[besson3c]

In another thread I wrote regarding having the parents decide whether or not kids should see Al Gore's movie:

The problem with that is that there are some parents that will take issue with *everything*, literally. Halloween type things = blasphemy, anything featuring or involving somebody gay = the same, there was somebody in here that thought that the movie Wall-E was controversial, etc.

At some point I think you just have to let the kids think for themselves and decide what is right *for them*. All the teacher needs to do is explain that not everybody agrees with an Inconvenient Truth, and challenge the kids to decide for themselves... They have to be pushed to be adults at some point, might as well start early. I've come across waaayyyyy to many helicopter moms and extremely sheltered kids even at the college level. It's pretty sickening, if you ask me.

This got me thinking... I've heard people complain about academia in general being to left leaning (I'm not sure if this includes K-12, I guess it depends on who you ask), so let me pose this question:

For those that support public schools, what would the perfect K-12 public school look like to you, according to your political and religious beliefs? How would religion be incorporated? Controversial subject matter? What sort of extra curricular activities would be available to the kids, field trips, and other sorts of activities, and how would all of this be funded? How would you characterize the extent of tax payer dollars that should be allocated to a school like this? What would its population be? Class sizes? How long would the school year be, and how long would each day be? How would you handle preparing kids for what comes next, assuming that in this hypothetical scenario that college life and the world beyond is as it is now?

[Doofy]

Bess, which research company are you working for and how much are they paying you? Did you answer one of their ads online or was it on the back of a comic next to the Twinkie ads?

[besson3c]

Your face is a twinkie ad!

[The Final Dakar]

The perfect K-12 school would be filled with Catholic school girls ages 18-24 who wear sexually provocative versions of the typical uniform and routinely break the rules in a manner that requires them sent to the headmasters office. Incidentally, I'll be the headmaster and I'll be supporting corporal punishment, and meting it out with joyous regularity.

That's my perfect school system. Or a USA Up! All Night skin flick I saw in the 90s. Can't remember at the moment.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The perfect K-12 school would be filled with Catholic school girls ages 18-24 who wear sexually provocative versions of the typical uniform and routinely break the rules in a manner that requires them sent to the headmasters office. Incidentally, I'll be the headmaster and I'll be supporting corporal punishment, and meting it out with joyous regularity.

Dear Headmaster,

Please note the education authority directive which states that the use of tools in corporal punishment is disallowed and only one's hand is allowable.

Please also note the school policy which dictates that corporal punishment for the 21-24 age group is the responsibility of the deputy headmaster.

Sincerely,
The Deputy Headmaster.

[Laminar]

[The Final Dakar]

Dear Deputy Headmaster,

At the discretion of the school board I have been allowed to dismiss you.

Until the position of Deputy Headmaster is filled, the Headmaster will assume all day-to-day responsibilities.

Sincerely,
The Headmaster

PS Your daughter has been a naughty girl and I look forward to disciplining her

[Doofy]

Dear Headmaster,

I have now set up my own school and employed the services of the Pied Piper to lure the slim students away from your abomination of a school.

Since you were somewhat lax in your application of discipline, the students' parents have agreed with this action and have petitioned me to implement a much harsher regime at my new school.

Have fun with your unruly fatties at your squalid institution, infidel.

Sincerely,
The Headmaster.

[The Final Dakar]

Dear former Deputy Headmaster,

People are changing the channel because this movie has featured too many of our missives.

Now if you'll excuse me, your daughter just arrived

The Original™ Real® Headmaster 1.0

[andi*pandi]

And people say the Lounge is dead.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeth_(film)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would religion be incorporated?

It wouldn't be. I'd probably axe all those "World Religions" classes too; they tend to be an utter whitewash anyways.

Controversial subject matter?

"Controversial" is a meaningless term. Students would learn what educated specialists consider true. Teaching evolution, sex ed, and global warming isn't controversial to anyone with an ounce of sense, really.

What sort of extra curricular activities would be available to the kids, field trips, and other sorts of activities, and how would all of this be funded? How would you characterize the extent of tax payer dollars that should be allocated to a school like this? What would its population be? Class sizes?

These questions are boring. But after school programs are essential. I think it's really dumb that students end school at 3:30, play Wii until dinner, then get driven to Scouts/ballet/whatever. Post-dinner should be family time.

How long would the school year be, and how long would each day be?

Five months on, one month off. Hence, students would be on a month's holidays in January and July. (Or maybe 6 weeks.)

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The perfect K-12 school would be filled with Catholic school girls ages 18-24 who wear sexually provocative versions of the typical uniform and routinely break the rules in a manner that requires them sent to the headmasters office. Incidentally, I'll be the headmaster and I'll be supporting corporal punishment, and meting it out with joyous regularity.

That's my perfect school system. Or a USA Up! All Night skin flick I saw in the 90s. Can't remember at the moment.

And I would be the principal who gets to spank the girls for behaving badly.

[besson3c]

Heh, this thread is awesome! Kudos to me!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

... I've heard people complain about academia in general being to left leaning (I'm not sure if this includes K-12, I guess it depends on who you ask), so let me pose this question:

For those that support public schools, what would the perfect K-12 public school look like to you, according to your political and religious beliefs?

Here you go:

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would religion be incorporated?

Intrinsically. It would be the most influential aspect of the education.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Controversial subject matter?

Taught truthfully from a Biblical world perspective.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What sort of extra curricular activities would be available to the kids, field trips, and other sorts of activities, and how would all of this be funded?

Gymnastics. Art. Music. Zoo. Museums. Sports.

Out of pocket.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would you characterize the extent of tax payer dollars that should be allocated to a school like this?

Zero.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What would its population be?

Two.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Class sizes?

One per class.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How long would the school year be, and how long would each day be?

180 days. About 3 hours.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would you handle preparing kids for what comes next, assuming that in this hypothetical scenario that college life and the world beyond is as it is now?

My kids are both about two grades ahead. And in some areas my daughter is about 7 grades ahead. We teach them life skills such as financial planning and trouble shooting.

[Snow-i]

Bess, its quite easy.

To make a "perfect politically compatible public school" you need only remove "politically". Problem Solved.


/thread

[el chupacabra]

there would be two subjects. Math and writing.

people would learn about problems solving, reading, history, science, and politics through research and writing assignments.

People would learn about chemistry, physics and problem solving through math assignments.

All other subjects are considered hobbies and dont need teaching or to be forced on people in the school system.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Bess, its quite easy.

To make a "perfect politically compatible public school" you need only remove "politically". Problem Solved.


/thread

I don't understand your point, sorry...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

there would be two subjects. Math and writing.

people would learn about problems solving, reading, history, science, and politics through research and writing assignments.

People would learn about chemistry, physics and problem solving through math assignments.

All other subjects are considered hobbies and dont need teaching or to be forced on people in the school system.

As a musician, and I'm sure many other musicians in here would agree, some of my most valuable and useful lessons in life were taught through music, which also has a mathematical connection.

[smacintush]

This is where school choice comes in. Just because the government uses tax money to provide education doesn't mean that they should RUN the schools themselves. If we are to have publicly funded schools we should get rid of the entire concept of government RUN schools and allow the parents to take their money to any school they wish. Schools that are privately run. This would give parents the freedom to move their kids to schools that they like, rather than having to put up with crap they don't like in their school or fighting against them…or trying to impose their will on others who go to the public school.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is where school choice comes in. Just because the government uses tax money to provide education doesn't mean that they should RUN the schools themselves. If we are to have publicly funded schools we should get rid of the entire concept of government RUN schools and allow the parents to take their money to any school they wish. Schools that are privately run. This would give parents the freedom to move their kids to schools that they like, rather than having to put up with crap they don't like in their school or fighting against them…or trying to impose their will on others who go to the public school.

This is definitely a legitimate argument, I think, although it is also problematic. I think it would be stronger if you were to account for the problems something like this would cause...

Namely, if you have private schools setting their own tuition rates, you get into an inequality in education based on social class. You get that now with colleges and universities, but at least kids now have a fighting chance to work really hard in high school and perhaps earn a scholarship. If you think this inequality is fine, that's fair too, but what are the costs of this inequality? Lacking education leads to crime, poverty, unwanted children, and all sorts of other expensive problems that somebody has to pay for.

In addition, you get into locale related issues. What if there are no decent, successful private schools in your area? What if the ones that are go out of business? Moving is not an option for all families, especially if the good schools are in expensive neighborhoods.

It gets pretty complicated, doesn't it?

[hyteckit]

Anything to do with Math, Science, and History is considered liberal.

Inject Christianity into math, science, and history to make it less liberal.

History: Get rid of Thomas Jefferson. He is too much of a secular liberal for history books.

Science: Inject intelligent design.

Health: Teach abstinence.

[besson3c]

hyteckit: could you please wait until this thread is shot to shit like most threads end up before shooting it to shit?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

hyteckit: could you please wait until this thread is shot to shit like most threads end up before shooting it to shit?

What? I was on topic. I guess that's the problem.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand your point, sorry...

Politics and political controversies have no place in the schools.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

if you have private schools setting their own tuition rates, you get into an inequality in education based on social class. You get that now with colleges and universities, but at least kids now have a fighting chance to work really hard in high school and perhaps earn a scholarship.

We have that now. Government running schools haven't done shit to equalize schools across economic classes.

If you think this inequality is fine, that's fair too

I do think it's fine.

but what are the costs of this inequality? Lacking education leads to crime, poverty, unwanted children, and all sorts of other expensive problems that somebody has to pay for.

I reject this idea that more money equals better education at all. History has proven this out. There is evidence from charter programs here and private school experiments in other countries that kids would be gettng a much better education for less than it costs now.

I think that the differences would be more likely reflected in the amount and the quality of available extracurricular activities like sports etc.. Again, we have no equality in these things now, nor is any necessary.

In addition, you get into locale related issues. What if there are no decent, successful private schools in your area? What if the ones that are go out of business? Moving is not an option for all families, especially if the good schools are in expensive neighborhoods.

Out of business? in an field where all children are required to attend? I think that this may be a possibility, but only because any such system would be implemented with complicated and expensive regulations and requirements in order to "protect the children". If they kept it simple I don't think this would be a problem at all.

It gets pretty complicated, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

I think that you can drown in hypotheticals, but we have to deal with reality. There may be any number of unforeseen or even predicted issues that may arise, but the possibility of those shouldn't paralyze us from acting. It should motivate us to solve them. Our current system is failing, no matter how much more money or control they throw at it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I reject this idea that more money equals better education at all. History has proven this out. There is evidence from charter programs here and private school experiments in other countries that kids would be gettng a much better education for less than it costs now.

But you can't escape the laws of supply and demand, right? As demand increases, supply needs to meet this demand. You can only grow a school to a certain size, right? In order to maintain that demand, the school needs to be cutting edge, which requires money. IOW, the most in demand schools have opportunities to raise their price tags without repercussion.

We'll have to agree to disagree on it being "fine" to have schools divided by social class. To me it's not a question of morality, it's a question of practicality. There is a reason for the idea of "no child left behind", leaving children behind is costly in a number of ways - many of them indirect.

Out of business? in an field where all children are required to attend? I think that this may be a possibility, but only because any such system would be implemented with complicated and expensive regulations and requirements in order to "protect the children". If they kept it simple I don't think this would be a problem at all.

Lawsuits, natural disasters, etc. there are all sorts of ways a business like this could go under. There are lots of ways a public school can go under too, but the difference is that we can collectively decide where these schools should go and how they should be funded under our current system, rather than letting profits dictate this.

Capitalism can be the "great decider", but it also picks winners and losers. In education having losers can have costly consequences.

I think that you can drown in hypotheticals, but we have to deal with reality. There may be any number of unforeseen or even predicted issues that may arise, but the possibility of those shouldn't paralyze us from acting. It should motivate us to solve them. Our current system is failing, no matter how much more money or control they throw at it.

I guess that would depend on how you determine this failure, and whether you would make such generalizations across the board or just isolated to specific school systems.

[hyteckit]

Inject a little Faith.

Vacation Liberty School: Tea Party-Allied School Aims To Re-Teach Civics With Emphasis On Faith

"Some parents showed up early to quiz the organizers about the curriculum. Others said they wouldn't mind a conservative slant to balance out what they say is a liberal influence in the public school system."

[Doofy]

The Evolution Of British Maths Teaching

- 1970 -

A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
What is his profit?

- 1980 -

A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or £80.
What is his profit?

- 1990 -

A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80.
Did he make a profit?

- 2000 -

A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.
Underline the number 20.

- 2010 -

A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100.
His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20.
Write a short play about his exploitation of natural resources and his exploitation of the workers.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But you can't escape the laws of supply and demand, right? As demand increases, supply needs to meet this demand.

Sure.

You can only grow a school to a certain size, right?

Upwards? Maybe. There are only so many potential students in a certain radius, yeah. There is no reason why there couldn't be very small schools.

In order to maintain that demand, the school needs to be cutting edge, which requires money.

I don't think that's true at all. A single teacher could teach a couple dozen elementary children in his basement and potentially do a better job than many school districts we have now. How much would that cost?

IOW, the most in demand schools have opportunities to raise their price tags without repercussion.

High costs would create demand for a cheaper alternative, and there would be nothing to prevent entrepreneurs from peppering an area with smaller schools where learning takes precedence over luxury. One thing that you are forgetting is that in a free market products and services always find a way to become cheaper and/or have more value added, and they are always cheaper than government run alternative. We would get much more for our money.

Lawsuits, natural disasters, etc. there are all sorts of ways a business like this could go under. There are lots of ways a public school can go under too, but the difference is that we can collectively decide where these schools should go and how they should be funded under our current system, rather than letting profits dictate this.

I think you are thinking like someone who lives in a heavily regulated mixed economy. In a free market without the regulatory overhead there would be very few instances where supply would be lacking in an area of high demand. Very few.

Capitalism can be the "great decider", but it also picks winners and losers. In education having losers can have costly consequences.

You mean like the losers in Mississippi or Alabama? Or the winners of Washington DC or New York? There's quite a disparity now in spending, there's a huge disparity in actual quality of education. There are winners and losers NOW. Free markets would elevate ALL of them, and the losers would have the most to gain.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Upwards? Maybe. There are only so many potential students in a certain radius, yeah. There is no reason why there couldn't be very small schools.

I don't think that's true at all. A single teacher could teach a couple dozen elementary children in his basement and potentially do a better job than many school districts we have now. How much would that cost?

I hear where you are coming from here, and I don't disagree with the idea of reducing class sizes. However, there is also great pressure across all educational realms to standardize and learn the same stuff so that students can pass tests that lead to college, SATS, no child left behind stuff, college entrance exams, etc. Many teachers I know believe that we are too test driven. So, I would add to what you are saying that we would probably also have to rethink all of this too. If there were a bunch of teachers teaching things their own way and under no pressure to abide by certain educational standards (by which I mean the ability to pass certain kinds of tests), results would be mixed in terms of how things look when made into pretty graphs and stuff.

Then again, if you do away with this, how to colleges decide who to accept?

So, I don't disagree with you necessarily, I'm just pointing out that this is pretty multifaceted.

High costs would create demand for a cheaper alternative, and there would be nothing to prevent entrepreneurs from peppering an area with smaller schools where learning takes precedence over luxury. One thing that you are forgetting is that in a free market products and services always find a way to become cheaper and/or have more value added, and they are always cheaper than government run alternative. We would get much more for our money.

I think you're missing something.

Every teacher wants smaller class sizes. Education works best in small classroom settings, generally speaking, there are less papers to grade, etc. In order to make low cost education work, a business would have to make up for this in volume. This is why we have large state schools with cheap tuition that accept 290348290348 students each year. However, these sorts of high volume low cost schools tend to have a hard time keeping up with Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc.

So, we've come full circle. If the quality of education you get is class based, fine, but what are the hidden costs to not providing the lower classes with the same sorts of opportunities the higher classes have? Like I said, if you do really well in high school now you can be eligible for a scholarship at one of these elite schools. What sort of equivalent would exist in your model if the lower class kids are at a distinct disadvantage?

You mean like the losers in Mississippi or Alabama? Or the winners of Washington DC or New York? There's quite a disparity now in spending, there's a huge disparity in actual quality of education. There are winners and losers NOW. Free markets would elevate ALL of them, and the losers would have the most to gain.

Possibly, but what if it makes things worse? I don't think this is a given. Before No Child Left Behind some of these failing systems were granted additional resources, rightly or wrongly. In your model these failing systems would probably go out of business. Maybe they ought to, but then the big question is then what? The family moves to a new area that has a school they can afford to send their kids to?

I'm playing devil's advocate with you a little bit. I'm cool with the notion of private schools being elevated in stature and prominence (and not just the religious schools), but I just think that a lot will have to be done in order to replace all of public education with private schools.

It's kind of funny how in one of the other threads somebody is making the argument that conservatives resist change while you are proposing something that is pretty changerific for this country. Then again, replacing public with private is a very old theme, so I guess it depends on how you look at it...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hear where you are coming from here, and I don't disagree with the idea of reducing class sizes. However, there is also great pressure across all educational realms to standardize and learn the same stuff so that students can pass tests that lead to college, SATS, no child left behind stuff, college entrance exams, etc. Many teachers I know believe that we are too test driven. So, I would add to what you are saying that we would probably also have to rethink all of this too. If there were a bunch of teachers teaching things their own way and under no pressure to abide by certain educational standards (by which I mean the ability to pass certain kinds of tests), results would be mixed in terms of how things look when made into pretty graphs and stuff.

Then again, if you do away with this, how to colleges decide who to accept?

I think you're missing something.

Every teacher wants smaller class sizes. Education works best in small classroom settings, generally speaking, there are less papers to grade, etc. In order to make low cost education work, a business would have to make up for this in volume. This is why we have large state schools with cheap tuition that accept 290348290348 students each year. However, these sorts of high volume low cost schools tend to have a hard time keeping up with Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc.

So, we've come full circle. If the quality of education you get is class based, fine, but what are the hidden costs to not providing the lower classes with the same sorts of opportunities the higher classes have? Like I said, if you do really well in high school now you can be eligible for a scholarship at one of these elite schools. What sort of equivalent would exist in your model if the lower class kids are at a distinct disadvantage?

I think that the colleges could set standards pretty much how they'd like. It would be the schools that would conform to what colleges want in order to serve their customers properly. You look at almost any industry that has a lot of active competition and you will see a sort of equilibrium develop, whether by deliberate voluntary agreement or by a sort of natural selection of ideas and standards. There is no reason why a standardized curriculum couldn't develop that gets widely adopted or adapted. A central control isn't needed.

Possibly, but what if it makes things worse?

Do you display this skepticism when the government seeks to expand it's control?

I don't think this is a given. Before No Child Left Behind some of these failing systems were granted additional resources, rightly or wrongly. In your model these failing systems would probably go out of business. Maybe they ought to, but then the big question is then what? The family moves to a new area that has a school they can afford to send their kids to?

What happens when the local gas station closes? What makes you think that such a pervasive, universal, needed and wanted service would EVER leave an area school-less? I can't foresee that ever happening. Products and services that are universally needed or wanted have a way of finding themselves nearly everywhere. Like restaurants and gas stations. Let's also not forget that in this little fantasy there is also some sort of tax-payer funding, be they vouchers or what-have-you. When the money is there, there should also be someone there to take it.

I'm playing devil's advocate with you a little bit. I'm cool with the notion of private schools being elevated in stature and prominence (and not just the religious schools), but I just think that a lot will have to be done in order to replace all of public education with private schools.

I think that more has to be UNdone, rather than done.

It's kind of funny how in one of the other threads somebody is making the argument that conservatives resist change while you are proposing something that is pretty changerific for this country. Then again, replacing public with private is a very old theme, so I guess it depends on how you look at it...

Well…I'm not a conservative.