Posted on 07/04/2012 7:43:33 AM PDT by wintertime
Here are a few suggestions that would cost the taxpayer nothing and possibly save them BILLIONS :
1) Open up the GED to any child of **any** age. Remove all age restrictions on these exams! If they pass this exam, or similar private exam, award them an official high school diploma from their local government owned and run socialist-entitlement K-12 school.
2) Encourage employers to use SAT and ACT scores as measures of a young adult's capacity to learn the job. (Honestly, why does the event's planner at the local Marriott need a bachelors degree? )Most of the work done in the U.S.A. does not specifically need a university level education, and most of the career skills learned is through on the job training.
3) Encourage certifiable qualifying exams. If my son can take a rigorous and **certifiable** Certified Public Accountant licensing exam at a local testing center, then why can't these centers give certifiable tests in Algebra, Calculus, 7th grade social studies, or 1st grade phonics? Bright children and their parents would be more likely to seek education on-line. If a child passes a specific level in a specific subject he should be immediately moved to the next level in his government socialist entitlement school. ( Cost to the taxpayer: NOTHING!)
All of the above suggestions would allow bright children to move through their education more quickly, thereby saving the taxpayer millions. Fewer teachers would be needed. The prison-like government schools could be consolidated and some completely closed due to lower enrollment. School taxes could be reduced and the money saved in would then be invested in areas of the economy that would produce jobs, wealth, health, and community infrastructure for the citizens to enjoy.
These suggestions, that would cost **NOTHING** to the taxpayer, would provide employers the information that they need to affirm that the applicant was sufficiently literate, numerate, and intelligent enough to do the job.
Young people would be able to start their careers years earlier, and earn tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars more over a lifetime. ( That alone would boost the economy.) They would be in less debt and able to start families and buy homes years sooner. Not only would this improve the economy, it would improve the culture. Having hairy adult Peter Pans, unmarried, and unsettled into their late twenties and early thirties is NOT good for them or our nation.
Finally...Regarding the GED or similar private exam:
Having an official high school diploma removes the stigma of the GED, and makes entry into the military and obtaining post high school scholarships far more straight forward. The age restrictions on taking this exam should be immediately removed.
Liberals don’t like tests. Liberals (leftists) claim that using test scores is racist.
The Obama dept of education wants to eliminate testing and substitute apprenticeships for the last two years of education and base all union promotions on seniority, not testing. This would give the “disadvantaged” students who took the apprenticeships rather than the last two years of high school, above the high school graduate in seniority.
So, instead of someone applying for police academy after taking a two year community college course in criminology, we would have former gang bangers graduating from high school with a two year apprenticeship and completed police academy requirements. No testing.
What percentage of those young people really wanted to be in college, but were only going through the motions because a degree is the first step toward a job?
How many of those vomiting students would have been happier, more productive, more settled, married with a home and family, and **healthier*** if they had had an opportunity for a **real** job at the age of 15, 18, or 20 and skipped college completely!
I bet if employers moved toward certifiable qualifying exams, SAT scores, and internships ( instead of the vomiting college degree) the rate of genital herpes infections would go way DOWN!
Honestly, it is hard sometimes to differentiate between satire and the real thing. :-)
“If they can do what you say as McDonald’s, then they’ll probably so the same at an accounting job.”
And if they can PROOFREAD better than me, their future is even brighter.
Yeah, you would hope that Obama’s education plan was satire, but it is the real thing. Several states have already moved to make 12 grade optional, and I think that there is at least one state that has made both 11th and 12th grade optional.
It’s racist, you know, to require a disadvantaged student to remain in class and complete the same graduation requirements as the children of White capitalists.
Jobs are becoming more complex so higher education after HS is needed whether that be a 2 year technical degree or a 4 year college degree.
For instance, it's near mandatory today for auto mechanics to have some sort of post HS technical degree to learn to work on cars due to their complexity. Jobs are fast paced and lot's of competition between co's and an employer does not want to train employees today..if they do they are already not as competitive as their competition.
My local electrical utility co now requires a 2 year electronics degree for any employment within the co because employees do a myriad of jobs within the co..not just one position.
This is no longer the 50's where jobs were way less complex/technical and you could start at the bottom and work your way up. Employees are expensive and a employer wants you to know the basics in your field before he or she hires you. He does not want to train you for the 1st 1-2 years.
Parents who tell their children they don't need at least a 2 year technical degree and just to go out and get a job are in a nutshell short changing their children and are doing them a major disservice in life. Today a very small percentage of people become successful without some sort of post HS education.
1.) In each school, and in each school district, eliminate one administrative position (and by administrative I do not mean support staff). At the state level, eliminate five administrative positions. Use the money thus saved to increase teacher salaries, hire additional teachers, and purchase needed classroom supplies.
2.) If, at the end of the year, student achievement has not improved significantly (as measured by standard tests, chosen at random to eliminate "teaching to the test"), repeat the process.
In very short order the administrators will figure out how to improve education in order to save their phoney-baloney jobs.
“Jobs are becoming more complex so higher education after HS is needed whether that be a 2 year technical degree or a 4 year college degree...For instance, it’s near mandatory today for auto mechanics to have some sort of post HS technical degree to learn to work on cars due to their complexity.”
Having turned a wrench or two the past few decades, I think that I can say that while cars may be more complex than 40 years ago, they are also much easier to work on - since they now tell you where the problem is, thanks to their electronics. In the past, if an engine ran rough, you’d have to work down a rather extended list of possibilities, now the computer takes care of most of them and many of the reasons for a rough ride are gone or are detectable through the computer (points, ignition wires, coils, carburetors, timing, etc.). What’s left are things like low compression, low fuel pressure (maybe), and wheel balancing.
But you do have to know how to read now, to be able to understand a trouble code and then how to fix the device causing the trouble. The difference is that 40 years ago, kids could read when they finished high school - now they can’t - so the 2 year degree gets them quite a bit closer to the capabilities of high school graduates back then.
1) You are correct, regarding today’s culture and work environment. Personally, all of my four children have a minimum of a B.S. degree. Two have masters degrees.
2) You are correct. Post high school level training is needed for technical jobs. Some of those technical specialties such as engineering, physical therapy, medicine, pharmacy etc. are likely best acquired in a university setting.
My argument is that for many jobs in the United States a college degree is not needed and for those jobs we should encourage employers to move toward certifiable qualifying exams, SAT and ACT scores, and internships. For example, why require a college degree for the events planner at the local Marriott?
Certifiable qualifying exams for all subjects starting in first grade would do two things:
—move the bright students through the system faster allowing the student to begin his career soon
— save taxpayers BILLIONS.
Regarding the GED:
Allow any student of **any** age to take the GED or similar exam and award them an official high school diploma. Any student who couldn’t pass the GED by age 19 should be given a certificate of attendance. An official high school diploma by way of the GED would allow the student to begin their careers years earlier ( making **thousands** for the student) and also saving the taxpayers BILLIONS!
Also ( unrelated to the topic) all government socialist-entitlement school teachers should be required to take the GED every 4 years. ( Most would fail the math section.) And...All SAT and ACT scores of all government socialist-entitlement school teachers should be posted ON-LINE for all to see!
. Use the money thus saved to increase teacher salaries, hire additional teachers, and purchase needed classroom supplies.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Heaven’s NO!
This is feeding money to the godless socialist-entitlement school beast!
The idea is to get as many kids OUT of the maw of Marxist indoctrination machine and into their careers doing real work, making real money, and creating real health and wealth for all to enjoy.
Well, apparently this poster does not take into account that a first-level management position is the starting place where new hires are placed to start their climb to higher levels, for which a real college training is necessary. Filling these levels with candidates for which the level is terminal, blocks access to those who have greater potential.
Such trainees will get shorter assignments across the spectrum to prepare for greater responsibilities.
As a concrete instance, the poster here doesn't know enough grammar to properly use an apostrophe, and has made event's a possessive when the word events, a plural, is needed. An events planner writing notices and announcements for events needs to be a little more refined so the product is not marred by ignorance of grammar and spelling.
Lack of such polish isn't very important for FR posting, but is critical in presenting an urbane image for the employer. A diploma or degree is supposed to supply basic non-negotiable qualifications for career growth.
No employer seeking the benefit of his company wants to hire new employees into positions for which they barely qualify and above which they cannot rise. And his company cannot remain competitive if his employee base cannot grasp changes that require greater business acumen and technological advances going forward.
Oh no! A Grammar Nazi!
By the way, do you or your spouse earn money by way of the education-industrial complex? ( Just wondering.)
A diploma or degree is NOT needed. What **is** needed are the information and skills. These skills do not necessarily need to be acquired on a college campus and certifiable qualifying exams could provide the proof needed for an employer.
Internships are now almost universally required, when, not so long ago, they weren't. Could it be that employers require internships today because the college degree is now almost universally **worthless** in determining if the applicant is sufficiently literate and numerate and posses the information and skills needed to progress in the company?
Here’s a video for you:
Charles Murray Attacks Education Myths
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/charles-murray-attacks-education-myths
Here’s a video for you:
Charles Murray Attacks Education Myths
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/charles-murray-attacks-education-myths
If you are person of goodwill, and not merely someone benefiting from and defending the education-industrial complex, you will view the video.
Om FR generally, no. But here you put yourself in a position where accuracy is necessary to support your theory. Employers wanting to put their best foot forward are grammar Nazis. So are effective secretaries, ne plus ultra
A further requirement of employers is that their workers can accept correction with equanimity and reform their performance. Can you accept correction?
Will self-taught people who have not learned under a critical master be able to correctly respond to, and effectively use, authority? (MIT, West Point, Johns Hopkins)
What might be the outcome of the changes you propose? Have you examined and anticipated the potential for unintended consequences?
Have you tied out this concept on a pilot-scale basis?
Would you be willing to subject this idea to a quality analysis?
Have you asked, say, several experienced business owners and community leaders as to whether they think billions might be saved?
Who is going to be responsible that a child with great potential will have parents who will recognize and develop it? The child may not know until the time to be aware of it and capitalize is past.
Seems as though the point of organized effective education is to avoid learning by mistakes, thus saving billions of dollars by spending a few thousand in preparation, and at the earliest stage possible.
Just a few thoughts.
I think you proposal is too simplistic, like that of most liberals.
This is not a personal attack, just an observation. You have some points for consideration, but they are raw and not well thought out.
Suggest you take it back to the drawing board and get some wise counsel.
Perhaps you could explain why you ask and what you wish to acheive?
I'm wondering, too, why you are this nosy. I'll tell you, but you might be upfront with a reason why.
And this line of inquiry, being personal, might better be served by FR's (see the apostrophe?) feature.
When did our government's socialist-entitlement schools ever subject their theories to quality analysis or pilot studies? Where are the studies that even begin to PROVE that government schools teach anything at all? Where are the studies that separate out the massive AFTERSCHOOLING and PRESCHOOLING done by the parents, the child ( himself), and by paid and unpaid tutors? Fundamentally, we spend up to $30,000/child/year and we do NOT know if government schooling works!
How about using homeschoolers who are graduating from high school and college YEARS ahead of their contemporaries as proof that these children have indeed benefited by accelerating their studies? What about the homeschoolers who have started thriving businesses even before they were teenagers? Let's start the studies there in that HUGE petri dish!
As for grammar:
The ring's owner
The event's planner.
You are focusing in on a MINOR discrepancy in grammar in an attempt to discredit my argument. It is a form of ad hominem attack. By doing this Freeper’s will strongly suspect that you are one of the feeders at the trough of the educational-industrial complex and therefore one of its defenders. Oink!
Thank you for the ping.
Brilliant suggestions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.