🔒 Locked

Children - whose responsibility?

Started by ToohrVyk Apr 25, 2003 at 2:23 AM 22 replies 450+ views

Original Post

238

Apr 25, 2003 at 2:23 AM

Well, I was wondering... who is in charge with the education of the children? Assume our goal is to turn those kids into fully-fledged citizens of a democracy, that think on their own. It is quite obvious that for the first few years of his life, a child lacks the maturity to think by himself about certain concepts of life (ranging from not taking a pee in his bed to religion). This means that : 1°- any such concepts that are imposed on him like this will likely be accepted by the child (earth orbits the sun, one must adore and worship the Grand Leader, there is (no) God(s) ... ) and carried on when he becomes an adult. This basically creates an adult that did not choose what he thinks or believes, and who is unlikely to change his mind. 2°- being unable to choose good from bad, the kid might get into problems or dangers : alcohol, smoking, drugs, unprotected sex... Which allows me to bring back forth again the question : who should be in charge of the education of kids? Parents are the traditional responsibles for it, but it does sometimes prove unsufficient when some feel the urge to get the children to think like them, or don''t care to educate their child about drugs or STDs. School''s turn is next, as a state-controlled instition. However, schools dish out stuff they are told to teach by the state. How can we choose what children NEED to know to be adults (protecting themselves from dangers, the others must speak and think freely, one must not steal, kill... are these rightful teachings?), and what things must not be imposed upon someone (patriotism, to love someone they''ll marry when they''re 18, faith in god... should these choices be given to a free adult or a gullible child? ). I know my point of view on some things might be biased, I have been raised not as a free man - sorry - but as an atheistic, no-country-lover, respectful of others, and lover of science. I do however feel the urge to decide which aspects of our society and life make up a "good" (by this I mean working) civilization, and which aspects are merely a "bonus" that isn''t really required. ToohrVyk

KalvinB

Apr 25, 2003 at 2:32 AM

All are responsible for a child''s education. The parents need to be around. Schools need to be around. ect.

Ben

Wolfmanyoda

Apr 25, 2003 at 10:20 AM

the public school system in the US is a joke.
that''s why my children will never be part of it.

Famine

Apr 26, 2003 at 11:52 AM

quote:
Original post by Wolfmanyoda
the public school system in the US is a joke.
that''s why my children will never be part of it.

This is the smartest thing said here all day. I agree 100%. It is a complete failure. Even in wealthy areas.

ToohrVyk

Author

238

ToohrVyk

Apr 26, 2003 at 1:18 PM

Not living in the states, I might ask you to describe me the US system :-)

ToohrVyk

Houdini

Apr 26, 2003 at 1:36 PM

quote:
Original post by Wolfmanyoda
the public school system in the US is a joke.
that''s why my children will never be part of it.

quote:
Original post by Wolfmanyoda
This is the smartest thing said here all day. I agree 100%. It is a complete failure. Even in wealthy areas.

Care to give any reasons why it''s "a compelte joke/failure"? Being some who''s gone to a private school kindergarden - 8th grade, then a public school 9th - 12th grade I''d like to hear your insights.

- Houdini

Fuzztrek

Apr 26, 2003 at 1:58 PM

quote:
Original post by Wolfmanyoda
the public school system in the US is a joke.
that''s why my children will never be part of it.

ditto for Canadian schools. I think schools should switch their focus from "average" or "below average" to "genius". We would be so much further ahead if given the opportunity. Of course, it would also take more work on both the parent and the teacher side, which is probably why it will never happen. Doesn''t anyone realize that by catering to the "below average" we are only creating a "below average" society?! I realize that some kids do have disabilities, but I doubt they need to be placed in the same classroom as the kids without disabilities. I bet those kids will feel more discriminated in the classroom with kids without disabilities than in a classroom where they are all at the same level. Who knows.

Wolfmanyoda

Apr 26, 2003 at 2:09 PM

I know, it's a CNN article, but still...

Partial quote from here:

quote:

In 1990, a major national report was released by the National Home Education Research Institute which studied the test results for close to 1500 home-educated children (Home School Court Report. The Home School Legal Defense Association, December 1990). The average scores for these children were at or above the 80th percentile in all categories. The categories included reading, listening, language, math, science, and social studies. The major standardized tests used included the California Achievement Test, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). An 80th percentile score means that the students scored better than or equal to 80 percent of the students used to norm that particular level of the test. This study supports the claim that home-educated children, as a group, perform academically at least as well or better than counterparts in traditional classrooms.
Other sources reporting the success of home schooling include:
Time: "While the national average (on standardized tests) is in the 50th percentile, the average home schooled students register between the 65th and 80th percentiles." (Gibe, Nancy. "Home Sweet School." Time, October 31, 1994, p 63.)
Teachers College Record: Educational research conducted by the Hewitt Research Foundation found that the performance scores in the 75th to 95th percentile are common for home-schooled children. The study included several thousand home-schooled children across the United States. Many of the parents spent no more than an hour or two a day teaching their children. (Moore, Raymond. "Research and Common Sense: Therapies for Our Home and Schools." Teachers College Record, Columbia University, Vol. 84, No. 2, 1982, p. 372.)
Phi Delta Kappa: This study found that home-schooled children received higher scores on standardized achievement tests than did their peers in Los Angeles public schools. (Weaver, Roy et. al. "Home Tutorials vs. Public Schools in Los Angeles." Phi Delta Kappa, December 1980, pp. 254-255.)
Home Education Magazine: In South Dakota, home-schooled fourth graders received the highest SAT scores in the state. The tests are required annually. Seventy-four percent of the home-schooled fourth graders tested have never attended public or private school. (Home Education Magazine, Vol. 11, No. 2, March-April 1994, p 49.)

There has been numerous studies that show the average homeschooled child does better on SATs than the average public school student. They also do very well in social situations because they are exposed to a wider demographic (not just students their same age).
Teen pregnancy, drug abuse, violence....these are everyday events at some high schools, but homeschools rarely have these problems.
There is also the freedom to bring religion into the school if it's a homeschool.
Students can choose what to learn about, it's not just spoon-fed to them.
It only takes a couple hours a day or so to actually have class. That means more freedom for the student to pursue hobbies and other interests.
The public school system is like a one-size-fits-all and if a child doesn't match their idea then that student is labeled by the teachers and will have a difficult time learning. Homeschooling can give the parent to chance to see what kind of learner their child is and use that teaching style. If a kid is a major source of energy he's not going to be able to sit still in a classroom. At home, that same child could recite multiplication tables while jumping on the trampoline.
There are so many different ways to teach children and the public schools don't have the ability to adapt to each child.
My wife and I are both college graduates, she graduated with a 3.8 in microbiology and I graduated with a 4.0 in computer science. We are not ignorant. We can teach our children better than the public schools in our town.
And that is what we're going to do.

[edited by - wolfmanyoda on April 26, 2003 3:10:52 PM]

pi_equals_3

Apr 26, 2003 at 2:43 PM

I totally agree that public schools are a joke.
I''ve been in the public school system from kindergarden until now (I''m in 11th grade), and the most valuable things I''ve learned, I''ve learned on my own or from my parents. If it weren''t for the social aspect, I''d much prefer to be homeschooled, especially when the schools can''t give individual attention to every student so they hold the advanced students back at the slowest pace. Even our "advanced" classes are treated like not-quite-advanced-but-not-behind classes. It drives me nuts that it''s nearly impossible to fail a grade up until high school (at least in Texas), and even in high school it''s pretty damn hard. They just redid the state testing system here to be more challenging (thank God), but they''re field testing it this year so that next year they can tweak the required grades and pass the same number of people, which gets us NOWHERE.

Oh well, soon I''ll be out of it all and in college.

Strife

108

Strife

Apr 26, 2003 at 2:43 PM

quote:
This is the smartest thing said here all day. I agree 100%. It is a complete failure. Even in wealthy areas.

Umm, how so? Maybe in your states. However, I went to schools in three states (Michigan, Ohio, and Texas), and with the exception of the district I was in in Texas (for only my senior year of high school), all were excellent. Even though the school I went to in Texas wasn't great, it certainly wasn't a "complete failure."

And let's not forget our post-secondary education. Few will deny that the United States has some of the finest universities in the world, many of which are publically-funded. So where our elementary, middle, and high schools lack, our colleges and universities make up for it. Now, if post-secondary education was more available, then there wouldn't be a problem at all.

EDIT: I'd like to add one more thing after reading that last post. Some people say things like "I didn't learn anything worthwhile in high school." If you honestly believe that, you aren't thinking hard enough. Just because you didn't learn too much that you may be able to directly apply to your desired career path does not mean that you didn't learn ANYTHING useful. Remember, there's more to the world than just computers.

[edited by - CmndrM on April 26, 2003 3:46:23 PM]

pi_equals_3

Apr 26, 2003 at 2:51 PM

quote:
Original post by CmndrM
EDIT: I''d like to add one more thing after reading that last post. Some people say things like "I didn''t learn anything worthwhile in high school." If you honestly believe that, you aren''t thinking hard enough. Just because you didn''t learn too much that you may be able to directly apply to your desired career path does not mean that you didn''t learn ANYTHING useful. Remember, there''s more to the world than just computers.

[edited by - CmndrM on April 26, 2003 3:46:23 PM]

Agreed. There are things I learn at my school, but the pace is usually so slow and the explanations are so shallow, that if I''m ever interested in anything (computers or otherwise), I''m usually better off learning it on my own. In my opinion, there is too much teaching to the tests, and not enough teaching of practical application.

Strife

108

Strife

Apr 26, 2003 at 6:11 PM

I don''t argue (too much) that point. However, when you really sit down and think about it, schools do not exist to educate you on a very deep level (except for grad schools). All they really serve for is to give you a broad base on a lot of stuff, that way you are at least somewhat informed in any area you may have to make a decision is.

An education serves to give you the basis to continue to learn, not teach you everything.

Wolfmanyoda

Apr 26, 2003 at 7:29 PM

quote:
Original post by CmndrM

And let''s not forget our post-secondary education. Few will deny that the United States has some of the finest universities in the world, many of which are publically-funded. So where our elementary, middle, and high schools lack, our colleges and universities make up for it. Now, if post-secondary education was more available, then there wouldn''t be a problem at all.

I completely agree. I just want to clarify that, as a whole, I think our colleges do a very good job.
It''s K-12 that neeeds a LOT of improvement.

Strife

108

Strife

Apr 26, 2003 at 10:26 PM

Oh, there''s no question that the public school system K-12 needs improvement. I just take issue when people overgeneralize and say that ALL public schools in the United States are awful. This is stupid for a number of reasons.

First, public schools are state-run, not federal. Therefore, just because one state''s schools suck doesn''t mean that the rest of the states'' schools do.

Second, even within states, there can be disparities. Texas is a great example. There are some amazing public schools here, and then there are some really crappy ones. All within 30 minutes of each other (going up closer to a big city decreases this distance dramatically).

Third, people tend to downplay their education just because it''s popular to say America''s education system sucks. Keep in mind that unlike some nations, such as Japan, the American education system guarentees that everyone can get educated up to a pre-college level.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

masonium

Apr 27, 2003 at 1:07 AM

void Rant(void) {

As a 10th grader in an Indiana public school, I think I should put in my two cents. My school system is *bad*. I've been in the Honors program in the school system since first grade. It's supposed to be advanced, accelerated, whatever, but I don't think it's anymore advanced than schools in another system. And that's a shame too, because that means the regular program is behind everybody else.

Anyway, we had a cheating scandal where the teachers were giving the students the answers, so it's not allowed to teach to the benchmark tests anymore. They have an SAT-prep program on Saturdays, but that's crap too because the teachers seem to not know anything about the test.

Even though Indiana is suffering from a serious brain-drain (college-bound leave and never come back, i suppose), I think it's my local school system's fault and not the state. We have one of the richest school systems in the area, but I guess whoever is managing it sucks. Only 18% of the students pass both parts of the ISTEP (graduation qualifying exam).

And don't even get me started on the math.
As a wise Samuel Clemens once said:
"I never let schooling get in the way of my education."

} // end rant

'There's something out there....something stupid...'
'I think I'm going to be ill. Is that a problem for you?'
'[You] overestimate my conscience by assuming that I have one.'
- Daria

EDIT: removed the term 'garbage'

[edited by - masonium on April 27, 2003 2:29:25 AM]

Strife

108

Strife

Apr 27, 2003 at 1:14 AM

While I certainly don''t intend to discount all of your points, I am a bit wary of anyone currently in a public school saying it is "garbage" unless they have been through at least one or two other systems to compare it to. Otherwise, I don''t think that you have really done any research to see what other schools are like (I could be completely wrong, it''s just an assumption).

Now, I''m not trying to excuse the cheating scandal that happened, or the 18% figure your quoted. I am, however, disagreeing with your use of the term "garbage". From what you posted, it definately doesn''t sound superb, but you are only highlighting the bad points. I''m sure there are some good points about it too.

Remember, to make any meaningful change, you cannot just target what''s bad. You also have to identify what''s good and improve upon it.

Beer Hunter

122

Beer Hunter

Apr 27, 2003 at 1:25 AM

quote:
Original post by masonium
void Rant(void) {

...

} // end rant

You know, you wouldn''t need that comment if you''d just indent your code.

ToohrVyk

Author

238

ToohrVyk

Apr 27, 2003 at 2:42 AM

I happen to live in France lately, and what we have here is some sort of equalistic hypocrisy. On one side we have the standard state school system that works with the same program, the same level of tests everywhere. This system looks adapted to the students, but in the wrong way : it is not the teaching methododlogy which is adapted, but the nation-wide examinations that are tweaked to ensure a certain percentage will always pass it.

On the other side, in some places, you have pseudo-special institutions for the intellectual elite: near Paris, there is a [fr="collège" eng="part before high school"] which specializes in above-average students. In Paris, a handful high schools dish out a much harder range of things - usually more of what was meant to be taught, or even things meant to be taught years later. A "normal" kid in such schools will have a very hard time, and will usually leave to enter a normal one. A smarter kid, however, will be able to work to his full abilities, and even stretch them a litlle bit beyond.

So clearly, opposed to the average school system you have a special school system whose goal is to turn better students into even better students.

EDIT : the nation-wide end-of-high-school examination has a mark ranging from 0 to 20 ( understand this as if 0 was F and 20 was A in the American system). To pass it you must get above 8. Above 16 you get a "very good". On average there's one or two "very good" in average classes (out of 30-40), none in worse classes. In one of these special high schools, classes can get as much as 17 "very good" (last year figures), the best shot being approx 20 (2001).

ToohrVyk

[edited by - ToohrVyk on April 27, 2003 3:49:04 AM]

LessBread

558

LessBread

Apr 27, 2003 at 3:27 AM

quote:
Original post by KalvinB
All are responsible for a child''s education. The parents need to be around. Schools need to be around. ect.

Ben,... are you saying that it takes a village to raise a child?

LessBread

558

LessBread

Apr 27, 2003 at 3:31 AM

quote:
Original post by CmndrM
Umm, how so? Maybe in your states. However, I went to schools in three states (Michigan, Ohio, and Texas), and with the exception of the district I was in in Texas (for only my senior year of high school), all were excellent. Even though the school I went to in Texas wasn''t great, it certainly wasn''t a "complete failure."

And let''s not forget our post-secondary education. Few will deny that the United States has some of the finest universities in the world, many of which are publically-funded. So where our elementary, middle, and high schools lack, our colleges and universities make up for it. Now, if post-secondary education was more available, then there wouldn''t be a problem at all.

EDIT: I''d like to add one more thing after reading that last post. Some people say things like "I didn''t learn anything worthwhile in high school." If you honestly believe that, you aren''t thinking hard enough. Just because you didn''t learn too much that you may be able to directly apply to your desired career path does not mean that you didn''t learn ANYTHING useful. Remember, there''s more to the world than just computers.

This is the smartest thing said here all day.

{No shit}

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.