patrick.net

Nobody says

I am curious. If you guys are naively thinking that education systems is equally available to every kid?

Obviously not. And the only way it can ever be made equally available to all people, minors or adults, is What's wrong with the educational system and how to fix it.

lostand confused says

Well, it could turn the other way around as George Bernard Shaw said.

I've thought about this, but came to the conclusion that the other scenario was far more likely. You see, in order to survive and reproduce, you have to have genes, and more importantly, the traits created by genes that allow you to survive and reproduce.

If you are beautiful, you're survival and reproductive chances are much better. But if those beauty traits are recessive, then your kids or grand-kids will be ugly and won't survive and reproduce. Thus there is evolutionary pressure for beauty traits to be dominant. The same logic goes for intelligent traits.

Consequentially, the offspring of one beautiful parent and one intelligent one should have dominate genes for both beauty and intelligence. Now, if only I could find a really smart woman to test this theory...

Rin says

Fellas, we're in the age of the internet. When I was in school, resources like the sites below, simply did not exist.

http://www.academicearth.org

http://www.khanacademy.org

Now, given that we have much of the pertinent educational content online, why are we still bickering about teachers, class sizes, etc? It seems like the focus on 'fixing' education is very 20th century, when kids should already be learning online and be done with school before coming of age.

Rin says

Fellas, we're in the age of the internet. When I was in school, resources like the sites below, simply did not exist.

http://www.academicearth.org

http://www.khanacademy.org

Now, given that we have much of the pertinent educational content online, why are we still bickering about teachers, class sizes, etc? It seems like the focus on 'fixing' education is very 20th century, when kids should already be learning online and be done with school before coming of age.

Very idealistic. It reeks of the same idea that people were spouting in the early 90s about how the internet was going to make everyone smart. A website like the Khan academy is only useful to kids motivated enough and smart enough to learn from a video. I'd say it would work for roughly 25% of the populace at best. The rest of the kids need teachers to walk them through it and reinforce the material. If you believe the Khan Academy is going to revolutionize education it won't. I teach Physics and Chemistry. I can honestly tell you, the videos from the Khan Academy fall well short of providing kids with a comprehensive exposure to the subject material in general. It's a good supplemental resource. But it's not a primary means one should use to educate themselves. That's what books are for.

theoakman says

about how the internet was going to make everyone smart. A website like the Khan academy is only useful to kids motivated enough and smart enough to learn from a video. I'd say it would work for roughly 25% of the populace at best. The rest of the kids need teachers to walk them through it and reinforce the material. If you believe the Khan Academy is going to revolutionize education it won't. I teach Physics and Chemistry. I can honestly tell you, the videos from the Khan Academy fall well short of providing kids with a comprehensive exposure

I don't think anyone honestly believed that the internet was going to make people *smart*; at most, better connected to the world outside of their hometown. And Khan Academy is a man's first attempt at putting kid's material online so naturally, it's not going to cover everything. But isn't it to get kids interested in these subjects before HS and not afterwards? I was lucky as a child, to have had an Encyclopedia Britannica nearby, otherwise, I probably wouldn't have made it through the system. Plus, private Kumon tutoring seems to be doing well at getting slow kids to a good start.

If you go through the free college courses, I'd have a tough time believing that they don't cover the same amount of material in HS chemistry over there (http://www.academicearth.org/courses/principles-of-chemical-science-track-1). That's MIT's chemistry dept. Don't you think that even a modestly slow kid, could spend a week, digesting each lecture with his parents, and learn the material at a decent rate?

I'd also taught two courses at a HS and what I'd discovered is that the courses were not taught to maximize the students' recall. I ended up seeing the same prior results as you'd described, 25% of the students *get it* and much of the remaining 75% tune out. I'd radically changed how my sections were taught, reversing the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve, and raised everyone's exam scores, including the D students.

Rin says

I don't think anyone honestly believed that the internet was going to make people *smart*; at most, better connected to the world outside of their hometown. And Khan Academy is a man's first attempt at putting kid's material online so naturally, it's not going to cover everything.

Actually, plenty of people bought into the idea that the internet would make everyone smart. People went on the lecture circuit and sold books dedicated to the idea. Those same type of people are now on the lecture circuit and writing books about how education will completely transform itself by replacing teachers or the traditional classroom with video lecture. Khan academy is supposed to serve a number of purposes, one of which you hit the nail on the head. The idea is that anyone can get an education for free. There's no doubt that the material developed by the Khan Academy is incredibly impressive. Nonetheless, it's supplemental material, not a primary resource that should be relied upon.

MIT's Physics Lectures by Walter Lewin have been available for 10 years. They are easily the most comprehensive and best lectures I've ever encountered in my entire academic career. Nonetheless, they have hardly put a dent in the idea that they would revolutionize education. Those amazing lectures are free and widely available. Yet, I'm willing to bet those lectures have not succeeded in eliminating a single teacher's job. Some students choose to watch them. Others have no clue. Others have no desire. At the end of the day, its just a resource.

Only the smart students with motivation are capable of teaching themselves effectively. The rest need a teacher.

Need better parents!

FortWayne says

We don't reward good teachers or fire bad teachers.
We don't promote good teachers, unions are soul killing seniority system.
We don't promote competition, students are forced into certain schools and a union decides on how it is ran.

You couldn't be more wrong on all of this.

Good teachers are often rewarded (at least eventually) with good classes.

Bad teachers are often harrassed and slowly pushed out of the field.

Unions have VERY little to do with how schools are run. They only fight for things like fair compensation, and smaller class sizes, and for enforcement of teachers contractual rights.

This is your pet issue, but I feel sorry for you that you would try to speak with authority so often, about something you truly no nothing about.

It's very simple. Your overlords, the ones who make the propaganda that you so readily absorb, simply don't want to pay for public education.

marcus says

Unions have VERY little to do with how schools are run. They only fight for things like fair compensation, and smaller class sizes, and for enforcement of teachers contractual rights.

Why does one need to fight for "fair" compensation? If teachers think they are paid too little they should quit and do something else.

If they succeed, good for them.

If they fail, it is a proof that their compensations have been at least fair.

In this current form, we may as well not have public education at all.

I still think public education is important, but

1. it is NOT a substitute for good parenting
2. we need to drastically cut costs by introducing competitions
3. higher education should be de-emphasized

School vouchers is a darn good solution.

(1) is hard to solve. But I think at least 50% of all families should not have kids.

Peter P says

marcus says

Unions have VERY little to do with how schools are run. They only fight for things like fair compensation, and smaller class sizes, and for enforcement of teachers contractual rights.

Why does one need to fight for "fair" compensation? If teachers think they are paid too little they should quit and do something else.

If they succeed, good for them.

If they fail, it is a proof that their compensations have been at least fair.

Teachers should receive competitive salaries and they are on the low side now. That being said, out-performing teachers should get more and non-performers should be able to get laid off much much faster than right now. Pensions should be regular 401Ks, CDs or whatever the individual chooses to invest in. No guaranteed yearly appreciation whatsoever. Universities are worse, luscious salaries while they let tuitions skyrocket just because the government gives a loan to everybody. The professors have joined the ranks of realtors and bankstas. You can go to any European country and get an on par or better education for a fraction of the tuition you pay in the US.

mell says

Universities are worse, luscious salaries while they let tuitions skyrocket just because the government gives a loan to everybody.

Well said!

mell says

Teachers should receive competitive salaries and they are on the low side now.

Then why are they still there?

Peter P says

Then why are they still there?

I think by design. Basically to stay with mediocrity a system was designed where pay is not that great but benefits are outstanding, so you can muddle through the system without skills relatively protected and just have to hang in there until you can retire. If we had scratched those guaranteed pensions long ago and made it easier to lay off teachers we would have had ample money to incentivise good teachers and focus on their performance. I know quite a few teachers who argue the same, i.e. that there's too much dead weight kept in the system keeping the salaries low.

I think the muddling-through mentality is also prevalent in most sufficiently large organizations.

Peter P says

Why does one need to fight for "fair" compensation? If teachers think they are paid too little they should quit and do something else.

Okay, then how is compensation for an important public service job such as teachers determined ? Is it just pay as little as possible ? This isn't a for profit situation where maximization of profits will naturally lead to an appropriate market determined pay for employees. The profit, is having a productive and intelligent citizenry in the future.

IT's really funny when you think about it. The plutocracy wants to pay less for teachers, and they supposedly want the quality of public education to go up.

If only the unions would get out of the way, we would be able to get so much more for our money in the way of teachers.

marcus says

Okay, then how is compensation for an important public service job such as teachers determined ?

Change all contracts to at-will and allow pay be determined on a case-by-case basis. Also, let parents choose any school they want and let school districts levy a premium or surcharge.

The invisible hand will set the price.

This isn't a for profit situation where maximization of profits will naturally lead to an appropriate market determined pay for employees. The profit, is having a progduntive and intelligent citizenry in the future.

Yes. This is why education ought to be privatized as much as possible.

Peter P says

1) Encourage at least one parent to stay home and raise the kids

How may this be done? At any rate it may work only with about the top 10% of the income.

There is a way to increase this percentage. For example, by an education system that is free only for top students (like for 25-20% of them) and for the rest it would be partially covered by vouchers payable to schools as well as to homeschooling parents. That would be a good incentive for both parents and students. Also, it would be a good way of rewarding success rather than rewarding failure the way it works today.

Peter P says

2) Dissociate school assignment from residency

A great idea, but impossible because it will kill the housing fortresses. Too many of the "upper middle class" will fight to death against it.

Peter P says

3) Teach kids to find passions, ask questions, and get answers with help

Easier said than done. We have a huge problem here especially in teaching mathematics, which we practically destroyed during the last half a century. All they teach today is knowing facts, remembering formulas and in the best case understanding how to use these formulas to make certain calculations. There is absolutely no teaching of how math research is done, neither how to prove in mathematics nor how mathematics are built.
However, it's practically impossible to fix now, since all teachers we have today are themselves victims of this education.
One way to do something about it could be promoting international problem solving competitions and highly rewarding students who succeed in them.
Peter P says

4) De-emphasize higher education for all except specialized areas

College degree today is an equivalent of a high school diploma forty years ago. The idea that higher education is for training scientists has moved to post-graduate studies. As the result we got a huge waste of four most productive years our youth paid for a chance of getting a dissent job.

But how this may be undone? You can't force corporations to hire professionals w/o college degree even in cases the degree is irrelevant to the job.Peter P says

Throwing money at a failure will only turn it into an expensive failure.

Right, how about throwing money at very expensive failure? You surely know the answer: it supports the "economy".

Peter P says

But I think at least 50% of all families should not have kids.

This is one thing I strongly disagree on. Having most of families childless you can't asure a reproductive fertility rate, which is about 2.1 children per woman, all women counted, including infertile, lesbian, you name it.

This is a huge problem for most of "developed" countries, they can't survive without importing population and a lot of it.

theoakman says

Only the smart students with motivation are capable of teaching themselves effectively. The rest need a teacher.

Or maybe they need to pay for their education? This alone will make many students smarter and motivated.
Are you sure the society benefits in any way from dragging a stupid student with no motivation thru the high school?

Peter P says

Parents should invest time and money in their own kids. Those who cannot do so should not have kids.

Peter,

So in your view, only a rich people should have kids?

Peter P says

Equality is futile. Perhaps the society should discourage uncaring parents from having kids.

I actually think the federal government *should* use taxpayer money to pay for free condoms and abortions.

This statement is not consistent with your first statement. Is it uncaring or poor family who can't invest time and MONEY? Which one is it? You must be a naive immature fellow to think that everyone who has kids should be able to afford their kids proper education. You must be the product of education budget cut. I hope most people care enough for people like you to get better education.

In a mean time, what would you do about the EXITING kids whose parents can't invest their time and MONEY? What do you do about the reality? Just cut the tax and budget for school?

Nobody says

Peter,

So in your view, only a rich people should have kids?

I think only people with time and money should have kids. Honestly, I cannot afford kids.

It is a lifestyle decision too. I can't spare time nor money on this negative cashflow.

Peter P says

I think only people with time and money should have kids. Honestly, I cannot afford kids.

That is your opinion. You have no solution for the current problem. I have just edited more.

BTW, the costs of raising kids are kept unnecessarily high:

1. cost of child-care (or even higher opportunity cost)
2. cost of baby-sitters (or bad quality of life)
3. cost of education (school district or private school)
4. too much regulations (e.g. car seats, etc)

Nobody says

In a mean time, what would you do about the EXITING kids whose parents can't invest their time and MONEY? What do you do about the reality? Just cut the tax and budget for school?

They are mistakes. Some of them can be inspired enough to do good stuff. The rest will have to be handled by LE.

For the long term, cap-and-trade birth permits can solve a lot of problems. From "AGW" to overcrowding to world hunger.

Peter P says

BTW, the costs of raising kids are kept unnecessarily high:

So what? We are living in a system where the rich is in a position to milk more money from the middle class. Didn't you know that by now?

Your short-sightedness amazes me. You are not offering any solution. The thread is "How to fix education?" Not screw those kids whose parents happened to be poor.

Peter P says

They are mistakes. Some of them can be inspired enough to do good stuff. The rest will have to be handled by LE.

Your ignorance amazes me. Do you even know how much it would cost tax payers to execute? It is in our best interest to give right education to the kids, so they can be the contributing member of the society, not a criminal.

Fixing education can mean that we cannot have a one-size-fits-all solution. Education does not have to be an extension of the all-people-are-equal-but-some-are-more-equal-than-others worldview.

If we are honest to ourselves, equality cannot be forced and it needs not be manifested in education.

A lot of problems in education come from the reality that capable families are less incentivized to have kids than incapable families. This means it will only get worse.

Nobody says

Do you even know how much it would cost tax payers to execute? It is in our best interest to give right education to the kids, so they can be the contributing member of the society, not a criminal.

We need prison reform too. Most criminals should not be incarcerated.

For the same effectiveness, it can be cheaper to increase enforcement and reduce punishment.

And you think the right education can necessarily make kids contributing members of the society? Family upbringing is even more important.

Look, if we can reduce childbirths from these two groups the world will be much better:

1. kids produced because the parents failed to use contraception
2. kids produced because the parents thought they were expected to have kids

Only people who want kids should have kids. Then they can make time and money for the kids. I love food, so I have expensive 3-hour dinners. Lifestyle choice.

michaelsch says

This is a huge problem for most of "developed" countries, they can't survive without importing population and a lot of it.

Importing population is arguably better because you get a self-selected group of people who want to do better. With welfare reform, it is possible to open the borders.

Peter P says

Look, if we can reduce childbirths from these two groups the world will be much better:

1. kids produced because the parents failed to use contraception

2. kids produced because the parents thought they were expected to have kids

Only people who want kids should have kids. Then they can make time and money for the kids. I love food, so I have expensive 3-hour dinners. Lifestyle choice.

It simply does not work this way. Europe has implemented this and now it's in the worst crisis. The demographic one, which is worse than the Euro crisis and anything else they messed up. They have ended up with a huge senile population and nobody to support them.

Europe needs to fix its entitlement system and open its borders.

Unwanted children are more likely to be a net liability when they grow up.

Defined-benefit retirement systems are fragile and are unsustainable.

Peter P says

Unwanted children are more likely to be a net liability when they grow up.

Well, you obviously have no kids. In 99% of the cases unwanted children turn to very much wanted as the parents get acquainted with them, and vise versa, some parents who wanted kids, often turn into disappointed bad parents.
This is one thing you no very little about untill you get into it.Peter P says

Europe needs to fix its entitlement system and open its borders.

It has nothing to do with the entitlement system. Their entitlement system is about redistributing wealth. Their problem is that their society can't be productive. BTW, the worst problem is in ex-cathoilic countries like Italy and Spain.

michaelsch says

In 99% of the cases unwanted children turn to very much wanted as the parents get acquainted with them, and vise versa, some parents who wanted kids, often turn into disappointed bad parents.

I have friends who truly want kids. They jump through many hoops just to have a child.

I also know people who have kids because their parents had kids. They somehow convinced themselves that kids are the greatest thing on earth. (Escalation of commitment?)

Kind of like homeownership.

michaelsch says

Their entitlement system is about redistributing wealth. Their problem is that their society can't be productive.

You answered your own question.

A government has no business re-distributing wealth. It ought to safe-guard the market against excessive rent-seeking instead.

Peter P says

And you think the right education can necessarily make kids contributing members of the society? Family upbringing is even more important.

Well, you are the proof of what I am saying.

Are you this ignorant? Without education, even the right upbringing just goes to hell. I suppose in your own little world, the right upbringing is all you need. For the rest of the world, the education is the most integral part of success.

Peter P says

Fixing education can mean that we cannot have a one-size-fits-all solution.

Unfortunately, we have to. Don't you know this by now? I am amazed how immature your thought process is. Are you a stay home jr. high school student?

michaelsch says

Well, you obviously have no kids.

Micheal,

How can a kid have a child?

Nobody says

Unfortunately, we have to. Don't you know this by now? I am amazed how immature your thought process is. Are you a stay home jr. high school student?

I don't know... nothing is more important than questioning the system. Education sure as hell will NOT do that. Schools focus too much on practical knowledge and they do not teach kids the need to design their own value system.

Nobody says

How can a kid have a child?

LOL, I wish I were a kid. Time is a non-renewable resource. I wish I have more.

Dan8267 says

It is Unamerican to model our programs on successful programs from Europe. That's communistic and unpatriotic. If we learn from other countries, it would imply that we're not the greatest country in the world. And maintaining that delusion is more important than solving our problems.

APPLAUSE !!

FortWayne says

- Get rid of unions.
- Allow teachers to be graded on performance.
- Give parents a voucher for 100% of public education costs and let them pick any school they want, forcing public schools to compete for children, not be forced into one based on their location.

Your cluelessness is astounding. How did you get the bizarre idea that student failure is because of the teachers? Student failure is every bit as much about bad students and bad parents as it is about bad teachers.

Yes, there exists some bad teachers, but only the the totally blind believe that bad teachers is THE problem.

FortWayne says

Competition drives capitalism, let the competition be.

Perhaps we should be grading parents and students as much as we grade teachers? You want competition among teachers, how about competition among bad parents and bad students?