Instant Poll: What does education need most? (MPLS Star and Sickle poll to freep)

MPLS Star & Sickle ^ | 3-01-05 | Rakkasan1

[Rakkasan1]

Instant Poll: What does education need most? Star Tribune March 1, 2005 EDNEEDSPOLL

More money

Better teachers

Responsible administrators

Closer government oversight

None of the above

[Rakkasan1]

clearly not more $ in MN- it's half our state's friggin' budget.

[marvlus]

It needs to divest itself of Teacher's unions.

[libertyman]

Yeah, I had to click "None of the above"...I wish that either eliminating teacher's unions, having stronger discipline, or getting government out of education were on the list.

[cspackler]

How did I know that "More Money" would be on top of the list? Yup, just throw more money at it, and it will magically fix itself.

Good ol' money...

[polymuser]

That rag, obviously, needs some education about education.

Let's try Vouchers and Competition for $200, Alex.

[Serenissima Venezia]

"It needs to divest itself of Teacher's unions."

Well put! And as of 3-1-05, 10:47 Pacific Time, the majority said more money. Crazy!

[freedom7]

"Better Teachers" should be a goal in the best of circumstamces. Teacher training is the area most in need of improvement as the training done in university is irrelevent by the time they start teaching. The trade jobs are screaming for workers but we ignore them and continue to push kids toward universities. The teachers could be a tremendous resource for guiding kids into the workplace or further education instead of just shoving curriculum down their throats so the school can get high test scores.

[Paine in the Neck]

Hey. There's no choice for "Break up the NEA."

[Rakkasan1]

what? you mean they're a monopoly?
I thought only the robber barons,gas/oil companies and
software makers were capable of monopoly...(sarcasm)

[Aquinasfan]

I wish that either eliminating teacher's unions, having stronger discipline, or getting government out of education were on the list.

All are impossible for liberals to imagine as possible solutions. You can add vouchers to the list.

[libertyman]

I'm definitely NOT a liberal, but I oppose vouchers: for one thing, if we are talking about the FEDERAL government giving out vouchers, it's unconstitutional (regardless of what the Supreme Court might say). James Madison spoke out against having the feds involved in education PERIOD, therefore vouchers should be left to the states to work out amongst themselves.

Another reason why I oppose vouchers is because I fear that it could eventually result in the death of private education: I don't want to see private schools get addicted to recieving federal handouts, especially once liberals get back in power--you can be sure that when they do, they will use vouchers to make private schools drop all of their religious teachings (after all, not doing so would be a violation of their "separation of church & state" dogma that they worship so highly, wouldn't it?).

I support HOMESCHOOLING, & private education WITHOUT taxpayer $. It is time to seperate SCHOOL & state!

[Aquinasfan]

Another reason why I oppose vouchers is because I fear that it could eventually result in the death of private education:

This is a reasonable objection that I've considered. But I'm of the opinion that the benefits far outweigh the risks.

First, we have to consider the fact that 90% of the school-age population is languishing in the schoolag archipelago. "Education" without God is the most important cause of our cultural decline. "Whoever leads one of these little ones astray..." If we do nothing, our culture will continue its decline, and that decline could eventually entail a complete government takeover of all schooling, including mandatory schooling from birth through age 22. This has been the socialists' goal for many decades. We must do something to stop this from happening.

Secondly, private schools will not be required to accept vouchers. If (and that's a big if) government regulations regarding private schools become excessive, these schools may reject vouchers, or new voucher-rejecting schools will spring up.

But I don't see this happening. Why? Because parents will have a vested interest in protecting their private school from excessive government regulation. Parents of children in a voucher-redeeming school will unite to fight regulation of their school. Not only that, but parents of children in all voucher-redeeming schools will be united in fighting excessive regulation. Currently, theists and atheists, conservatives and socialists, all fight against each other for control of their public school's curriculum. Under a voucher program, these same people will have an incentive to work together against government regulation.

Finally, vouchers may serve as a stepping stone between the status quo and fully privatized schooling.

[libertyman]

So you are willing to risk the end of private education for the temporary relief of having the federal government give vouchers to parents? I think that is a terrible risk to take, & I don't want to see that happem.

But as I mentioned earlier, we must also consider the CONSTITUTIONAL question in this matter as well--which FEW people seem to discuss anymore, including my fellow FReepers, I'm sad to say! I thought that most FReepers (& those who CALL themselves to be "conservative") would take THAT into account when considering federal legislation, but I guess not.

The Constitution doesn't give the feds the authority to be involved in education. The words "schools', "teaching", & "education" aren't in the Constitution. On Feb. 7, 1792, James Madison said the following on the floor of the House of Representatives:

"...if Congress can employ money infefinitely to the general welfare, & are the sole & supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, & parish, & pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume provision for the poor, they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress...".

It is time to ELIMINATE the Dept's. of Education & Transportation, as well as the DEA, federal "hate crimes" laws, & all other federal agencies that are fighting ordinary, common crime. The STATES should take up these issues, & be as strict or as involved in them as they please. The 10th Amendment requires it.

[Aquinasfan]

So you are willing to risk the end of private education...

No. Private schools can always refuse to accept vouchers. And the alternative is the status quo.

...for the temporary relief of having the federal government give vouchers to parents?

The vouchers can be funded at the local or state level. Currently, the feds pay only a small fraction of gov't school costs.

It is time to ELIMINATE the Dept's. of Education & Transportation, as well as the DEA, federal "hate crimes" laws, & all other federal agencies that are fighting ordinary, common crime. The STATES should take up these issues, & be as strict or as involved in them as they please. The 10th Amendment requires it.

I agree.

[libertyman]

But most of the talk I hear is having the FEDERAL government giving the vouchers. THAT should be fought against as strong as possible.

I don't care what the states do on this matter education, fighting crime, profiding for the poort, etc.)---let them do what the people want them to do, as long as they don't violate their state constitutions in the process. We will eventually find out which state programs work the best.

[Serenissima Venezia]

Great points, Aquinasfan. But I have one question. What would fully privatized public schooling be? I was under the impression that once schooling is paid for by the public, through taxes, it is no longer private.

I'm on the fence about vouchers: I'm for them because I see them as the only way for our public schools to change. Competition is the only thing that will be an impetus for change. Even the NCLB act is getting so much resistance and whining from the education people, and I consider it's changes to be pretty small compared to what I would want changed! But, as far as private schools go - the only reason their stats are better is that the parents that send their kids there are involved, IMO. Private school teachers are trained by the same liberal education departments that train our public school teachers, and in many cases, private schools accept teachers with even less qualifications because they pay less. Add to that an influx of kids whose parents are not involved, and the quality of that private school will be no better than public school.

Homeschooling is great, but not all parents are equipped to teach their kids through high school (consider calculus and physics courses! Personally, I could teach those but I've been politely asked by my son to quit 'helping' him with English, since I've been causing his grade to be lowered!)

I see the only real solution is to fix our public schools by getting the unions and the liberals out of education. In my dreams, I guess...... Unless this privatized public schooling works - would it be like contracting out the work?

Michel

[Aquinasfan]

But I have one question. What would fully privatized public schooling be? I was under the impression that once schooling is paid for by the public, through taxes, it is no longer private.

The situation would be analogous to the GI Bill at the university level. The school would remain private. Tuition would simply be paid (at least partially) by the government (through a voucher).

The food stamp program provides another analogy. Food stamp-redeeming food stores remain largely unaffected by participating in the program.

But, as far as private schools go - the only reason their stats are better is that the parents that send their kids there are involved, IMO.

Don't underestimate the importance of the religious component.

The difference was more obvious when Catholic schools, in particular, were largely taught by "volunteers," i.e., nuns and brothers. Socrates had a valid point in criticizing professional teaching.

[Since virtue is identical with knowledge, it can be taught, but not as a professional specialty as the Sophists had pretended to teach it. However, Socrates himself gave no final answer to how virtue can be learned.]

Private school teachers are trained by the same liberal education departments that train our public school teachers, and in many cases, private schools accept teachers with even less qualifications because they pay less. Add to that an influx of kids whose parents are not involved, and the quality of that private school will be no better than public school.

That's often true, but parents can at least choose a school whose mission roughly corresponds to their own.

Homeschooling is great, but not all parents are equipped to teach their kids through high school (consider calculus and physics courses! Personally, I could teach those but I've been politely asked by my son to quit 'helping' him with English, since I've been causing his grade to be lowered!)

I agree, but I think parents often overestimate the difficulty. By high school age, I would expect children to be able to learn on their own. OK, my oldest is in the equivalent of sixth grade, but already she is largely teaching herself.

I see the only real solution is to fix our public schools by getting the unions and the liberals out of education. In my dreams, I guess...... Unless this privatized public schooling works - would it be like contracting out the work?

Yes. The concept boils down to this. Under the current educational regime, taxpayers provide money that is used to finance a one-size-fits-all school system to which individual students are assigned. Under a voucher system, taxpayers provide money that is used to finance the schooling of individual students, who are, along with their parents, free to choose a school which suits their needs.

Under our current system of providing elementary and secondary schooling, both the financing and the provision of schooling are public. Under a voucher system, the financing of schooling is public while the provision of schooling is private.

The voucher system is more just since it puts educational decision-making primarily under the authority of parents, who are their child's natural primary educators. The system also better satisfies the principle of subsidiarity, which "holds that the functions of government should be performed at the lowest level possible, as long as they can be performed adequately. When the needs in question cannot adequately be met at the lower level, then it is not only necessary, but imperative that higher levels of government intervene."

[Serenissima Venezia]

Thanks for the description/answers. It sounds like such a system could create a quick improvement in education by adding in the competition factor. As long as the quality of the numerous new private schools popping up all over could be confirmed somehow, else it could get quite chaotic!

As for kids being able to teach themselves in high school - I don't think that even works well in college! For some exceptional students, as your daughter, but I think the vast majority need motivation from an outside source. And it's hard to get as enthusiastic about a subject from a textbook as from a teacher who loves and is knowlegable about their subject. (Rare, these days, I know!)

And girls are vastly different from boys - have you gone to see your daughter's class, if she's not homeschooled? In my son's class (8th grade), most of the girls are lined up quietly, reading to begin when the bell rings, with everything they need on their desks. The boys .... well, are boys and will hopefully be ready to be serious by their junior year in high school when it counts! When I did my student teaching, I would've loved to have an all-girl class to teach!!

Now, what would be the best way to ensure the quality of schools and their curricula when everyone has school choices (in an ideal world)? And would you get rid of all the current public schools or leave them as an option?