Why is education so poor?

Lao and I think Thai (very similar languages though) don't have a plural form of "you". It's just "jao", referring to one person or a group.

 

A Democrat or Republican mayor is a lot different than a Democrat or Republican President.

 

I'm probably in this thread to late for discussion, but this is important if any of you ever have kids.

I've got little girls and reports like what the OP is writing about concerned me, so I started looking into schools.

It turns out that what's going on here is that in the US, public schools are EXTREMELY variable.

For the tests used in those studies many schools essentially max them out with near perfect results. Then things start going down smoothly, but still pretty good.

But then quality starts going into a sudden nosedive, perhaps when local income goes below some threshold or due to the presence of gangs or something. The worst schools are ridiculously pathetic.

Since the studies use an average, the worst schools are included, and they pull things down fast.

So on a national scale we need to figure out something there. But at a personal level, you really need to think about the school your kids are going to.

 

I posted this in another thread. I've mentioned some of them already, but this is how we should improve education: All arts classes such as music, art, band, etc. should be cut back a lot. You can take these classes as extra-curriculars or hire someone to help you with them. Language arts classes and reading should also be severely cut back. I haven't learned anything new in English since 3rd grade. All they do is reteach the same thing every year. I have never paid much attention in english classes, but I got a 36 on the English section of the ACT. I propose cutting English classes back to having them every other year or 4 years out of the 12. Reading classes should end by 3rd grade.
Science, Math, history, and shop classes should all be increased. I already knew all the subjects in math during elementary school before they were taught, so math needs to be sped up. In 3rd and 4th grade, they should teach algebra. 5th and 6th grade should be algebra2 and geometry. 7th grade should be trigonometry and 8th grade Calculus. You could probably finish these classes by 6th grade, but to make it more enjoyable and have practical applications, I think 8th grade would be better. Learning should be more fun, and you should work more with your hands instead of sitting in a desk taking notes all day. Science and engineering are the most important professions, and we need as many smart people in these fields as we can get.

Also, English should be made the official language of the U.S. and end all requirements for foreign language by colleges unless that is going to be your major. I think the government should also try to pay for kids who are trying to get ahead by taking college credit courses in high school. If a student finishes high school classes by 9th grade or so, they can go to the nearest community college and take classes there. We need to pay a lot more attention to the smart kids. The below average students won't amount to anything so there is no point paying so much attention to them. Most of them don't care that they are getting bad grades. You really could have kids go their own pace with my system. The top students can still live at home with parents, but take college courses at a community college. This will probably be paid for by the government, since we will waste money on them if we do the current system and a lot of these kids will get scholarships anyway. The kids who are below average can go at the regular pace to complete high school by grade 12.

Also, special education should be reduced significantly. In a high school of 400 we had about 10 special education teachers. That's just ridiculous. We only have about 25-30 total teachers, but we need 10 special education teachers? Their should only be 1 special education teacher in this situation, and find another 9 teachers that can teach upper level courses. If a school is going to get computers, actually use them and don't block everything on them.

There is no need for the bureaucracy of having a school board, a superintendent, a principal, and a vice principal. You should be able to combine these into one job depending on the size of the school. Guidance counselors are not needed in elementary schools, and they definitely do not need aids if they have one. Athletic or activities directors should not exist. The focus should be more on academics than athletics. Practices should be cut in half. Sports should be more about fun instead of winning. Most kids either don't like sports because of this, or they are fed propaganda to like these sports. There should be more intramural sports though, to help with obesity problems, and intramurals are fun. There should be more math and science clubs, quiz bowls, etc. than acting, speech, play production, choir, and band. They should actually feed kids something, instead of starving them to death. The heat should be turned up, so kids aren't miserable and cold the whole time in school so they can't concentrate. Overall, make school something you want to go to instead of being a miserable place.

For college education, we need to cut back on the pointless majors. This includes communications, art, liberal arts, music, English, and many more. There should be a lot more freedom in research. Like I said earlier, a lot of jobs don't really require you to have a college degree, but it just looks good on a resume. College students need to take electives they're interested in rather than something that is easy. My brother said he took a drawing class in college just because it was easy. I'm sure this is very common and should try to be limited more. We need to encourage people to become engineers and scientists instead of doctors and lawyers. Lawyers are absolutely worthless to society and doctors are overpaid and not near as important as most people think they are.

 

Diversity. And yes culture. And I refuse to lose my language, the form to express the ideas of my language.

And what you're defending is imperialism. Something that I am very used to, because many nationalist Spanish people think the same that you. I am from an area that we talk another language, Catalan. However all us we know Spanish, and they say why do we have to learn or talk Catalan, with Spanish is enough.

So not. learn a new language give you more possibilities to understand other people. Also know another styles of thinking, because language also represents a part of the culture, and many ideas can't be expressed in the same way if it is not in your language. Also, learning languages make for you easier understand different expressions even in your own language. Makes your mind more open. Thing that nationalists are really close-minded.

 

Well, in reality English does not have a singular form of "you". You is the plural form.

Always I forget how was the singular you in old English.

 

This is correct.

 

Because America is overly Republican and Republicans are generally poorly educated.

 

I would agree that English is a difficult language to learn (so many exceptions!), but again, that was something I could only appreciate after studying other languages.

 

Kilgram!

Your English has approved massively! (although, keep concentrating on the difference in word order!)

How is the Suomi going?

(=> Now that is a difficult language!)

 

Yes, I am imperialist. People really are no different no matter what language they speak. Most cultures are pretty similar as well. People think the same way no matter what culture you are a part of. People who aren't nationalists are close-minded. They don't see the benefit of using only 1 language. This benefit is called efficiency so that you don't have to waste time and money with translators among other things.

 

When a language is difficult to learn is when it's tonal like many Asian languages.

Mono-syllable tonal languages are particulary difficult. The vocabulary and grammar might appear simple but the tones are a stumbling block. Lao and Thai have four tones, but I think Mandarin has seven.

In Lao for example, the word kai (pronounced gai) can mean near, far or chicken,, depending on how it's toned. Now,, the word sii can mean the number four, colour or fcuk. Asking someone for four chickens can be a nightmare!

 

The answer is that we have a politically protected and tax payer supported sub culture that has no incentive to learn so our teachers have to teach around the kids from this group.

Then there is the fact that schools can teach immorality but in some states are mandated to teach children that perverted live styles are normal and good for our country . But they can't let a kid wear a christian symbol outside their clothing . The progressives have expanded the wall that was designed to keep the federal government from set up a national religion to a thousand mille high wall that cuts through our states and counties to a point that a local school has to punish kids who pray a football games.

 

I lol'd

 

Suomi is being a nightmare I've ever seen no more difficult thing in my life. Even is harder than the Japanese.

 

You and me are really different. We are similars, but not so much.

And no, and why must be imposed your language to the rest? Sorry, but I can't stand the wannabe dictators.

I don't want efficiency. I want freedom!!!

 

The question is not whether the US education system must change. Of course it must.

The question is not in what direction it must change is not all that difficult to figure out. The "child-centric" culture around US education has to go.

The question is what is the first step. Even that is fairly clear. The single-education paradigm has to return to a multi-path approach. You cannot resist competition. We must embrace it to improve our educational system.

 

I'd rather have efficiency than freedom. Freedom is not always best for people. And how is it freedom if I'm required to take a Spanish class to go to college? Shouldn't I have the freedom to not choose to do that?

 

Someone else touched on one change that has to happen.

The trend to consolidation of schools has got to stop.

In the changes made in the 1980s to a more quality-oriented manufacturing culture, it was recognized that the old factories that employed 10,000 people in one location were just not manageable. And in the factories everyone was there (more or less) voluntarily and got paid for working there. In the schools a goodly percentage of the students would rather be elsewhere doing other things.

How big should schools be? 100 students per grade.

 

Somebody lamented the lack of teaching "critical thinking."

Hogwash.

Critical thinking flows out of a knowledge of fundamentals. Someone who thinks he/she is capable of "critical thinking" but has no basis in fundamentals is just a troublemaker.

Teach sound fundamentals. Critical thinking will follow.

 

The thing I can't stand is people think education was any better in the 1970's or so. The teachers were probably worse and the kids weren't any better. Using the church in education isn't going to help anything either. Teachers will worry more about "discipline" than teaching if you brought certain punishments back. It's the parents job to discipline children. Education has always been terrible.

 

I kind of agree that teaching critical thinking is pointless. Students kind of have to learn that on their own. Critical thinking is not really useless, but teaching critical thinking is doing the opposite of critical thinking. I'm sorry if this doesn't make much sense. It's hard to explain.

 

Parents' actions are beyond the scope of government. They are what they are.

A proper set of motivational carrots and sticks will engage the motivated parents. You can't do anything about the unmotivated parents.

You can motivate students, within reasonable bounds.

Let's face it. Some students can and will learn. Some students cannot or will not learn. Accept the normal human variability. Jettison or warehouse the morons and help the performers perform. Cease letting the morons dictate to the performers. Segregate winners from losers.

This is why a 100% voucher system will work. Motivated parents will seek to get their kids into what they perceive to be "good schools" and will accept in-school discipline and reinforce it at home. Parents that couldn't care less won't bother with the schools.

Equality of outcome is impossible. All public schools have to do is offer equality of opportunity. What students (driven by parents) partake of that opportunity is their own responsibility.

 

I don't think you've addressed all of the concerns. For all we know, replacing the entire public school system with a voucher system may not improve this nation at all.

Here some pros/cons to consider.

 

Where are you required to do that?