goldwaterites and others don't take over the party on the local levels and avoids the Kanawha Textbook controversy.
Religious Change 1: Target those Fundamentalists who push for segregation for criticism. This was a major entry point for a number of religious groups into politics. (In fact, one commentator said the Religious Right's beginnings were NOT Roe vs. Wade but supporting religious segregated schools.
Religious Change 2: Prevent the Fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. This has not only shifted SBC influence in a very rightward direction, it has also allowed the SBC to abandon what once was a core doctrine of opposing state sponsorship of religion.
You realize, that the existence of private institutions means that education in America isn't a government, monopoly, right?
Craig_Truglia
Banned
Yes, but everyone is forced to pay in. It's a stupid system, because if the school's failing, you still have to pay in.
What does any of this have to do with the quality of public schools? True, in some districts, fundamentalists have been able to influence textbooks and teaching in a negative way (especially with respect to evolutionary theory in biology classes). But it's not really what is taught but how it is taught that defines a quality education. Having religious education in schools may well be unconstitutional, but it is irrelevant to whether or not the schools themselves are good. After all, many people who are not Catholic pay extra money to put their children in private Catholic schools because they do a better job or providing an effective learning environment (which include effective discipline) than many public schools.
American public schools are generally poor because they are typically underfunded and because American colleges of education churn out educators who often lack the subject-matter knowledge to teach the specific subjects they are hired to teach. Also, the parents share a lot of the blame because, rather than supporting the teachers and administrators when little Johnny comes home and complains about a poor grade or some disciplinary action, they defend their kid. If the education system is not supported by parents at home, it is bound to fail.
Exactly. Even if I send my children to a private school, not everyone can afford this. It is to society's benefit (and to mine as well) that other people in my society are educated. It's also called being a "Citizen". It is my duty and obligation as a citizen to support public education.
I've also often wondered this, especially since the glaring deficiencies in the American education system is becoming a bigger and bigger issue for the country - it's gotten to the point that a K-12 education is basically worthless in the marketplace, where the only thing a High School diploma is good for is a certificate that allows you to attend college.
One of the biggest issues would be that, for the most part, we allowed our education standards to stagnate, or ever often, we lowered the standards instead of raising them.
To give an example, a lot of core curriculum hasn't been changed since the 40s or 50s - as anyone whose taken an American History class can tell you, one of the most glaring flaws is that coverage of anything after World War II basically gets stuffed into the last month of the class, despite the fact it marks 1/3 of our national history - that's because for the most part, American History classes are teaching by the same curriculum that they taught when the Baby Boomers were in High School!
Another would be the large insistence on teaching cursive, or when teaching foreign languages, to offer only Spanish, French and maybe Latin. the former is a near useless skill save for your signature, and the latter would be far better served teaching more practical languages or at least offering greater variety.
Worse still, there is little more then token efforts to teach students about computers in most districts, and even most college level computer education courses (not programming mind you - the ones supposed to teach everyone else how to operate computers) only teach the utter basics most people figure out just from using a PC. Instead of teaching kids cursive, maybe ensuring they know how to run and operate a computer would be better for education, maybe even teaching them moderately advanced things like how connectivity or coding works.
Outside of curriculum, I'd say the biggest issue is that, nine times out of ten, students are the LAST priority of the schools, and many times, the student body is treated with apathy at best. Most times, everything from cash-cow extracurricular programs like sports teams, teachers unions ensuring everything from fatter checks and guarantees of tenure, to working with textbook suppliers to ensure each class gets new textbooks every couple years, even if there is nothing new inside them.
One of the biggest examples is curriculum, which is designed not for students, but with teachers careers in mind. To bring up American history again, have you ever wondered why we teach the same material three or four times in grade school, when most students likely got it the first time around? It's so that teachers can change positions easier, without having to teach different material.
So those are my two big flaws - an outdated and unchallenging curriculum, and a system designed to help everybody get ahead except the actual students. I'm curious to see what other people say.
One of the biggest issues would be that, for the most part, we allowed our education standards to stagnate, or ever often, we lowered the standards instead of raising them.
To give an example, a lot of core curriculum hasn't been changed since the 40s or 50s - as anyone whose taken an American History class can tell you, one of the most glaring flaws is that coverage of anything after World War II basically gets stuffed into the last month of the class, despite the fact it marks 1/3 of our national history - that's because for the most part, American History classes are teaching by the same curriculum that they taught when the Baby Boomers were in High School!
Another would be the large insistence on teaching cursive, or when teaching foreign languages, to offer only Spanish, French and maybe Latin. the former is a near useless skill save for your signature, and the latter would be far better served teaching more practical languages or at least offering greater variety.
Worse still, there is little more then token efforts to teach students about computers in most districts, and even most college level computer education courses (not programming mind you - the ones supposed to teach everyone else how to operate computers) only teach the utter basics most people figure out just from using a PC. Instead of teaching kids cursive, maybe ensuring they know how to run and operate a computer would be better for education, maybe even teaching them moderately advanced things like how connectivity or coding works.
Outside of curriculum, I'd say the biggest issue is that, nine times out of ten, students are the LAST priority of the schools, and many times, the student body is treated with apathy at best. Most times, everything from cash-cow extracurricular programs like sports teams, teachers unions ensuring everything from fatter checks and guarantees of tenure, to working with textbook suppliers to ensure each class gets new textbooks every couple years, even if there is nothing new inside them.
One of the biggest examples is curriculum, which is designed not for students, but with teachers careers in mind. To bring up American history again, have you ever wondered why we teach the same material three or four times in grade school, when most students likely got it the first time around? It's so that teachers can change positions easier, without having to teach different material.
So those are my two big flaws - an outdated and unchallenging curriculum, and a system designed to help everybody get ahead except the actual students. I'm curious to see what other people say.
American schools are actually getting better:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/22/american_schools_are_getting_better.html
Private/charter schools ruin public schools:
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ly_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ist-there-would-still-be-rich-suburbs/279295/
The biggest issue affecting US education is the social setting - lack of health care, job security, maternity leave, affordable pre-K, living wage, etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rebell/us-schools-have-a-poverty_b_1247635.html
Rich students don't do better because they go to private schools; rich students are better because their parents, on average, can afford to spend time with their kids and can provide safe enviroments.
It adds a racial issue because even when minorities are better off, they live in poorer areas.
So - fix the US education system by fixing our social net.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/22/american_schools_are_getting_better.html
Private/charter schools ruin public schools:
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ly_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ist-there-would-still-be-rich-suburbs/279295/
The biggest issue affecting US education is the social setting - lack of health care, job security, maternity leave, affordable pre-K, living wage, etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rebell/us-schools-have-a-poverty_b_1247635.html
Rich students don't do better because they go to private schools; rich students are better because their parents, on average, can afford to spend time with their kids and can provide safe enviroments.
It adds a racial issue because even when minorities are better off, they live in poorer areas.
So - fix the US education system by fixing our social net.
That this 'stupid system' isn't more widely applied is one of the most serious problems afflicting American public schools.
Mind, I think calls to ban private education are hysterical and ill considered, but to use private education as an excuse to not want to pay for education is akin to saying that police protection ought to be fee-driven.
