Education in the US

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Dags90:
Preferable? Home schooled kids are an extreme minority, somewhere around 3%.

Everything is Relative, this is Relative too.
Look at the rates of home schooling for different countries and the USA's is severely higher than that of other countries, suggesting that there is something that causes this difference. Also as you say below parents will need to have the ability financially and Domestically to support schooling of their children which has the result of lowering the numbers of those who can actually do this.

Dags90:
Some feel they can do better than public schools in teaching their kids at home, almost always families with a full time homemaker.

This is the main thing that I fear. Unless you have a rare example with an unemployed(through own choice), very talented parent who can afford to go out of their way to educate their child themselves in all ways, the rest will suggest parents are willing to forego significant financial gains, in order to look after the wellbeing of their childrens future by educating them in a way they feel the state fails to for some reason.

Dags90:
Or parents of child's prodigies who don't want their eight year old in high school for social reasons.

This will be so much of an oddity that its really not worth mentioning other than to explain a very rare select few.

Dags90:
Some do it for religious reasons.

I pray that those people aren't screwed over by this worrying trend. (swidt? :P)

Dags90:
Others do it for the sake of their child's nonacademic success. I've met one young man who was homeschooled so he would have more time to devote to motocross racing, which he now does professionally.

This too suggestsa failure of the system to accomedate nonacademic skills in any way shape or form, for a lot of the country. A lot of people will not be tuned for anything that is academic and the fact that the state completely dis-reguards in same area's the notion of nonacademic sucess is worrying. If students want to try something that isn't academic, likely due to failing at it, then its better for the country if time and resources are applied into these people in order to get them having some form of higher level skill, as opposed to being another person who is a super-market clerk for life in terms of skills the state has given them.

Overall it suggests that a lot of area's the US education system in its current form is not fit for purpose.

-

... a phrase that I have always looked up to is "measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so" - Galileo Galilei

But... people often mis-interpret this.
A lot of the education system is now being boiled down to standardised testing and... honesly, rather than taking something that you may not easily be able to measure, and finding a way to measure it, a lot of standardised testing pretends to do this, whole fundimentally changing what is being measured... which should not be the goal of education.

Comando96:

This is the main thing that I fear. Unless you have a rare example with an unemployed(through own choice), very talented parent who can afford to go out of their way to educate their child themselves in all ways, the rest will suggest parents are willing to forego significant financial gains, in order to look after the wellbeing of their childrens future by educating them in a way they feel the state fails to for some reason.

This will be so much of an oddity that its really not worth mentioning other than to explain a very rare select few.

I pray that those people aren't screwed over by this worrying trend. (swidt? :P)

This too suggestsa failure of the system to accomedate nonacademic skills in any way shape or form, for a lot of the country. A lot of people will not be tuned for anything that is academic and the fact that the state completely dis-reguards in same area's the notion of nonacademic sucess is worrying. If students want to try something that isn't academic, likely due to failing at it, then its better for the country if time and resources are applied into these people in order to get them having some form of higher level skill, as opposed to being another person who is a super-market clerk for life in terms of skills the state has given them.

Overall it suggests that a lot of area's the US education system in its current form is not fit for purpose.

-I'd suggest you actually need not be that talented to do better than public schools to ensure academic success with the right environment. There are curricula available online that follow standard grades and premade lesson plans, and it's hard to beat the one-on-one attention of a parent and their 1-3 children.

-While child prodigies are rare, I wouldn't be surprised if they're disproportionately home schooled. And obviously there are varying degrees, some schools have very limited "advanced placement" systems.

-I'm not sure of any country that has an education system that appropriately addresses the needs of up and coming motocross racers. Same thing for professional athletes. A fair amount of Olympic caliber athletes are homeschooled at some point (another person I knew who was home schooled wanted to be an Olympic figure skater), however most professional football/baseball/etc. players are forced all the way through college for the sole purpose of playing more sports.

GrimTuesday:

TheLycanKing144:
This thread is nothing but massive generalizations, talk about being ignorant. There are both good schools and bad schools here, and they seem to be doing a better job overall than yours as we produce more entrepreneurs and business leaders than almost any other nation.

Is this really the measuring stick with which you're going to measure the success of our school system? Do I need to start linking to studies all of which show that American high school students are lagging behind most of western Europe, and some parts of Asia? Don't give me this shit about entrepreneurs and business leaders, because its idiot selling to idiots.

Yes there are some problems with the US school system, however we are not dumb nor arrogant like many Europeans make us out to be.

Oh, so I guess that whole "Muh Business leaders" thing was an intelligent and humble thing to say?

The real issue is bad teachers and bad schools, this could be easily solved if we gave the Teacher's Union an ass-whooping and brought them down in their power, they literally protect bad teachers and keep bad schools open.

The teachers unions are not the problem. If they had so much power, they would would have better salaries and benefits. Do some shitty teachers slip through the cracks, yeah, but in a period of time that has seen a weakening in union power, the teachers union is trying to hold onto the little power they still have.

We should implement a voucher system, give them to the parents of kids (including those who are lower income) and give them the option to choose better schools for their kids. Close down the bad schools, fire the bad teachers, and replace them with good schools and good teachers.

What happens to the people who don't live near these "good schools"? Are you going to tell them that they are shit out of luck because they can't get to school? And who is going to run these schools? Because usually when people start talking about vouchers, it usually comes with privatization which is a horrible idea. I'd rather not send my kid to a school run/sponsored by McDonalds, or Exxon Mobil. Our schools shouldn't be run like businesses, because its not profitable to actually help mold intelligent, well rounded young adults.

This will never happen however as long as the Teacher's Union is allowed to have as much power as it currently does.

The Teachers Union is not whats wrong with our education system, it is the low pay that doesn't attract the top people in their fields, and the fact that our teachers aren't given the freedom to actually teach but rather are forced to teach a test. Its awfully hard to capture a student's imagination and get them excited about material you're not excited about.

GrimTuesday, I could not have said that better myself. You fucking get it dude, well done!

image

Quaxar:
In South Korea or Singapore, teachers are appreciated as valuable professionals and their salaries are in the range of engineers and doctors...

I can only speak for Korea, and I can tell you that the highest salary I've heard of for a teacher is about 44mil KRW/year, which is roughly $39k/year. Now, cost of living is drastically cheaper in Korea, so that may be skewing the figures a bit. We are, however, treated very well and generally well respected compared to other professionals.

The problem with public schools is that since everyone is required to be there, you have kids who hate it and disrupt the class. I say that students should have more choice in what courses they take, including the core curriculum. If a student doesn't want to study math after elementary school then they shouldn't have to. and same with all other courses.

ClockworkPenguin:

Quaxar:

TheLycanKing144:
We should implement a voucher system, give them to the parents of kids (including those who are lower income) and give them the option to choose better schools for their kids. Close down the bad schools, fire the bad teachers, and replace them with good schools and good teachers.

This will never happen however as long as the Teacher's Union is allowed to have as much power as it currently does.

> Teacher's Union
> power
Yeah, that sounds about right.

Options to chose better schools? What if there's only one school in the whole area? And how are you going to accomodate all the new pupils from the bad schools into a better one that already has almost reached its capacity as it is? Or for that matter pay for those improved schools, compensations for all the fired "bad" teachers and resulting unemployment costs?
Not to mention the whole inherited historical issues. Especially during the 70s many women and minorities were essentially forced into education for a lack of better opportunities and many of these are now due to go into their pension. And the positions can hardly be filled as it is.

In the US (and a lot of Europe as well) teaching isn't appreciated by the population and seen as a small effort job with many holidays. Even a lot of teachers themselves consider their job a dead-end with no need for incitement or continued education. Uni courses are unselective, unsupportive and require extensive loans to eventually reach a job with a salary that's ridiculously low. Starting salary for a lawyer is roughly $150,000, a teacher's $40,000, with an average career maximum of $80,000. Half of the finished students don't even pick up a classroom job.

In South Korea or Singapore, teachers are appreciated as valuable professionals and their salaries are in the range of engineers and doctors. In Finland, they have huge liberties in their teaching and if they chose to leave the classroom many a company would love to recruit their skills and talents. All three have a very selective, demand-based course-approval process with stipends and other appeals.

You didn't really think this through, did you?

Teaching is a hard job, but... a starting salary of $40K is bloody good.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html You are starting your career at the average wage, which is incidentally $14K better off than the most common wage. That is hardly 'ridiculously low'.

No offence to teachers but a lot complain about their job whilst showing a startling ignorance of the world outside the education sector. They have to work hard and have serious responsibilities but so does everyone else. The stats you quoted are about the same as a firefighter would get. That seems about right to me.

Not to mention that said $40K salary also includes only being a 3/4 time job. If you scale it to what they would get without having 3 months off per year, and look at the very generous benefits package included, teaching is far from being a ditch-digger level of job.

lowhat:

ClockworkPenguin:

Quaxar:

> Teacher's Union
> power
Yeah, that sounds about right.

Options to chose better schools? What if there's only one school in the whole area? And how are you going to accomodate all the new pupils from the bad schools into a better one that already has almost reached its capacity as it is? Or for that matter pay for those improved schools, compensations for all the fired "bad" teachers and resulting unemployment costs?
Not to mention the whole inherited historical issues. Especially during the 70s many women and minorities were essentially forced into education for a lack of better opportunities and many of these are now due to go into their pension. And the positions can hardly be filled as it is.

In the US (and a lot of Europe as well) teaching isn't appreciated by the population and seen as a small effort job with many holidays. Even a lot of teachers themselves consider their job a dead-end with no need for incitement or continued education. Uni courses are unselective, unsupportive and require extensive loans to eventually reach a job with a salary that's ridiculously low. Starting salary for a lawyer is roughly $150,000, a teacher's $40,000, with an average career maximum of $80,000. Half of the finished students don't even pick up a classroom job.

In South Korea or Singapore, teachers are appreciated as valuable professionals and their salaries are in the range of engineers and doctors. In Finland, they have huge liberties in their teaching and if they chose to leave the classroom many a company would love to recruit their skills and talents. All three have a very selective, demand-based course-approval process with stipends and other appeals.

You didn't really think this through, did you?

Teaching is a hard job, but... a starting salary of $40K is bloody good.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html You are starting your career at the average wage, which is incidentally $14K better off than the most common wage. That is hardly 'ridiculously low'.

No offence to teachers but a lot complain about their job whilst showing a startling ignorance of the world outside the education sector. They have to work hard and have serious responsibilities but so does everyone else. The stats you quoted are about the same as a firefighter would get. That seems about right to me.

Not to mention that said $40K salary also includes only being a 3/4 time job. If you scale it to what they would get without having 3 months off per year, and look at the very generous benefits package included, teaching is far from being a ditch-digger level of job.

Except in most states, teachers are required to be continually educated and trained (i.e., Masters work, etc...). In the State of Wisconsin, teachers must take between 15-18 credit hours (if I remember correctly) to be eligible for their teaching license.

EDIT: I forgot to add that this continual education comes out of their own pocket, and not the district they are employed by (Wisconsin).

Additionally, many teachers starting salaries are no where near $40k. If you include all benefits including health/pension/etc, they may approach $40k, but actual take home for a starting teacher is much less.

Teaching is much, much harder than you realize, and I pose this to you: teach a lesson to 20-30 different kids who all have different learning styles, different home lives, different parental guidance, different health and nutritional levels, different mental states and maturity levels, come from different socioeconomic backgrounds, all while operating with budgets that are less and less each year, in the span of one 45-50min class. It's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be...

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked