Teaching methods are out-dated.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: mark3748 The idea is that without grades, children and youngsters will be free to develop a genuine interest in the subject matter. Schools teach you to imitate. If you don’t imitate what the teacher wants you get a bad grade.

Which is something I learned at a very young age, but never really applied until my sophomore or junior year of college.

The real game of government school isn't understanding or critical thinking, it is "guess what the teacher is thinking". If you give the answer you believe in, or you truly think is correct, you will get a bad grade. If you give the answer that the teacher thinks is correct, you will get straight "A"s throughout your education.

The real thing that teaches, to those that really catch on, is to think for yourself but give the answer that the authorities expect.

Unfortunately, I didn't really internalize that concept until it was too late to get a good grade point average.

Keith

[Winter wind]

You seem to think if there wasn't state education, there wouldn't be educated people. You seem to think state education is the only answer, though you haven't even thought of alternatives apparently?

No, without the state education many would be educated. It's the group that won't that worries me. Education is a right everybody has, while i don't like the structure of it, somehow and someway there has to be a system of education that actually teaches people and that is mandatory.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind No, without the state education many would be educated. It's the group that won't that worries me. Education is a right everybody has, while i don't like the structure of it, somehow and someway there has to be a system of education that actually teaches people and that is mandatory.

You know, the majority don't vote, anyway. And, there are plenty of illegals to take the jobs of those that are unwilling to earn an education.

As far as I'm concerned, those that refuse the education that's available to them, deserve whatever crap runs up their ass.

Keith

[Winter wind]

As far as I'm concerned, those that refuse the education that's available to them, deserve whatever crap runs up their ass.

What if their too poor to get this education? After all in a completely capitalist society, everything costs money. And if your an orphan, your not going to get the top notch education to release your potential. I'm saying without the state, the class difference would only get worse.

It's like the Vatican during Martin Luther's time. The educated could keep the uneducated in their place while they ruled over them, keeping them from getting educated and threatening their positions. Its not beyond the pail to suggest that people would keep other uneducated just to make them do the dirty work for little pay.

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Why would the government provide education on how to free yourself from it?(regarding use of force against innocent citizens, to raise revenue) Do you think the current system in any way values liberty? How does liberty and STATE RUN EDUCATION from funds TAKEN BY THREAT OF FORCE fit together?

Why would the government provide education for liberty? Because that is how to have a strong Republic and keep all social cost at a bare mimium. It is also how to mobilize the nation during times of war, defining what makes the US different from its enemies.

When we replaced liberal education with education for technology, we stopped transmitting the culture essential to our liberty, and began preparing our young to serve the Military/Industrial Complex for national defense reasons, if we consider destroying our culture and meaning of being American, for military reasons and becoming our enemy, equal to defending our country. I have explained this so many times, I am surprised you asked the question.

We gather taxes from everyone and educate all children, because this is the best way to defend our liberty and keep the cost of social problems low. If you do not object to the shared expense of the military defense of our freedom and liberty, you should not object to the shared educational expense of defending our liberty and freedom.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Athena Why would the government provide education for liberty? Because that is how to have a strong Republic and keep all social cost at a bare mimium. It is also how to mobilize the nation during times of war, defining what makes the US different from its enemies. When we replaced liberal education with education for technology, we stopped transmitting the culture essential to our liberty, and began preparing our young to serve the Military/Industrial Complex for national defense reasons, if we consider destroying our culture and meaning of being American, for military reasons and becoming our enemy, equal to defending our country. I have explained this so many times, I am surprised you asked the question. We gather taxes from everyone and educate all children, because this is the best way to defend our liberty and keep the cost of social problems low. If you do not object to the shared expense of the military defense of our freedom and liberty, you should not object to the shared educational expense of defending our liberty and freedom.

Athena, please, please, please read the links that have been provided to show that we never had a government run education system in this country that was intended to provide a liberal education in support of freedom.

It never has been that way and it never will be that way as long as education is in the hands of the government.

Keith

[Winter wind]

Athena, please, please, please read the links that have been provided to show that we never had a government run education system in this country that was intended to provide a liberal education in support of freedom. It never has been that way and it never will be that way as long as education is in the hands of the government.

The alternative is getting the same education from a company, or relying on a parent who wasn't trained to teach and 9/10 isn't going to have time to teach. I some how doubt that their system will be any different. The fundamental problem with education isn't the government, but the current standard world wide. An innovative system of education must be found. How it is implemented and things like whether or not it should be mandatory is political, and not helpful.

The system should include a one on one system for individual skills and talents, without making it so that the child cannot deal with the world when he/she gets out. Something like channeling the child's skills into practical applications.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind The alternative is getting the same education from a company, or relying on a parent who wasn't trained to teach and 9/10 isn't going to have time to teach. I some how doubt that their system will be any different. The fundamental problem with education isn't the government, but the current standard world wide. An innovative system of education must be found. How it is implemented and things like whether or not it should be mandatory is political, and not helpful. The system should include a one on one system for individual skills and talents, without making it so that the child cannot deal with the world when he/she gets out. Something like channeling the child's skills into practical applications.

If a "system" of education is "universal" and "mandatory" makes a huge difference in the type of education being provided. Once you implement such a system you end up with the "one size fits all" type of system that is used throughout most of the "developed" world today. The one that, at least in the US, is failing a significant number of children.

You can dismiss the abilities of parents because they're "not trained" but I can't imagine leaving such things in the hands of those that have been "trained" and are still failing miserably at providing an education.

btw ... I have been "trained" in education and have little to no respect for the value of such "training". Most parents could do as well or better for their own children simply by knowing clearly who they're dealing with as people and individuals. At one time all schooling was provided by teachers that had no more than 2 years of education past high school through the "Normal School" system. And they taught more broadly and more deeply than anything that is taught in schools today, usually within 8 years, or less, as opposed to the 12 years students have today.

Keith

[Athena]

Quote by: Winter wind No, without the state education many would be educated. It's the group that won't that worries me. Education is a right everybody has, while i don't like the structure of it, somehow and someway there has to be a system of education that actually teaches people and that is mandatory.

You have made the most important point, only I would explain it a little differently. It is the education of the kid across town you need to worry about, because you can see to it your own children learn what you them to learn, but that kid across can cost you more over a life time than your own children. Why? Because that kid could spend a life time in criminal and/or in institutions, and one way or another, you will pay for this.

Many people are concerned about the US becoming a welfare state. Isn't the best way to prevent this, to training them to be good workers.
There is objection to preparing the young to be good and productive citizens, but I think this is the best way to make life good for everyone.
This does not have to mean training like dogs though.

This thread has not mentioned the "method" of teaching yet. What schools teach is not the "method" of teaching. How they teach is the method, and there are two basic methods. We used the Conceptual Method, where students learn increasing complex concepts. With this method the child can be technically wrong, wrong names and confused facts, but still get credit for understanding a concept. Disagreeing with the teacher is okay, because she isn't looking for a right anwer, but the understanding of a concept.

The Behaviorist Method is all about memorizing the technically correct answers. Memorization is more important than logic skills. This method is also used for training dogs, and we might note, dogs don't vote and in most cities must be kept on a leash.

[Winter wind]

You have made the most important point, only I would explain it a little differently. It is the education of the kid across town you need to worry about, because you can see to it your own children learn what you them to learn, but that kid across can cost you more over a life time than your own children. Why? Because that kid could spend a life time in criminal and/or in institutions, and one way or another, you will pay for this.

'

you stated my point much better then I could have.

If a "system" of education is "universal" and "mandatory" makes a huge difference in the type of education being provided. Once you implement such a system you end up with the "one size fits all" type of system that is used throughout most of the "developed" world today. The one that, at least in the US, is failing a significant number of children.

It is a fair argument. But scrapping education does not mean scrapping government involvement. It means to scrap the culture of education entirely. Government comes after that.

You can dismiss the abilities of parents because they're "not trained" but I can't imagine leaving such things in the hands of those that have been "trained" and are still failing miserably at providing an education.

My worry is that the parent won't educate the kid. They won't try or they won't have the time. The mother is too busy pulling the two extra jobs or, like my mom, is on the board of two charities and would not have the time to do it properly. Plus, what if their in an Orphanage? Education has to be available to all regardless of economic status. Wanting to learn is much more importent.

It's not like these parents don't want to educate the kid, it's that sometimes it isn't practical. And the uneducated class only gets more uneducated.

btw ... I have been "trained" in education and have little to no respect for the value of such "training". Most parents could do as well or better for their own children simply by knowing clearly who they're dealing with as people and individuals. At one time all schooling was provided by teachers that had no more than 2 years of education past high school through the "Normal School" system. And they taught more broadly and more deeply than anything that is taught in schools today, usually within 8 years, or less, as opposed to the 12 years students have today.

Again, a point well taken. If the teaching field became more competitive and the market for teachers rose to the rate that teachers made six figure salaries, this would be less of a problem.

[Athena]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger If a "system" of education is "universal" and "mandatory" makes a huge difference in the type of education being provided. Once you implement such a system you end up with the "one size fits all" type of system that is used throughout most of the "developed" world today. The one that, at least in the US, is failing a significant number of children. You can dismiss the abilities of parents because they're "not trained" but I can't imagine leaving such things in the hands of those that have been "trained" and are still failing miserably at providing an education. btw ... I have been "trained" in education and have little to no respect for the value of such "training". Most parents could do as well or better for their own children simply by knowing clearly who they're dealing with as people and individuals. At one time all schooling was provided by teachers that had no more than 2 years of education past high school through the "Normal School" system. And they taught more broadly and more deeply than anything that is taught in schools today, usually within 8 years, or less, as opposed to the 12 years students have today. Keith

Wow, where do you come from?

My grandmother was one of those "Normal School" teachers. She was an excellent first through third grade teacher and resented having to return to college to get a degree when the rules were changed. These teachers were defending democracy in the classroom, by teaching children what it means to be an American and teaching them the basic skills of reading, writing and math. Only these skills are not so basic, because with them.and the concept of ignorance and knowledge that went with them, children were prepared for industrial and civic leadership.

With this education, students who dropped out in the eight grade, went on to own their own businesses. Surely not all of them, but back then they were not trained to rely on industry to provide them jobs. Investors from New York and Japan were not providing industrial jobs, so citizens were not prepared to be products for industry.

We have experienced a shift in wealth and power, and education for this shift is, destroying our democracy. Past education trained for continuing education, which like Ben Franklin's education was not formal education, but reading and discussing with men who were also so driven. What they learned to think about, would make volconvo look like a poorly educated childs activity. A thread about "teaching methods", would be about teaching methods, not subjects taught, or if we should educated everyone or not. Thomas Hobbes, stressed the importance of using the right words for the topic under discussion. How can we have good reasoning when our terms lack so much meaning a thread about method, has nothing to do with method? What kind of clear thinking is this? It is amazing we do as well as do, considering how poorly prepared our education has left us.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Winter wind It is a fair argument. But scrapping education does not mean scrapping government involvement. It means to scrap the culture of education entirely. Government comes after that. My worry is that the parent won't educate the kid. They won't try or they won't have the time. The mother is too busy pulling the two extra jobs or, like my mom, is on the board of two charities and would not have the time to do it properly. Plus, what if their in an Orphanage? Education has to be available to all regardless of economic status. Wanting to learn is much more importent. It's not like these parents don't want to educate the kid, it's that sometimes it isn't practical. And the uneducated class only gets more uneducated. Again, a point well taken. If the teaching field became more competitive and the market for teachers rose to the rate that teachers made six figure salaries, this would be less of a problem.

Given the goals of education in America, I would prefer to NOT have "better qualified and better trained" teachers.

I will refer you to the book Underground History of American Education that I have attempted many times to have Athena read. I understand her fear, I was there at one time myself. I was a trained and certified teacher (actually, teachers use the very poor choice of "certificated" to say they have a teaching certificate) that was seeing problems with our system of government. But, I couldn't bring myself to really become a libertarian because I knew that education was so important. It was very painful to me to learn the truth of the American education system.

It's because education is so important that we need the government out of it.

The author of the above book was a government school teacher in New York City for 29 years. He was selected New York City teacher of the year three times and New York State teacher of the year once. He is knowledgable and experienced in the subject matter of which he writes.

I encourage anyone who cares about education to read his book. The full pre-production version of the book is available at the link above for free reading online.

Keith

[grandpa]

Quote by: mark3748 Robert Persig proved this point very well in a portion of his book, Zen and the Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance. The idea of education as it includes a system, grading and discipline is a mechanism for stamping down the creative genius of young minds.

I've actually borrowed that book, but have hardly read any of it. I can tell you it's a good title, though.

And yes, our education system (like so many others) is geared toward creating Ditto Heads, or people who can hardly challenge mainstream assumptions. I've witnessed classes which do practically nothing to change that. While we don't have totally blank slates, people do pretty much need some inspiration to learn and to foster their "genius."

Steps in the right direction can only be thwarted by "social darwinists" (who ultimately pervert the lessons of Darwin, who maintained, like the anarchist Peter Kropotkin, that cooperation between a species is what best guarantees survival--that the fittest species are precisely the cooperative and social ones).

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Given the goals of education in America, I would prefer to NOT have "better qualified and better trained" teachers.

I was on your side for this. Make the market more competitive, not subsidized by the government. Gee!

I will refer you to the book Underground History of American Education that I have attempted many times to have Athena read. I understand her fear, I was there at one time myself. I was a trained and certified teacher (actually, teachers use the very poor choice of "certificated" to say they have a teaching certificate) that was seeing problems with our system of government. But, I couldn't bring myself to really become a libertarian because I knew that education was so important. It was very painful to me to learn the truth of the American education system.

Don't be so nationalistic (a joke). You think this is just an American problem. Again, I've said it over a thousand times, the system and culture needs to be scrapped, not just the way government handles it. Use the government as a tool, for God's sake, instead of dismissing it immediately. The government is only like this because it can get away with it. Educate more people and demand a change. That the system needs to be over thrown today.
Stop making it political, it just scares people away. The politics isn't the importent point. The world wide standard of education is the thing that needs to be scrapped.


You have yet to address my argument about how it would be better if only the parents did it.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind I was on your side for this. Make the market more competitive, not subsidized by the government.

Is the imagination so limitated on this issue? What we call the "market" and the "government" can be equally misleading and anti-intuitive. Both preach the idea that education must be subsidized, for example. That already distracts from the bare nature of learning and human activity, which needn't absolutely be funded. Education should be about freeing people from artificial restraints and superstitions in a free environment, not about cramming their heads full of dogma like capitalist "subsidization."

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Is the imagination so limitated on this issue? What we call the "market" and the "government" can be equally misleading and anti-intuitive. Both preach the idea that education must be subsidized, for example. That already distracts from the bare nature of learning and human activity, which needn't absolutely be funded. Education should be about freeing people from artificial restraints and superstitions in a free environment, not about cramming their heads full of dogma like capitalist "subsidization."

I'm sorry, but did you read anything else I said? That was a throw away comment, but you went on a whole rant, missing the main point of the post.

It's fine, but I just don't see the point.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind I'm sorry, but did you read anything else I said? That was a throw away comment, but you went on a whole rant, missing the main point of the post. It's fine, but I just don't see the point.

Sorry. I screwed up on that one.

Grandpa h.

[mark3748]

It's seems that you're missing the point, the government (of the US and the rest of the world) is the reason the educational system is a problem. Government educators shouldn't be making six-figure salaries because they aren't doing a good job at what they do, there's no reason to reward mediocrity.

Private schools are much better, they do a far better job at educating children, but they are expensive. Charter schools are an excellent alternative.

My daughter is in a charter school based on this curriculum:

K12: K12 Inc. - Home schooling curriculum, public school options, virtual academy schools, virtual charter, distance learning programs for elementary & high school grades, in Science, Math, History, English, Language Arts and more!

and she is doing far better than I would have ever expected her to do in a public school. It's a virtual school, so it's basically homeschooling, and the parents don't need any teaching training. When the kids get older they can do most of the work themselves.

Anyway, I think a decent solution until something can be worked out to get government completely out (funding and all) is to get the government out of running the curriculum and teaching methods, and letting the public schools run more like charter schools.

[grandpa]

Quote by: mark3748 It's seems that you're missing the point, the government (of the US and the rest of the world) is the reason the educational system is a problem. Government educators shouldn't be making six-figure salaries because they aren't doing a good job at what they do, there's no reason to reward mediocrity.

There are no-win scenarios with respect to the prevailing system. We can "hit the brakes" on it, switch entirely over to the charter system, but I'm sure some of the fundamental problems would remain.
Yes, we shouldn't reward mediocrity, but we shouldn't punish it, either.

To even talk about this is like debating which tricks and schemes we'll use. Still, how do you make education to be its own reward?

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

It's seems that you're missing the point, the government (of the US and the rest of the world) is the reason the educational system is a problem. Government educators shouldn't be making six-figure salaries because they aren't doing a good job at what they do, there's no reason to reward mediocrity.

Or maybe education isnt getting enough attention. So that people that would be very good teachers would go into other businesses. And I object to the notion that teachers all stink, because at my high school, most of the teachers hate the system of education, but tolerate it because they have no way to fight it and keep their jobs. They are hardworking and intelligent. The way they've been taught to teach may be bad, but the teachers themselves are just as varied as people in other professions.

Again again again, the system of education needs to be overhauled. Government has little to do with it.
The standard mean worldwide needs to be completely scrapped and changed.

Even without the government, private education groups are still going to use the 1-12 grade system, and as long as I still see that, the complete overhaul has yet to come.