What's so bad about privatizing education?

[TylerRDA]

Upon objective consideration, I came to the conclusion that privatizing education in the US through voucher systems would solve many, many problems at once. Transitioning to the voucher system:

• Solve the impracticality of a homogenized system (NCLB, etc.)
• Solve the lack of parental interest in children's education
• Would make room for "specialized" schools that attract different types of minds
• Eliminate teacher's unions which have the education system by the balls (and thus eliminate healthy competition among educators in the public school system)
• Schools will have a vested interest in increasing performance, compared to the paradox created by fed/state funding that results in a stalemate because there really isn't a right answer as to whether failing schools warrant additional funding.
• And so on...

Honestly I'm confused as to why this idea is met so coldly by so many people? Most of the opposition says that it would make education for lower income students much harder to get, but I seriously have no idea why a transition to the voucher system could possibly make it any worse than it already is? Heck, the reason I support it is because it would allow for more healthy progress, across the board, but especially in lower income areas. I'm not proposing an all-at-once switch, but slowly weaning ourselves off public education and facilitating the growth of private schools would mean that the upper classes with the expendable income to pay for private schools wouldn't be the only ones who benefit.

 

[thoumyvision]

Well, you have to take into account the socialist worldview, which permeates the Democratic and farther reaching "liberal" parties:

They believe that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world, so anyone who has more than they need (profit) is keeping those less fortunate from the resources they need. Therefor:

Profit=evil
Privatization=profit

Government in their eyes is not focused on profit so is the morally preferable choice.

The whole premise of Socialism falls apart once you accept the idea that wealth is not limited, that it is possible to create wealth. This is easy to demonstrate, just look at a cellphone: the actual materials that a cellphone is constructed from are only worth a few dollars, but we're willing to pay 100 times that because of what it can do. The ideas and technology used to put it together make it worth more than the sum of its parts.

It's interesting to me that those on the right are called "conservative" when our views on financial matters emphasize liberty.

The other thing the left can't see past is the idea that the poorest people will only be able to send their children to schools for which the tuition is equal to the voucher value. This in their eyes is an inequality, and therefor repugnant. They do have a point there, it would be an inequality of opportunity (which I accept as bad thing), although with the current system we have the same inequality.

A solution would be that vouchers could be priced according to school, based on a child's acceptance to a that particular school. Of course, this would lead to a meritocracy, which liberals also can't stand since they aren't willing to accept that some people are simply more capable and intelligent than others (it's not a "nice" idea, so it gets rejected).

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

They also don't seem to understand one makes the best returns when one markets to the demands of the majority rather than the few. However, they will always be niche markets but in no way does a niche market effect the greater majority from purchasing goods and services they demand. Once there is competition in the market there will be innovation in education. Most successful education products will persist and unsuccessful will fail. This process will ensure a decent education for all. Over time quality will increase and prices will decrease. Even now the poorest in society can afford a decent computer.

 

[Black Rose]

They also don't seem to understand one makes the best returns when one markets to the demands of the majority rather than the few. However, they will always be niche markets but in no way does a niche market effect the greater majority from purchasing goods and services they demand. Once there is competition in the market there will be innovation in education. Most successful education products will persist and unsuccessful will fail. This process will ensure a decent education for all. Over time quality will increase and prices will decrease. Even now the poorest in society can afford a decent computer.

Computer is an information technology.

Education requires knowing the goal as a niche market provides little benefit if not apprenticeship.

Education needs apprenticeship by internet Web Cam Virtual Reality.

 

[digital angel]

I came across this website which describes some arguments for and against vouchers.

http://www.educationbug.org/a/school-vouchers.html

 

[Jackooboy]

The thing I've noticed with liberal teachers (mostly from my family) is their obsessive hatred of standardized tests. When I challenge them and ask how it's destructive to the educational process they respond with "it makes you teach to the test" and somehow standardized testing destroys the mystical element of teaching and learning...

Back in reality, their excuses sound like they're trying to protect their turf and union against those who are trying to bust jobs for life and the tenure system.

If we are serious as a society about education, we need a system that allows innovation and variation. A one-size-fits-all system leaves many brilliant people behind and doesn't allow for tailored courses to the interests of children...

I think standardized tests are great... They clearly define the curriculum objectives that are to be taught and it gives feedback to the education system in how they are communicating information and how it's being received or not received by students.

 

[Jah]

Not answering the OP, but:

Fuck standardized tests.

The critique of them is very warranted, and demonstrably, if you rate school performance and thus their allocated government funding on the basis of standardized tests Schools will teach children only to pass these tests.
Not to understand the question, not how to work out answers, but just plain regurgitation.
And if that's what you want, get every child an iPad and Wikipedia will be all they ever need.

How about teaching them to work out what is a relevant question to ask in order to find out X.
How about teaching them how to reach conclusions and understand the process of finding things out.


The useless prospect of having them memorize standard answers, which are bound by bureaucracy to have standard formulations and limits to how many answers.
No thinking involved.

If a girl and a boy are having a discussion, the girl is always right. If two boys are arguing then the foreign kid is the one who's right.
There's (nearly)always two options stating the same, there's always one obviously wrong answer. Thus the fourth one is correct.

All you teach the kid is how to figure out tests, not answers.

I vote meritocratic education, where you are taught with the goal of understanding.
Where your tests are not standardized but based on your ability to reason and argue.
That doesn't mean you flunk the test if you logically deduce an answer which turns out to be wrong because it was based upon a false premise. That's reality.

The whole concept of standardized learning breeds standardized kids, who answer to authority and punch the right sequence when ordered, and who get frustrated if you formulate a question they've already answered in an abnormal way which they're not used to.

 

[Black Rose]

Eisenstein did not learn general relativity from a standardized test.

Kids need to experiment with life to learn.

Virtual reality History museums / experimentation will be available via glasses in 2015.

 

[digital angel]

Not answering the OP, but:

Fuck standardized tests.

The critique of them is very warranted, and demonstrably, if you rate school performance and thus their allocated government funding on the basis of standardized tests Schools will teach children only to pass these tests.
Not to understand the question, not how to work out answers, but just plain regurgitation.
And if that's what you want, get every child an iPad and Wikipedia will be all they ever need.

How about teaching them to work out what is a relevant question to ask in order to find out X.
How about teaching them how to reach conclusions and understand the process of finding things out.


The useless prospect of having them memorize standard answers, which are bound by bureaucracy to have standard formulations and limits to how many answers.
No thinking involved.

If a girl and a boy are having a discussion, the girl is always right. If two boys are arguing then the foreign kid is the one who's right.
There's (nearly)always two options stating the same, there's always one obviously wrong answer. Thus the fourth one is correct.

All you teach the kid is how to figure out tests, not answers.

I vote meritocratic education, where you are taught with the goal of understanding.
Where your tests are not standardized but based on your ability to reason and argue.
That doesn't mean you flunk the test if you logically deduce an answer which turns out to be wrong because it was based upon a false premise. That's reality.

The whole concept of standardized learning breeds standardized kids, who answer to authority and punch the right sequence when ordered, and who get frustrated if you formulate a question they've already answered in an abnormal way which they're not used to.

I understand and agree that the process of learning, or comprehension is important. Having said that, standardized tests are an efficient way of rating performance.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I wish I had more time to make a proper response to this (I'll get to it at some point) so I'll make more of a short rant as opposed than my usual citations and at least semi-thought out type of posts:

Standardized tests and education of any kind are a terrible and limiting way of conducting education. There are no standardized people, no one way to teach them, and no one way of learning. School is a boring factory where government approved "information" is installed in peoples brains like a mind numbing assembly line. Having a bureaucratized and standardized way of doing things stops newer and better ways of teaching from emerging. The way it is now, you go to school and do two things: drift off in boredom or anxiously memorize every word in order to get a document stating that you were able to pass the test - sometimes both at the same time.

If education was privatized, there wouldn't need to be litigation, shouting matches, and emotional coercion about teaching evolution in school, or school prayer, or any other hot button issues. There wouldn't need to be one path toward acquiring a degree - perhaps degree's could be issued based on hours logged studying a subject and innovative problem solving skills (among other criteria) as opposed to a letter grade on a test.

Going to school should require someone to do more critical thinking and acquiring understanding than what you can get from a couple hours on the Khan Academy website.

 

[Trebuchet]

Okay, I'm a leftist here. I'm really very left, progressive and liberal, but don't fall in line in every way.

I have no problem with vouchers. In fact, I favor them. It isn't a free market thing for me - I don't support a truly unregulated market - but I do think competition is good for the customer, and even for the competitors.

While I think there is merit in the argument that the poorest students will have the fewest choices, frankly their options now aren't good. I'm not convinced it would make things worse, though a study or pilot program would be nice. Perhaps more than vouchers will be needed to get them a good education, but one program doesn't have to solve everything. It just has to solve more problems than it creates.

The reason the liberals I know (in real life) object to vouchers (and it took me some time to figure this out because it doesn't fit the ideology that well), is they want to maintain control over the curriculum. For example, a school could teach young earth creationism and rabid jingoism, and the idea that this could happen drives them nuts. Preventing this comes down to deciding what should be taught to other people's children.

To be fair, people on the right have been equally incensed by the idea that other people's children could be taught about evolution or contraception or homosexuality. They have said children should learn Godly things, and I've even had some say to me that they "don't believe in science" and want it out of all schools. I am talking only about the people I have met in real life, not anyone on this forum.

So the question is, who should decide what is taught to your children? I'm okay with parents deciding. That makes me very different from most liberals. I weep for the children taught things I consider stupid, but that doesn't stop me from supporting vouchers. It also makes me different from most conservatives, to be sure. The conservatives I know approve of church schools, but not so much any other kind of private school. However, most private schools are church schools, so they would end up ahead with vouchers.

(Oh, and I do oppose standardized testing, though I must admit I am very good at standardized tests. They tend to put me at an advantage, so I have sometimes wondered if I shouldn't support them )

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The poor don't receive an education in the current system and there is simply no choice. At least a voucher system will provide choices.


The current system, enforced egalitarianism, only destroys.

 

[Trebuchet]

The poor don't receive an education in the current system and there is simply no choice. At least a voucher system will provide choices.


The current system, enforced egalitarianism, only destroys.

Yeah, pretty much.

To be sure, I do seek more equality of opportunity. Not perfect equality, but a better distribution than we have now. If someone is brilliant and hardworking but poor, in a just world they should have a chance to shine. Mostly, they don't have that chance with the current system. In fact, brilliance is generally discouraged in the current system.

 

[Jah]

I understand and agree that the process of learning, or comprehension is important. Having said that, standardized tests are an efficient way of rating performance.

Only if both teachers and students are unprepared in order to eliminate conscious or unconscious emphasis on practicing towards the tests....

So, were it possible to eliminate the economic downside of a bad rating (for schools) and were it possible to remove any desire on the part of the teacher to look good by having a high percentage pass rate, then yes.

Since we're dealing with the real world, no.


I understand that the idea is good, but when put into practice people will always try to go the path of least resistance, which in this case leads to practicing for tests, rather than emphasizing learning and understanding of the individual subjects.


Then again, it is likely that teachers would be, at least informally, rated based on their students performance, even though this may be wholly outside the teachers ability to mend. (To take an educational simile; It's as though the classes are genetic sets, where luck plays a part. Though this is not PC, we have to acknowledge that some classes have higher percentages of "good" students than others, and are therefore likely to increase the teacher's "score". Even though it is no fault of the teacher what the composition of the classes are.)

Thus the teacher would have plenty incentive to practice to the test, rather than impart knowledge and understanding.

Which is completely natural, and easy to understand.

We cannot expect to hold teachers to a higher than normal standard of integrity. As a result you'll therefore also expect to see bad teachers with less moral standards to gain unfair advantage.
(For those of you who watch South Park: "I mis-interpreted the rules.")

 

[Architect]

It's interesting to me that those on the right are called "conservative" when our views on financial matters emphasize liberty.

In theory, in practice the opposite. Wall Street is comprised mostly of Republicans, but any time there's a little disturbance in the markets they bleat until the Fed comes in and bails them out. The financial system is hardly a free market system anymore, its fully supported by the Fed. Ordinary Republicans like to profess the free market philosophy but it doesn't really exist.

Disclaimer: I'm an independent and pick and choose from both sides. I fully support the Republican free market concept, but just don't see it anywhere.

To OP, I see value in a privatized system, the problem being it would be a contradiction. What about accreditation and standards? The horrible No Child Left Behind that my INTP son has to suffer through was created by George Bush II, in a private system some govt. standards regulation would still exist, meaning that effectively it was still a govt. system. The result of which you'd probably get the worst of both worlds, govt. overbearing regulation and private market profiteering.

Anecdotal comment, I have yet to see a parent who isn't obsessed with their kids education.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

My university degrees are not accredited by the government but by one or more of the various engineering unions in this country. That mandate a certain level of ability of the graduates and only award their accreditation to learning institutions which fulfil the requirements. This whole process is voluntary and it works. I see no reason why similar system would not form around general schooling.

 

[digital angel]

If what some of the individuals here are saying is that education is broad, I agree with that. Education occurs inside schools and outside of schools, ideally.

What's the purpose of education? Is it to become productive members of society? Is it to learn new skills? Is it to expand? I think the purpose of education is all of these things.

I can't say that I'm for or against vouchers at this point. As a lawyer, I can't say that litigation will cease if education is privatized. I can't say that hot button issues won't be there. What's considered a hot button now may change in the future. What I can say is that education is important. Innovation is important too.

 

[Trebuchet]

The problem with standardized tests is that some are good and some are bad, and they are not often evaluated well so we know which is which.

Here's a good one. The Federal Aviation Administration has a huge number of questions they want people to be able to answer. Thousands of them. The test to become a pilot is a small subset of them, exactly as they appear in the practice books. The FAA has said that this is the information they want pilots to have, and if you memorize all of it, that is great. Testing a subset is a well-known way of sampling.

Here's a bad one. My daughter's school district requires 1st graders to be able to answer 30 addition questions in 5 minutes. That's fine. But while some students are good at memorizing, not all 6-year-olds are. So the teachers, who have to get all the students through this, have taught all of them how to count on their fingers, rather than simply memorizing that 7+8=15. It gets most students through in the short term, but hurts them in the long term. Teaching to the test has gotten in the way of real learning, but the teachers have no choice, because according to No Child Left Behind, school budgets depend on the scores. The incentives are clearly for higher scores rather than better learning.

In general, standardized tests are not evaluated for correlation with later success. The FAA did, and they have a good test. They are accountable if pilots they certify go around crashing or breaking regulations. The school district will never have to answer for it if these kids fail to learn math well by adulthood.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

It appears that the Labor party in Australia is trying to institute its own version of 'no child left behind'. Ohh dear.

 

[Jackooboy]

Not answering the OP, but:

Fuck standardized tests.

The critique of them is very warranted, and demonstrably, if you rate school performance and thus their allocated government funding on the basis of standardized tests Schools will teach children only to pass these tests.
Not to understand the question, not how to work out answers, but just plain regurgitation.
And if that's what you want, get every child an iPad and Wikipedia will be all they ever need.

How about teaching them to work out what is a relevant question to ask in order to find out X.
How about teaching them how to reach conclusions and understand the process of finding things out.


The useless prospect of having them memorize standard answers, which are bound by bureaucracy to have standard formulations and limits to how many answers.
No thinking involved.

If a girl and a boy are having a discussion, the girl is always right. If two boys are arguing then the foreign kid is the one who's right.
There's (nearly)always two options stating the same, there's always one obviously wrong answer. Thus the fourth one is correct.

All you teach the kid is how to figure out tests, not answers.

I vote meritocratic education, where you are taught with the goal of understanding.
Where your tests are not standardized but based on your ability to reason and argue.
That doesn't mean you flunk the test if you logically deduce an answer which turns out to be wrong because it was based upon a false premise. That's reality.

The whole concept of standardized learning breeds standardized kids, who answer to authority and punch the right sequence when ordered, and who get frustrated if you formulate a question they've already answered in an abnormal way which they're not used to.

I guess I don't understand what your point is...

Please give me an example of a standardized test question that doesn't test what the child has learned and or their reasoning capability. Also, I would love to see an entire test that doesn't test their learning and connecting of concepts... Remember, grade school children operate at basic levels for the most part... Also, a good deal of Spanish, English, biology, chemistry, etc. is total regurgitation (especially at the grade school level) and memorization when learning the basics.

Who do you think the people making the tests are? Are they all morons totally incompetent and fully unskilled in creating exams that will create different styles of assessing different brain functions and knowledge?

I believe most people, if they study can do well on any test they take. Sure learning the format and getting used to it is an important part of taking tests, but it's that way in all educational environments. When I take a professor, I usually over study for the first test because I have little idea how the professor will word their questions or how deep my knowledge of the material will have to be to get an A. So I really don't see how when a teacher makes a test it's great, but if the test is standardized, that's somehow a horrible thing...

I'll give you some real standardized test examples, and you can tell me how they're 100% memorized and require no critical thinking. Also, let me know how teachers currently don't teach to their own tests that they give their students...

1. If Lynn can type a page in p minutes, what piece (how much) of the page can she do in 5 minutes?

A. 5/p
B. p - 5
C. p + 5
D. p/5
E. 1- p + 5

2. If y(x-1)=z then x=

A. y-z
B. z/y + 1
C. y(z-1)
D. z(y-1)
E. 1-zy

Please select the answer choice that identifies the noun in the sentence.

1. It will take all of your energy and will to be able to walk again.

A. Take
B. All
C. Yours
D. Energy

2. The works of many great poets have been placed on reserve.

A. Many
B. Great
C. Placed
D. Reserve

2. Of the many kinds of vegetables grown all over the world, which remains the favorite of young and old alike? Why, the potato, of course.

Perhaps you know them as “taters,” “spuds,” or “Kennebees,” or as “chips,” “Idahoes,” or even “shoestrings.” No matter, a potato by any other name is still a potato- the world's most widely grown vegetable. As a matter of fact, if you are an average potato eater, you will put away at least a hundred pounds of them each year.

That's only a tiny portion of the amount grown every year, however. Worldwide, the annual potato harvest is over six billion bags- each bag containing a hundred pounds of spuds, some of them as large as four pounds each. Here in the United States, farmers fill about four hundred million bags a year. That may seem like a lot of “taters,” but it leaves us a distant third among world potato growers. Polish farmers dig up just over 800 million bags a year, while the Russians lead the world with nearly 1.5 billion bags.

The first potatoes were grown by the Incas of South America, more than four hundred years ago. Their descendants in Ecuador and Chile continue to grow the vegetable as high as fourteen thousand feet up in the Andes Mountains. ( That's higher than any other food will grow.) Early Spanish and English explorers shipped potatoes to Europe, and they found their way to North America in the early 1600s.

People eat potatoes in many ways-baked, mashed, and roasted, to name just three. However, in the United States most potatoes are devoured in the form of French fries. One fast-food chain alone sells more than $1 billion worth of fries each year. No wonder, then, that the company pays particular attention to the way its fries are prepared.

Before any fry makes it to the people who eat at these popular restaurants, it must pass many separate tests. Fail any one and the spud is rejected. To start with, only russet Burbank potatoes are used. These Idaho potatoes have less water content than other kinds, which can have as much as eighty percent water. Once cut into “shoestrings” shapes, the potatoes are partly fried in a secret blend of oils, sprayed with liquid sugar to brown them, steam dried at high heat, then flash frozen for shipment to individual restaurants.

Before shipping, though, every shoestring is measured. Forty percent of a batch must be between two and three inches long. Another forty percent has to be over three inches. What about the twenty percent that are left in the batch? Well, a few short fries in a bag are okay, it seems.

So, now that you realize the enormous size and value of the potato crop, you can understand why most people agree that this part of the food industry is no “small potatoes.”

What is the main idea of this passage?

A. Potatoes from Ireland started the Potato Revolution.
B. The average American eats 50 lbs of potatoes a year.
C. French fries are made from potatoes.
D. Potatoes are a key vegetable in America.
E. The various terms for potatoes have a long history.

And of course there's usually a writing prompt or two.

Anyhow, I don't think these test are "evil." Yes, they're limited, but all tests are.

I do however think we need much more diversity in/of courses, schools, campuses, etc. at earlier ages. The whole idea that kids should be grouped by age is ridiculous -- ability and interest is a much better way to group and subsequently teach kids in an educational environment.

Vouchers would go a long way to improving quality and quantity of education. Administrators and teachers would become innovative in their educational models and methods and diversity and a market place would drive innovation. Just like today's hybrid cars are cost prohibitive for the general population, within 10-20 years, most cars will be hybrid or electric and most people will be able to afford them. So too will the efficiency of educational methods the rich can only afford currently proliferate and be streamlined and brought to lower income children in the future if a market is allowed to drive education.

Also, even if a standardized testing is deemed "evil" and not up to par, there should be accreditation agencies that look at the schools' curriculum and accredit them. Of course, this is the current problem since many of the public school don't meet the requirements-- hence should those schools be shut down and go out of business? I believe the former CEO of GE used to lay off the bottom 10% of his workers every year and that's how GE has stayed on top for so many years... It spurs innovation and destroys those who don't perform. Similarly, if no schools are closing and no one is getting fired, it breeds people who have no drive to change the system and innovate, instead it is static and there's a vested interest ($$$) to keep the system in place. Education is no longer the goal.

 

[Vrecknidj]

1) I teach at a private high school.
2) I teach at a public university.
3) I have been self-employed for 20 years as a tutor.
4) My wife and I homeschooled our kids.

Vouchers are a fine idea. There are plenty of crappy things happening in "Education" these days, vouchers probably can't make it worse.

Dave

 

[Trebuchet]

Who do you think the people making the tests are? Are they all morons totally incompetent and fully unskilled in creating exams that will create different styles of assessing different brain functions and knowledge?

Committees and businesses make them up. Committees aren't necessarily selected for being experts in making tests, and businesses make tests that will pass committees. As for the questions, people test things that are easy to test, of course.

So I really don't see how when a teacher makes a test it's great, but if the test is standardized, that's somehow a horrible thing...

It isn't the standardization that is the problem. Having a standard is useful. Metrics are useful. It is that the standardized tests are not good. A test can be designed well, but most of them aren't, because it is hard to do that. And no one goes back later to see if the tests were worth anything. I think that's a real problem.

In the case of NCLB, they are not designed well, and the stakes are too high to ignore them. The test score replaces learning as the goal of the class. Students are being taught how to score well on the test, instead of critical thinking.

Of course it is possible to make a good standardized test. It's just really, really hard.

I believe the former CEO of GE used to lay off the bottom 10% of his workers every year and that's how GE has stayed on top for so many years... It spurs innovation and destroys those who don't perform.

It destroys morale and willingness to take risks, hurts teamwork, and encourages backstabbing. Ick. It is okay to fire someone who isn't performing to your standards, but Welch isn't someone I admire. Innovation comes when people feel secure, not afraid, because innovation is risk.

I once asked a teacher of mine, who by then I considered a friend, why the best teachers were all burned out. She said it was the constraints. They weren't allowed to innovate. They weren't allowed to develop curriculum. It was hard on creative people.

 

[Jah]

This will probably help,
I think the way of formulating questions is wrong.

I'm thinking about how to have more intricate and "real" questions.
YouTube - ‪Conrad Wolfram: Teaching kids real math with computers‬‏



Though I have always had a very good memory, so I do good at these tests, I never find they actually require any real thinking. (Identify the underlying formula, plot in variables, ???, success. And as I said earlier; know the patterns and you'll often be able to remove one or two answers quickly. (Speaking from my own experience, though seriously generalizing. I don't live everywhere nor at every time.)



On a related note:
YouTube - ‪George Carlin - Teach your children to question‬‏

 

[Hermetic Alchemist]

I was educated, for the most part, in the UK. While I was growing up we had lots of important exams, but NO standardized tests (at least not in the sense of multiple guess questionaires). The majority of our exams were essay questions, or 'long answer' problems. This meant that you could get lots of points for logic, analysis (showing your working in maths problems) without necessarily getting one 'correct answer'. Personally I found this helped me a lot. When I did take standardized tests I found that my 'INTPness' made me find good arguments (not just the simple I'm trying to catch you out arguments) for at least 2 of the answers.

In the example above it depends on how you interpret the meaning of the phrase "What is the main idea of this passage". To me that implies intuiting the aims of an unknown author. As an INTP that puts me into a tail spin! I'm introverted and a perceiver I DON'T judge what other people are trying to do. I OBSERVE!

In addition, I majored in Chemistry. My memory is lousy. I had to work a lot of problems out from first principles. This took a lot of time (and I always seemed to run out of time) but at least these sort of exams enabled me to do that. If it was all multiple choice I'd have been screwed!

So in summary. I LOATHE multiple guess questions. (And I did pretty well on the US, SAT's in the early 90's).

 

[TylerRDA]

My university degrees are not accredited by the government but by one or more of the various engineering unions in this country. That mandate a certain level of ability of the graduates and only award their accreditation to learning institutions which fulfil the requirements. This whole process is voluntary and it works. I see no reason why similar system would not form around general schooling.

Wow, you know that idea is pretty revolutionary. It never even occurred to me that universal accreditation is almost pointless in terms of practicality.

 

[Jackooboy]

Committees and businesses make them up. Committees aren't necessarily selected for being experts in making tests, and businesses make tests that will pass committees. As for the questions, people test things that are easy to test, of course.



It isn't the standardization that is the problem. Having a standard is useful. Metrics are useful. It is that the standardized tests are not good. A test can be designed well, but most of them aren't, because it is hard to do that. And no one goes back later to see if the tests were worth anything. I think that's a real problem.

In the case of NCLB, they are not designed well, and the stakes are too high to ignore them. The test score replaces learning as the goal of the class. Students are being taught how to score well on the test, instead of critical thinking.

Of course it is possible to make a good standardized test. It's just really, really hard.



It destroys morale and willingness to take risks, hurts teamwork, and encourages backstabbing. Ick. It is okay to fire someone who isn't performing to your standards, but Welch isn't someone I admire. Innovation comes when people feel secure, not afraid, because innovation is risk.

I once asked a teacher of mine, who by then I considered a friend, why the best teachers were all burned out. She said it was the constraints. They weren't allowed to innovate. They weren't allowed to develop curriculum. It was hard on creative people.

GE has been a pretty innovative company actually... and teachers have jobs for life that stifle innovation and promote lackluster performance. The union doesn't like to see anything changing in the educational realm... Teachers aren't non- innovating out of fear of being fired-- instead, they are non-innovating because of the system and the amount of time and energy it takes to battle administrators and parents.

I can speak to three national education systems. I am a product of American public schools. I had one teacher in high school who finally challenged me. She held a PhD from Rutgers in anthropology and taught at Penn State before she moved to our town to take care of her dying father. Anyhow, she was the one teacher I knew who didn't care about the system and fought it tooth and nail. She was non-unionized and would FAIL kids who didn't do their work and didn't perform to their potential. She pushed people... She battled the enabler parents who thought little Julie and Johnny were being asked to do too much. She gave me, and most of our class negative points on our first exam. She knew we were capable, and made us perform. This lady was amazing and had seemingly endless energy and drive. She knew what she was doing and she had the drive and energy to follow through with it. Primarily, she's the one I credit with my later academic achievements.

The other teachers in the system were comfortable. They were lazy, for the most part, and didn't expect too much and didn't push too hard (pushing students would bother the administration and parents). Primarily, education in America is a babysitting service with the hope you learn as a byproduct. This is a wider cultural problem because education isn't a priority.

This leads me to Korea where education is a priority. I taught English at 2 middle schools in Korea for a year. Standardized tests are king and key to future success in Korea (which ironically they are in America too via the SAT, GRE, MCAT, DAT, etc., but we don't prepare kids to take these life changing tests in public schools like they do in Korea. Instead we believe that learning is "intangible." To be totally pragmatic about it, we need to prepare kids for the system and the way the system works. When I entered the military, I had to take a standardized test. When I entered university I had to take a standardized test. If I want to work in any gov. bureaucratic system, there will be a standardized test via civil service exams. If I want to be a nurse, lawyer, cop, dentist, MD, physical therapist, teacher, truck driver, etc. there's a standardized test.....). Koreans lack the autonomy and social freedom we're used to in the West, but at the same time, these "weaknesses" are their strengths. The imperial Chinese Confucian culture was imported to Korea from China and has a basis in testing primarily because the Chinese created the world's first bureaucracy via civil service exams to run levee systems to control flooding of various rivers. Anyhow, within Korean public middle schools, standardized tests occurred roughly 2 or 3 times a semester and the test scores reflected which high schools my middle school students would get into. This was an incentive for the kids to study their butts off, which they did. In Korea, high school is the equivalent to college or university in the US. Depending on which high school you attend, and how good your grades are determines which university you will be admitted to. University admission in Korea are key to future success. AKA, the university you get into, not your performance at university, determines which companies will most likely hire you when you graduate. Because their system is set up differently, the Korean system produces much better educated kids. My middle schoolers were taking calculus... I wonder how many American middle schools are taking calculus at public school?

The third system I have had direct interaction with was the Scottish university system. I studied in Scotland for a semester during university. I had all liberal arts classes. The system varied from the American system in that the professors would give you a grade that in America would be considered bad, let's say a 70%. However, what really mattered was your class rank. You could have a 70% but be ranked #3 in the class. I thought it was a decent education. It pretty much allows room for improvement and was heavy on the reading and writing.

 

[Hermetic Alchemist]

This leads me to Korea where education is a priority. I taught English at 2 middle schools in Korea for a year. Standardized tests are king and key to future success in Korea (which ironically they are in America too via the SAT, GRE, MCAT, DAT, etc., but we don't prepare kids to take these life changing tests in public schools like they do in Korea. Instead we believe that learning is "intangible." To be totally pragmatic about it, we need to prepare kids for the system and the way the system works. When I entered the military, I had to take a standardized test. When I entered university I had to take a standardized test. If I want to work in any gov. bureaucratic system, there will be a standardized test via civil service exams. If I want to be a nurse, lawyer, cop, dentist, MD, physical therapist, teacher, truck driver, etc. there's a standardized test.....). Koreans lack the autonomy and social freedom we're used to in the West, but at the same time, these "weaknesses" are their strengths. The imperial Chinese Confucian culture was imported to Korea from China and has a basis in testing primarily because the Chinese created the world's first bureaucracy via civil service exams to run levee systems to control flooding of various rivers. Anyhow, within Korean public middle schools, standardized tests occurred roughly 2 or 3 times a semester and the test scores reflected which high schools my middle school students would get into. This was an incentive for the kids to study their butts off, which they did. In Korea, high school is the equivalent to college or university in the US. Depending on which high school you attend, and how good your grades are determines which university you will be admitted to. University admission in Korea are key to future success. AKA, the university you get into, not your performance at university, determines which companies will most likely hire you when you graduate. Because their system is set up differently, the Korean system produces much better educated kids. My middle schoolers were taking calculus... I wonder how many American middle schools are taking calculus at public school?

The biggest problem with this system that I see is that you are 'labelled' far too early in life. If you don't get into the 'right' high school (or even elementary school!) you're screwed. For the rest of your life. Some people are late flowering.

These sort of standardized tests also limit individual thought. Learning is by rote, and in these cultures authority is never to be questioned. This stifles innovation.

I got a Ph.D. from the UK and then did post-doctoral research at a top 10 US university. I can assure you that 85-90% of the (post-doc) researchers from the far east were extremely poor at challenging challenging accepted hypotheses, and their innovation suffered because of it. In later life I have also come across many talented individuals who flourished at graduate school, but whose high school careers were often blighted by inconsistent grades (A+s and C's in the same semesters). I suspect this is due to boredom with standardized learning systems.

 

[Jackooboy]

The biggest problem with this system that I see is that you are 'labelled' far too early in life. If you don't get into the 'right' high school (or even elementary school!) you're screwed. For the rest of your life. Some people are late flowering.

These sort of standardized tests also limit individual thought. Learning is by rote, and in these cultures authority is never to be questioned. This stifles innovation.

I got a Ph.D. from the UK and then did post-doctoral research at a top 10 US university. I can assure you that 85-90% of the (post-doc) researchers from the far east were extremely poor at challenging challenging accepted hypotheses, and their innovation suffered because of it. In later life I have also come across many talented individuals who flourished at graduate school, but whose high school careers were often blighted by inconsistent grades (A+s and C's in the same semesters). I suspect this is due to boredom with standardized learning systems.

The Korean system has definite flaws-- but it works within their culture. I would argue in the West we have doomed many millions to lives of unfulfilled potential through a system that is so lax at an early age. I noticed Goldman Sach's said by 2050 Korea will be number 3 in the world in GDP per capita... there's a reason for that...

 

[Hermetic Alchemist]

The Korean system has definite flaws-- but it works within their culture. I would argue in the West we have doomed many millions to lives of unfulfilled potential through a system that is so lax at an early age. I noticed Goldman Sach's said by 2050 Korea will be number 3 in the world in GDP per capita... there's a reason for that...

Although I completely agree with your viewpoint - the Korean system is perhaps not as bad as my original post implied - I would disagree with a couple of your points.

1. You are making the assumption that GDP per capita a good measure for this sort of comparison. Well (despite the fact I am an Adam Smith type capitalist), I'm with HM the (ex) King of Bhutan. Gross National Happiness is more imprtant than GNP.

2. With the current overpopulation of the world, and the increasing use of automation in manufacturing, allied with the fact that not all (skilled) jobs can be done by anyone (i.e. Unfortunately we are not all born (intellectually) equal). From this point on, there are always going to be millions of unfulfilled people. There is a reason that many futuristic novels have the vast majority of people on a basic welfare stipend. I suspect that we as a society need to learn how to channel these people into feeling fulfilled (note : this does not mean that they are going to be contributing to the GDP!).

3. The Korean system means that the Da Vinci's and the Einstein's and Edison's will all be written off due to their early problems. You would then have to ask yourself, is it better for society to have lots of people who are more productive in the middle of the population distribution, or is it better to (on average) lower the productivity rate in the middle (by how much? A 0.5% lowering of productivity of each citizen would have the effect on GDP you're talking about - not much for each person individually!), but allow the geniuses to 'catch-up' after high school. Even now I suspect that the monolithic education system in the US has deprived us of Edison's and Einsteins.

4. Then there is art, and the flowring of society in general. No place for that in a GDP focused society! Not just no Einstein's, but also potential exclusion of Van Gogh's, Mozart, Beethoven ...

One caveat (I am aware of some of the flaws in my own argument.) All of the people I've named have learning disabilities such as dyslexia. I have no real evidence that these people would get excluded by the Korean education system - however it does seem likely. Even more likely is the exclusion of slightly less brilliant people who also have problems in structured learning environments, but who (in some societies) still caught up (but I can't name them since they're not 'famous')

I think that point 3 is the most important. i.e. Push the middle to productivity and don't worry about the (few) outliers who might get left behind. This is going to be totally subjective as to which is better. Make up your own mind on this one!

 

[Jackooboy]

Although I completely agree with your viewpoint - the Korean system is perhaps not as bad as my original post implied - I would disagree with a couple of your points.

1. You are making the assumption that GDP per capita a good measure for this sort of comparison. Well (despite the fact I am an Adam Smith type capitalist), I'm with HM the (ex) King of Bhutan. Gross National Happiness is more imprtant than GNP.

2. With the current overpopulation of the world, and the increasing use of automation in manufacturing, allied with the fact that not all (skilled) jobs can be done by anyone (i.e. Unfortunately we are not all born (intellectually) equal). From this point on, there are always going to be millions of unfulfilled people. There is a reason that many futuristic novels have the vast majority of people on a basic welfare stipend. I suspect that we as a society need to learn how to channel these people into feeling fulfilled (note : this does not mean that they are going to be contributing to the GDP!).

3. The Korean system means that the Da Vinci's and the Einstein's and Edison's will all be written off due to their early problems. You would then have to ask yourself, is it better for society to have lots of people who are more productive in the middle of the population distribution, or is it better to (on average) lower the productivity rate in the middle (by how much? A 0.5% lowering of productivity of each citizen would have the effect on GDP you're talking about - not much for each person individually!), but allow the geniuses to 'catch-up' after high school. Even now I suspect that the monolithic education system in the US has deprived us of Edison's and Einsteins.

4. Then there is art, and the flowring of society in general. No place for that in a GDP focused society! Not just no Einstein's, but also potential exclusion of Van Gogh's, Mozart, Beethoven ...

One caveat (I am aware of some of the flaws in my own argument.) All of the people I've named have learning disabilities such as dyslexia. I have no real evidence that these people would get excluded by the Korean education system - however it does seem likely. Even more likely is the exclusion of slightly less brilliant people who also have problems in structured learning environments, but who (in some societies) still caught up (but I can't name them since they're not 'famous')

I think that point 3 is the most important. i.e. Push the middle to productivity and don't worry about the (few) outliers who might get left behind. This is going to be totally subjective as to which is better. Make up your own mind on this one!

I would make the argument that GDP is directly related to education levels with education levels determining GDP. GDP is also related to happiness. Notice how in this map, the most wealthy nations are happiest... There are some outliers, but for the most part it hold true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_happiness.png

I don't think any public education system is adequately equipped to handle an Einstein, Bach etc. They don't exist to foster genius. They exist to create some sort of "socialization" in which people learn the ropes of society-- and hopefully learn something along the way.

Korea also spends the most money per capita on private education in the world, this is why so many Koreans are good at violin, cello, painting, arts, etc. There are plenty of Koreans who are creative and excel in art, math, science, etc.

Anyhow, your argument about happiness being more important than money is a values question. I personally have suffered economically from the economic destruction US banks and government created-- this has created a misery index in my estimation. Have you ever been poor? Have you ever not been able to get a good job through no real fault of your own? Did you grow up with all of your needs met?

Money and material goods are an important part of happiness. If one cannot have their basic needs met, they most likely won't be happy and will be insecure. Insecurity leads to war and fighting. Unhappiness makes the world a worse place while happy people make the world a better place.

Here's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which explains how humans progress psychologically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Anyhow, GDP relates directly towards where genius people's minds are formed. How many genius people do you see or hear about coming out of Malawi? Not many. I would say the reason is because people are so poor they're concentrated on subsistence farming and survival. When people are focused on this, there isn't time to learn or ponder the laws of science, create art, or practice music. The wealthier a society the more people can study and the more free time they have to devote to other pursuits of genius that you wouldn't have the opportunity to learn in less developed lower GDP societies.

Marx was right about one thing: Follow the money.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I think the problems are in the lack of control that the government will have over the development of its populace. If people learn privately, the system won't know what it's dealing with any more.

 

[Jackooboy]

I think the problems are in the lack of control that the government will have over the development of its populace. If people learn privately, the system won't know what it's dealing with any more.

I agree.

 

[Zionoxis]

Sometimes, I love this section just because the videos you all post keep me entertained for a good half hour and give em something worth thinking about...

 

[Jordan~]

You're all talking about public education as it exists as opposed to how it could conceivably exist. In my view, the problems with public education stem from the profit motive in government, not from government's suppression of the profit motive. The idea is to teach as many people as efficiently (read: cheaply) as possible. That doesn't necessarily need to be the case. There are enough people in developed countries who sit daily to a lunch of six solid gold private jets each consumed at a different one of their country manors to which they'll be carried by robot slaves made of minerals mined from Saturn's moons that we could tax them, and the institutions which granted them their undue wealth, to the point that a system of public education could exist that does satisfactorily address the needs of everyone who uses it. I was privately educated and I don't think I'd have done nearly so well in a public school; of course, we couldn't actually afford it and had 60% of the bill paid for us variously by the government and bursaries from the school, but I think if my peers' parents had been taxed as much as I think they ought to be (because the opulence in which some of them live is disgusting) there could be public schools in which I'd have prospered just as well.
Let me make it clear that there was nothing systematic about my school that allowed me to do well. It was all down to how the staff responded to me. I've had ADHD undiagnosed until last week probably since before I started school; consequently I never did any work and relied on pure talent to get me through exams. Recognising this, my teachers and the management staff made a lot of allowances for me as far as rule-bending was concerned. I really don't think that private education necessarily results in better schools, it's more that private schools attract a better quality of staff (because only the staff who can justify drawing a higher salary by their ability are employed by private schools). If teachers were paid more in general, talented people who could make a lot more money doing something other than teaching who would be excellent teachers nonetheless might be more drawn towards teaching.
I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent because I don't believe in the state, so I don't believe in state education; and ideally I'd like to see education being de-instutitionalised - education would occur on a community basis in an egalitarian society in which teachers didn't have to worry about money because they knew they'd get everything they needed in any case.

 

[Don't mind me]

^

This fat cat can afford all that, but doesn't have the ability to get out of paying your petty taxes? xD

Face it, taxes are for the lower/middle classes. When you have control of the kind of resources that the "disgustingly wealthy" do, finding a loophole, either legal or illegal, is a breeze, no matter what the system is. You might as well send out pamphlets to country clubs and ask for charity: for those who have big cash, taxes actually are voluntary.

 

[Cavallier]

Vouchers are a fine idea. There are plenty of crappy things happening in "Education" these days, vouchers probably can't make it worse.

^Pretty much this.

I wish there was a system by which children (or parents), after they've had a grounding in the basics such as grammar and math, can then choose to go on to a trade school. This is how I would organize the education system if I had the chance:

Schools for the very young can focus on teaching social interaction, reading and writing, languages, critical thinking, and arithmetic. These schools will be free and comprehensive with children from all sorts of background mingling though more exclusive schools may also exist which at a cost utilize non standard teaching practices or focus on specific dogmas. In either sort of school children are to be encouraged to explore and develop independent learning styles. Then around age 10-12 schools will start offering exploratory classes that teach various trades or career tracks. Since the children have been identifying and strengthening their individual learning style they will find they enjoy certain subjects more than others. A child can decide which subjects they love and follow that/those exclusively with a few basic core classes in other subjects necessary to function in society. It would be ideal to have capable councilors/teachers whose soul purpose is to help children decide upon their career track. Children then go on to subject/career oriented secondary schools where they follow their intended career track for next two-six years depending on their proficiency and the complexity of the course material. Schools within a certain career track need not be standardized. However I think certain schools will rise above others as offering a more enticing education or by producing more hire-able or perhaps more focus-within-subject oriented graduates. The kids graduate as journeymen in their fields and either move on to further tertiary education or get an entry level job.

Perhaps there will be field related exams that are highly rated by leaders in those fields but those exams are going to be extremely subject oriented and tailored to meet specific expectations.