The American School System

[FoxFire]

@_@??? What's that? What does it do? Can you eat it? Is it a popular new snack? (Seriously though I don't know what it is). The cute little Candian girl doesn't stay up to date with Bushwacker's ramblings (though the cute little Canadian girl would rather listen to Bushy's drivlings than Chretien spouting idiocy out of the side of his face that still works).

Basically what No Child Left Behind does is punish schools with low standardized test scores by cutting their funding. The problem with relying on standardized tests is that they were designed to show what areas students need more help in. It also allows students in failing schools to transfer to better schools, but this depends on their being a better school that will accept the failing student nearby.

Several people have disagreed with my contention that students in school should be grouped and separated, so let me defend. If we agree that the school system is a false representation of the adult world, I'm saying that forced interaction is one of the falshehoods. As an adult, a group you don't like is a group you don't have to associate with. If I, as a somewhat well-read computer nerd think that people who play sports and talk about their bodies and physical activities all the time are boring and not for me, odds are I'm not going to have any friends of that type, and odds are they're not going to have friends like me. It's not a hard and fast fule, but it's a general principle. In schools, we put everyone together in phy ed and expect them to be able to interact. Then we put everyone together in an academic class and expect them to do group projects. It's not fair to the students who, I think, would rather concentrate on things they are good at.

As long as the seperation isn't forced, I don't have a problem with this. I probably would have prefered it when I was in school in fact, I can think of a few groups of people which I would have prefered to avoid.

I agree that alternative schools are probably the easiest way to effect reform, but I think privatization is a good idea. I'm not fully cognizant with the No Child Left Behind laws, but in general I think it is more important to help children who are genuinely trying for an education to become excellent than it is to help children who are not trying to become average.

I disagree strongly with privatization because it has been proven that no matter how ineffectively the government runs something, corporations can run them even worse. I agree that we should help the student who want to learn, but some student who want to learn are stuck in places where they have trouble doing so.

And I am for the record all for supporting teachers. I remember during my senior year of high school there was a teacher walk-out one day (which coincidentally happened to be the same day as Columbine) and I heard how little one of my teachers was making I was outraged. My sister is currently in college and hoping to become either a teacher or a social worker when she graduates, and if she does go into teaching I hope they're better regarded and making enough to live on by the time she does.

[yoshmaster5]

yoshmaster5

If a school's test scores do not pass a certian percent, every employee is fired. Pretty bad for those inner-city schools huh?

WTF!? Just because I bunch of lazy ass idiots are too stupid to do anything and flunk their tests, perfectly good teachers have to be fired?

Accually, I thought it was something else. "No Child Left Behind" sounds like an act that makes it so that students aren't held back if they fail (something equally stupid -_-).

yep. something like that, Tiffu, correct me if I'm wrong, or someone. If you get the best teachers, and have them teach a school with only potheads, druggies, they WOULD be fired by the end of the year by the GOVERNMENT. ugh... I hope bush is out of office SOON.

[Sailorasteroid]

I disagree strongly with privatization because it has been proven that no matter how ineffectively the government runs something, corporations can run them even worse. I agree that we should help the student who want to learn, but some student who want to learn are stuck in places where they have trouble doing so.

Corporations can be worse, but they can also be a lot better. Private school kids generally do better academically, but of course they are the ones who come from families that can afford private school. So, while it might not work nationwide, we should at least try to let the profit motive work where government has failed.

yep. something like that, Tiffu, correct me if I'm wrong, or someone. If you get the best teachers, and have them teach a school with only potheads, druggies, they WOULD be fired by the end of the year by the GOVERNMENT. ugh... I hope bush is out of office SOON.

This is part of the problem too. A teacher fired wrongly by the government has almost no alternative, especially with the union structure. If there were widespread privatization, a teacher who had the ability could pretty much always find work. (And while I'm not that happy with his education policy, I hope Bush stays in office for many reasons not relevant to this subject.)

[Tiff]

yoshmaster: Yep, that's pretty much what it is...And thanks. And there are modifications made for those students who are mentally retarded and such.

lemonusagi: I appreciate it =D

peachvampiress: Taht quote is so completely true. I love that. Thank you for sharing.

[FoxFire]

Corporations can be worse, but they can also be a lot better. Private school kids generally do better academically, but of course they are the ones who come from families that can afford private school. So, while it might not work nationwide, we should at least try to let the profit motive work where government has failed.

Private schools have the right to discriminate against what students to accept while public schools are under obligation to accept the students that private schools would turn away. It's not just students whose parents can't afford private schools. That's why I believe privatizing the school system is so potentially dangerous, it will just take away from the students who need the most help.

[ParaKiss_Groupie]

Maybe it's just the school I go to, but I've never had to deal with forced interaction. Yes, I've had classes with people I don't like. But if I don't like them, I don't talk to them. I'm never teased because we simply avoid each other (that, and the last time anyone used the word fag around me, I told him that he couldn't get a blow job until he finished his sex change operation. Humiliation deters bullies, as does kicking their ass.)

As for the No Child Left Behind act, it's not that horrible of an idea. There are bad points, but there are good points as well. This is my situation:

My school has the highest grades in the county, and ranks very highly in the state. Our computers are all at least 5 years old, even though we have several teachers who use brand new computers at home because they're computer whizzes, not to mention their student assistants. Our textbooks are ancient (They omit the Japanese Internment Camps, and end in Carter's presidency), and unusable because they don't cover material from the curriculum, but the state refuses to let us have new ones. The ceiling leaks everywhere, but we can't afford to fix it. The school buildings are placed far apart from each other (Freshman Hall, Main Building, Vocational Building, New Gym, Cafeteria, Old Gym, and East Campus), and it's very hard to get to class on time. East Campus is dilapidated. It was part of the Elementary School 10 years ago, but they stopped using it because it was so run-down. The high school was forced to use it by the county. Our air conditioning and heating is constantly breaking down. Our violence rate is the lighest in the county, our test scores are higher, we are considered the best school in the county. But the school itself sucks.

Now, Goldsboro High School is the polar opposite of my school. Low test scores, 3-4 fights a day (there was even a shooting at a football game last year at that school), less than half the student body passes each year. But their building? It gets remodeled every summer to get rid of the vandalism. Their textbooks are reissued every few years. Each teacher has a 2003 computer (which they don't know how to use), and it gets replaced as soon as one of the students slams a bat into it. They have wonderful air conditioning and heating. They only have three buildings, right next to each other (Gym, A Building, B Building). Now, why do they have such a wonderful school while we have crap? Because of North Carolina's current policy. Schools with low grades need more money to improve their grades. Schools with high grades don't need anything because they're already smart. They don't even see that some of the poor schools don't care. Goldsboro just destroys the equipment given to it and is immediately handed a new one. While, when we get a new piece of equipment, have to care for it like a child because we won't see anything again for quite a while, and if it breaks, we don't get a new one. My school has the capability to use this equipment, and under Bush's No Child Left Behind act, we will actually get to.

Oh and Yoshmaster, FYI, once Bush gets out of office, that act might stay in place. If Congress passes it and Bush signs it (and if Kerry wins, he'll sign it. The man has no backbone.), it will stay in effect after he's out.

[yamijounouchi]

i getses my ejamacation from one of them thar publik skuuls just luk at me!!

[Sailorasteroid]

Private schools have the right to discriminate against what students to accept while public schools are under obligation to accept the students that private schools would turn away. It's not just students whose parents can't afford private schools. That's why I believe privatizing the school system is so potentially dangerous, it will just take away from the students who need the most help.

Having the right to discriminate doesn't mean it's going to happen. If there are enough students who aren't acceptable at one school, they can be taken at another. In a private school system, students are a source of revenue, so schools have a vested financial interest in getting as many as possible into the school and keeping them there by satisfying their parents. In the public school system, students are a source of cost, so the financial interests of the school conflict with the educational ones.

And even if private schools cause hardship to lesser students, I stand by my statement that it's better to help the good become great than the poor become average.

[Ni-ban Neko]

Sailorasteroid, I disagree with you about this statement:

And even if private schools cause hardship to lesser students, I stand by my statement that it's better to help the good become great than the poor become average.

Sometimes a poor student isn't poor because he doesn't want to learn, which you're not taking into account. Gifted kids often suffer in classrooms because they're not being challenged enough, and their test scores and grades don't reflect their real ability. And a gifted kid in a poor school isn't going to be recognized in the same way a gifted child in a well-funded school is. By privatizing the public schools rather than really fixing the problems, you're denying that kid who's got a great deal of potential the chance to make good on it. It's not going to fix problems, it's just going to classify more kids with potential as failures. It leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.

[FoxFire]

Having the right to discriminate doesn't mean it's going to happen. If there are enough students who aren't acceptable at one school, they can be taken at another. In a private school system, students are a source of revenue, so schools have a vested financial interest in getting as many as possible into the school and keeping them there by satisfying their parents. In the public school system, students are a source of cost, so the financial interests of the school conflict with the educational ones.

This assumes that students who are turned down by one private school will be able to find another one closeby enough that will accept them. Privates schools have a financial interest in being able to advertise themselves to parents as the best, which gives them an obligation to only accept students to who do the best and to turn down those with potential behavioral problems. And voucher programs for private schools usually only cover part of the tuition for private schools, so this still prevents poorer families from sending their kids.

Sometimes a poor student isn't poor because he doesn't want to learn, which you're not taking into account. Gifted kids often suffer in classrooms because they're not being challenged enough, and their test scores and grades don't reflect their real ability. And a gifted kid in a poor school isn't going to be recognized in the same way a gifted child in a well-funded school is. By privatizing the public schools rather than really fixing the problems, you're denying that kid who's got a great deal of potential the chance to make good on it. It's not going to fix problems, it's just going to classify more kids with potential as failures. It leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.

I totally agree, thanks for putting it so well.

[Sailorasteroid]

This assumes that students who are turned down by one private school will be able to find another one closeby enough that will accept them. Privates schools have a financial interest in being able to advertise themselves to parents as the best, which gives them an obligation to only accept students to who do the best and to turn down those with potential behavioral problems. And voucher programs for private schools usually only cover part of the tuition for private schools, so this still prevents poorer families from sending their kids.

It prevents them from sending them to private schools as they currently exist. If there were no public schools, private schools that charge less would exist. Of course, they might not be as good as the expensive ones, but they would be there and the economic market forces would have their say.

Sometimes a poor student isn't poor because he doesn't want to learn, which you're not taking into account. Gifted kids often suffer in classrooms because they're not being challenged enough, and their test scores and grades don't reflect their real ability. And a gifted kid in a poor school isn't going to be recognized in the same way a gifted child in a well-funded school is. By privatizing the public schools rather than really fixing the problems, you're denying that kid who's got a great deal of potential the chance to make good on it. It's not going to fix problems, it's just going to classify more kids with potential as failures. It leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.

I totally agree, thanks for putting it so well.

Now, I'm not sure I understand this. On the one hand, Foxfire says the private schools hurt the less-able student by turning them away or shunting them to the lesser schools, and then here Ni-Ban asserts that they hurt more-able students by not recognizing them. What I'm saying is that a public school will expend more resources on helping a failing student achieve a C than on helping an A-student become a Mizuno Ami-level genius. And I think the latter is a more worthwhile goal, more easily accomplished in the private sector. In the public schools, a good student is a job finished. In the private schools, a good student is a job begun.

In any case, the discussion is, no pun intended, academic. There's no way the public school system is going to be destroyed by edict. What will happen, I hope, is that more parents of worthy students will see the state of the public schools and consider their children's education worth spending the money on private schools or time on home-schooling.

[Ni-ban Neko]

I'd rather see parents putting their time and effort into making a public school where all the students, from the kid who's struggling to the kid who's an academic star - have a chance to succeed rather than pulling out. Parental involvement can make all the difference.

I don't think any kid is destined for failure from the start - their brains are too malleable for that. A good school can help where parents can't - or won't, as is more often the case these days. It takes resources to do that, though - and often the poorest schools don't have them, and the parents aren't in the financial situation to help that, much less send their bright child to a private school.

I'm from a family of teachers - one of my aunts is still teaching kindergarten, and my mother is a retired English teacher. I've been to both public and private schools. And to be totally honest, the private school I went to in one place was equivalent to a really good public school another place. I don't think all private schools are bastions of academia where the brightest kids get polished - that one certainly wasn't.

If parents want to send their kid to a private school, that's their prerogative. But, I don't think they're the answer to everything.

[jupiter23]

On the subject of teachers: I have lived in Louisiana my entire life, and obviously gone to school here. Louisiana is among the states that has the lowest paid teachers in the country. Recently (I don't remember when this situation started, and I think it is still going on) teachers around the state were staging strikes for pay raises. Actual refuse-to-show-up-for-work strikes. Several schools in Baton Rouge did this, because these teachers barely make enough to help support their families. My boyfriend's mother is a kindergarten teacher, and actually probably deserves more than she is being paid (I couldn't say for sure, I haven't been to one of her classses). My point is that some of these teachers who want pay raises are past due for them (Tiff-san sounds like one), but there are still some teachers who don't give a damn about the kids they are teaching, and don't deserve any more money than what they are being given already. You cannot blame the entire schools for a teacher's failure, much less the parish/county who hired them. And some teachers are very good teachers who end up with jackass students. That goes back to my point about teachers who deserve raises and don't get them. And like what everyone else has been saying, some students simply don't try in school and are failing because they don't care, so again it is not the teachers' fault.

There are just so many factors in why the American School System is as crappy as it is.

[FoxFire]

It prevents them from sending them to private schools as they currently exist. If there were no public schools, private schools that charge less would exist. Of course, they might not be as good as the expensive ones, but they would be there and the economic market forces would have their say.

If there were no public schools, there'd be no guarentee that every area would have its own school nearby, or that those that do will follow any standard that actually teaches kids. If corporations are running schools for profit, how much profits can you make by providing a quality education in poor urban areas?

Now, I'm not sure I understand this. On the one hand, Foxfire says the private schools hurt the less-able student by turning them away or shunting them to the lesser schools, and then here Ni-Ban asserts that they hurt more-able students by not recognizing them.

I said no such thing, what I said is that private schools have the right to discriminate against what students they accept, and that students who don't fit whatever criteria to be accepted will be hurt if we either divert resources from public schools to private schools, or if we abolish public schools all together.

In any case, the discussion is, no pun intended, academic. There's no way the public school system is going to be destroyed by edict. What will happen, I hope, is that more parents of worthy students will see the state of the public schools and consider their children's education worth spending the money on private schools or time on home-schooling.

And I have no problem with parents deciding to do this, but since not all parents will have the money or the time to do this, I feel it's important to work to improve the existing public school system and to create more alternative schools that are available to everyone.

[Sailorasteroid]

If there were no public schools, there'd be no guarentee that every area would have its own school nearby, or that those that do will follow any standard that actually teaches kids. If corporations are running schools for profit, how much profits can you make by providing a quality education in poor urban areas?

There are no government-mandated food distribution centers; are there any areas unserviced by grocery stores or serviced only by those who sell inferior food? As to areas of poverty: last year we spent $6,911 per student (source) and that's money spent grossly inefficiently. A private school servicing a poor urban area would not have to charge nearly that much to stay viable. Not to mention the fact that schools with poorer markets would be prime candidates for tax breaks, government subsidies, and private endowments.

I said no such thing, what I said is that private schools have the right to discriminate against what students they accept, and that students who don't fit whatever criteria to be accepted will be hurt if we either divert resources from public schools to private schools, or if we abolish public schools all together.

But what criterion will a school judge on other than the ability of a student? It wants to turn away as few students as possible. I'm still not understanding--can you give me an example of a type of person you think will be discriminated against?

And I have no problem with parents deciding to do this, but since not all parents will have the money or the time to do this, I feel it's important to work to improve the existing public school system and to create more alternative schools that are available to everyone.

It's important, but in my opinion secondary to moving people from the category of people who can't afford a good education for their children to the category of those who can. I have no children, but if I did and when I do, I'm far more concerned with being able to give them the best education I can than to give other parents' children a better education. This is selfish, but my own children will be infintely more important to me than anyone else's.

[FoxFire]

There are no government-mandated food distribution centers; are there any areas unserviced by grocery stores or serviced only by those who sell inferior food? As to areas of poverty: last year we spent $6,911 per student (source) and that's money spent grossly inefficiently. A private school servicing a poor urban area would not have to charge nearly that much to stay viable. Not to mention the fact that schools with poorer markets would be prime candidates for tax breaks, government subsidies, and private endowments.

People need food to live. They don't "need" education to live, regardless of how important it is to ones future. And I doubt that every city has a good grocery store. Even if there will be schools in most places, what if one doesn't get one, or the closest one is a few hours away, or the only choices are between a substandard one or a good one thats impossible to get into?

Statistics on how ineffiecient schools are run right now is irrelevant to my point because I do definately advocate reforming the system, just not to the point where we eliminate it.

But what criterion will a school judge on other than the ability of a student? It wants to turn away as few students as possible. I'm still not understanding--can you give me an example of a type of person you think will be discriminated against?

Students whose parents can't pay, students with behavioral problems, students with special needs or conditions such as ADD, students who have had run-ins with the law or gangs in the past, etc.

It's important, but in my opinion secondary to moving people from the category of people who can't afford a good education for their children to the category of those who can. I have no children, but if I did and when I do, I'm far more concerned with being able to give them the best education I can than to give other parents' children a better education. This is selfish, but my own children will be infintely more important to me than anyone else's.

But if we put the money and effort into a good school system that is available for everyone then you'll already have that taken care of. And wouldn't you want their to be good teachers and doctors and politicians and so on when your kids (if you have them) grow up? How will they get that if their peers aren't well educated?

[Sailorasteroid]

People need food to live. They don't "need" education to live, regardless of how important it is to ones future. And I doubt that every city has a good grocery store. Even if there will be schools in most places, what if one doesn't get one, or the closest one is a few hours away, or the only choices are between a substandard one or a good one thats impossible to get into?

Then there's an incentive for parents not to settle there. Even so, it's going to be a highly irregular situation, and I think it's better to have a few blighted areas than a nationwide lowering of standards.

Statistics on how ineffiecient schools are run right now is irrelevant to my point because I do definately advocate reforming the system, just not to the point where we eliminate it.

Well, I'm not concerned so much with the efficiency of the amount spent as in the amount itself. Right now, it's ~$7000/student. If efficency and grants could reduce it to, let's say a conservative $4500, are there too many families who are going to be actually unable to afford it?

But what criterion will a school judge on other than the ability of a student? It wants to turn away as few students as possible. I'm still not understanding--can you give me an example of a type of person you think will be discriminated against?

Students whose parents can't pay, students with behavioral problems, students with special needs or conditions such as ADD, students who have had run-ins with the law or gangs in the past, etc.

Well, people who can't pay for the good schools will have to pay for lesser schools, but if someone is so poor that he can't afford even the worst schools, then he has problems far beyond the education of his children. Money shouldn't count for everything in education, but neither should it be entirely divorced from the concept; if I'm willing and able to pay more, I deserve to recieve more.

Special-needs students are still sources of revenue, and private schools are just as likely to be built and sold on the premise that they can help special-needs students. The same thing with students who have reformed from criminal behavior. Children who actively engage in criminal behavior don't deserve good schools.

But if we put the money and effort into a good school system that is available for everyone then you'll already have that taken care of. And wouldn't you want their to be good teachers and doctors and politicians and so on when your kids (if you have them) grow up? How will they get that if their peers aren't well educated?

No, I don't want there to be good professionals for my children. I want there to be GREAT professionals, who will innovate and change the world. And I want my children to have a chance to do great things if they have the potential. A great doctor who discovers a cure for a disease is worth a thousand good doctors who simply know how to administer cures discovered by the great one. I believe that a meritocratic caste society is the best one, even for those in the lower castes.

[ParaKiss_Groupie]

I'm not quoting the above posts because they're too long, but I'm going to address them.

How can you say that parents shouldn't settle in an area like that? What if they have no choice? Many people aren't given the option to choose where they live. It's where they can find a home. And to me, finding a place to live is more important than finding a good school.

Not everyone wants to attend a private school. I don't want to, and I wouldn't send a child to one. Every experience I've had with private schools turned out awful. My family cannot afford a private school. If I got a government voucher, I would still be poor in the eyes of the students who can afford it. And my not having money caused the bad experiences I've had with private schools. If I were sent to a private school, I would be teased considerably more than I am now, and I would most likely end up pulling a Columbine.

As for government vouchers to private schools, that defeats the purpose for me. Would the government pick only a few certain people to give them to, or offer them to everyone? If they offer them to everyone and criterion for admittance are eliminated, what's created is, in essence, a public school.

As for you're comment on criminal students not deserving a good schools, how many kids do you think go off drug money? A lot. They're criminals, but they're rich, so they can afford it. Do they still not deserve it, even though you said that if one can afford it, they should receive it? Also, what kind of criminal behavoir? Does a teenager who steals from a store to pay his family's bills still not deserve a good school?

What good is that one great professional who discovers the cure for cancer if there are no good professionals to administer it to the masses? They might seem inferior to you, but to those that these good professionals save, they're more important than the discoverer of the cure.

[jupiter23]

Parakiss-san is right. We live in a country where we can choose what schools we want to go to, yet there are many who can't choose because of where they live and can't afford to leave otherwise. Those same people do everything they can to make the school experience as comfortable as possible for their kids, but they can only do so much. It is up to the kid themselves whether they want to learn what the teachers are trying to teach them. And if they do the best they can with what they have, then possibly they can get a good job and move to a better area with better schools and try to make life better for their own kids. A good education helps you more than you think it does.

[Sailorasteroid]

Parakiss, I agree with you on the point of vouchers being tantamount to public schools. I've never been a proponent of them.

But for the most part on the whole debate, I think the two sides are both viable positions, neither being factually provable as right or wrong, each dependant on the worldview of the position-holder. Parakiss would never send a child to a private school; I would never send one to a public school. Each of us speaks out of logic and experience. Neither of our positions hurts the other, so both should be able to co-exist.

So too goes the premise behind the choice. Some people believe that society should forge compromise between those who are socioeconomically strong and those who need help. This is a perfectly tenable position based on compassion toward the needy. Others, myself included, take a more Darwinistic view, saying that society should try to help everyone absolutely but leave the relative differences between people. This, I hope it will be seen, is also a viable position based on compassion toward humanity in general (which, I stress, is not qualitatively or morally better or worse than compassion toward the weak).

So, can we agree to disagree?