Is Our Public Education System Crippling Society?

[Birch Boy]

I'm researching education philosophy for AP English Language and Composition, and I've been reading essays about how public schooling is breeding an unoriginal, conforming, servile work force, through forced conformity, and restraint of natural leadership and ambition, and I have to say that I agree to an extent. Segregating kids with grade levels, rankings, and subjects alienates whole groups of people, leaving humanity less likely to reunite as a whole, and the educationally 'unfit' are weeded out by a process similar to Darwin's theory of natural selection; they are looked down upon in the schooling environment for their educational shortcomings and failures, and are then forced to struggle in society, while the intellectually fit and leader-like people climb to the top of societal ladder and lead prosperous lives, controlling the vast majority of the helpless population. Public education limits individual thought patterns and fails to educate kids on what they really need, simulations similar to real-world experiences, and creating an army of unindividualized drones to feed the mass produce/mass consume cycle of the economy and the world. All of it is obviously subjective and may not be true in every circumstance, but it's interesting to think about.

At leasts that's some of what I've learned so far, and I agree with everything, to an extent, like I said. Thoughts?

[Adami]

Public school in and of itself is a fine idea, since most people can't afford private schools, and if all schools became private, then the private schools at low enough prices wouldn't be worth going to.

However, people have to realize that not every student learns the same or needs to know the same amount of things. It can't be run so uniformly, there is no one size fits all as far as education (or anything else) goes. If there were A LOT of people working on it, and teachers had a great deal more freedom, it would be quite a bit better.

[Birch Boy]

However, people have to realize that not every student learns the same or needs to know the same amount of things. It can't be run so uniformly, there is no one size fits all as far as education (or anything else) goes. If there were A LOT of people working on it, and teachers had a great deal more freedom, it would be quite a bit better.

To relate to this, public education seems to be standardizing the masses, leaving them all initially with the same lack of creativity and lack of originality through what they've been forced to learn. And even so, kids are only taught the bare minimum of what they need learn to pass the standardized tests, and little or nothing else, proving that public schooling has really just become a tradition instead of a program to teach kids to live life and to treat them for real problems that they'll face. I don't know about other school systems in the United States or worldwide, but my school no longer has Home Education (cooking, etc...), which I think is ridiculous because if one thing needs to be taught... it's how to cook and actually live.

[Adami]

As long as you understand that the problem is with OUR public education system, not the idea in general.

[Birch Boy]

As long as you understand that the problem is with OUR public education system, not the idea in general.

Yes, that is true, and I did understand that, but rereading my post, I didn't make that clear. Thanks.

[Jamesman42]

Standardized testing is one thing that is gearing me more toward wanting to teach at the college level than the high school level.

[Tuneman]

Our public education system is a disgrace.  We continue to pump money in even though it has been shown there is no corrleation between money spent and performance.  The true solution to helping the poor is to have school vouchers.  Does it make sense to have government owned grocery stores, or to have food stamps?

[William Wallace]

Public school in and of itself is a fine idea, since most people can't afford private schools, and if all schools became private, then the private schools at low enough prices wouldn't be worth going to.

Why? This hasn't been the result with most things today. Creating a market where things are bough and sold is generally a good thing. What makes education so different?

However, people have to realize that not every student learns the same or needs to know the same amount of things. It can't be run so uniformly, there is no one size fits all as far as education (or anything else) goes. If there were A LOT of people working on it, and teachers had a great deal more freedom, it would be quite a bit better.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Because of an independent learning program offered by my high school, where I completed work at home and met with a teacher once a week, I not only caught up with my class but finished ahead of them. That was because the curriculum was centered around my needs. 

[icysk8r]

There are times when my teachers will state that they would like to go deeper into a subject so everyone can understand it better, or show us a new way of learning something, but simply can't because of restraints with the curriculum.
Those are the PSP classes (not sure what it stands for, but it's in the middle [mainstream classes, PSP classes, CAS classes].  I only have 2 PSP classes in things I wanted to make sure they didn't make too advanced for me (which I regret, considering I flew by in those classes).  The curriculum is so tight in mainstream and PSP that there's no room for learning extra or going in depth on a subject.
Which is why I'm in mostly CAS classes (centers for advanced studies) where the curriculum is a bit looser  and the because it's an accelerated program, the teachers have more room to teach better.  Not to mention the smaller classes that allow for more individualized help.

[millahh]

I'll see if I can find a reference for this, but the US public school system is designed after a Prussian model that was explicitly intended to make students into good soldier/subjects, i.e suppress creativity, imagination, individualism and entrepreneurialism.  It's goal is to churn out standardized, obedient consumers & constituents, not to help people maximize their inborn talents or become their best selves...and certainly not to teach people how to rock the boat (or even give them the idea that they can).  It's primary goal is propagation of the status quo and the associated worldview, not real learning.

[TheVoxyn]

I find it weird how the American system doesn't distinguis between education levels that much. Over here there are already three different 'levels' of education in high school - each granting access to different education after high school. Only the highest level can get you into university (although there are also longer ways in). This leads to university mainly having students that are actually capable of finishing it instead of a lot of people of which most will fail.

[Perpetual Change]

I find it weird how the American system doesn't distinguis between education levels that much. Over here there are already three different 'levels' of education in high school - each granting access to different education after high school. Only the highest level can get you into university (although there are also longer ways in). This leads to university mainly having students that are actually capable of finishing it instead of a lot of people of which most will fail.

We just let everyone in our Universities, and pass them all through.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

I don't know... on one hand I think teachers should have more freedom to tailor the curriculum to the individual students, but on the other hand I think we need fairly strict curricular standards at the national level, because of what went down with the Texas school board.  If only teachers and school boards could be trusted to teach what the actual scientists and historians agree on, instead of letting their personal political and religious bias get in the way.

[Perpetual Change]

I don't know... on one hand I think teachers should have more freedom to tailor the curriculum to the individual students, but on the other hand I think we need fairly strict curricular standards at the national level, because of what went down with the Texas school board.  If only teachers and school boards could be trusted to teach what the actual scientists and historians agree on, instead of letting their personal political and religious bias get in the way.

That's my problem with most free market solutions. It seems like no matter what some demographic always gets the shortest straw while the market is still busy "ironing things out."

[Nigerius Rex]

What does having a private school system have anything to do with scientific or emotional bias? If you feel your kids are being force fed religion over here and you want a more solid grounding in science, bring them over there and vice versa. Currently that isn't possible because of the clusterfuck lobbying unions are doing and current shithead legislation that prevents new private schools from opening and consistently makes it impossible to run as a proper business if you manage to actually open one. 

[Adami]

What does having a private school system have anything to do with scientific or emotional bias? If you feel your kids are being force fed religion over here and you want a more solid grounding in science, bring them over there and vice versa. Currently that isn't possible because of the clusterfuck lobbying unions are doing and current shithead legislation that prevents new private schools from opening and consistently makes it impossible to run as a proper business if you manage to actually open one. 

Because most parents are poor to a large extent. Thus won't have all this freedom in choosing that you seem to think they will. The schools they will be able to afford will be cheap, due to them being cheap they will have lower class structures, lower paid teachers, less money for books and so forth usually resulting in a lower educaiton standard.

[Nigerius Rex]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

The only thing that changes is that private schools are allowed to compete with the public schools. So they would still be an option for those who want it. The key however, is that funding for every child's schooling is not dumped into the colossal stagnating inefficient mess that is the public school system which has undeniably failed in every way possible by default.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

Whether schools are public or private, there NEEDS to be curricular standards.

[73109]

Birchy Birch!!!!

I think you are right and wrong. You kind of make one point, and then segue into another one. 

Note, this is coming from an honors/AP student so, of course, it is biased. First, you said that the ranking sytem leads to the educationally un-fit losing out through a process like Darwin's natural selection. Now, I agree this is what is happening. The thing is, it would happen anyway. Many of the educationally unfit are not willing to learn. That is their problem. They will skid through highschool in crap classes and not go to college and get a shitty job. Many, not all. But, what does public school need to do. The smart will rise, but it isn't only the smart. The people with the desire to work will rise. My best friend is one of the smartest dudes I know. Yet, he is hom during school, using online school because he couldn't cut it in actual school. Smart as all hell, and too lazy to move forward. Now, the girl who we predict to be our validictorian is average. Completely average. But what does she do? She works her ass off. She studies every night, she goes that extra mile, she does everything. If some poor and kinda dull kid wanted to succeed, he could. It is just that he needs to work hard, and that, is something he/she probably isn't willing to do.

Your second point is talking about public school basically spitting out people to equip them with jobs. No ambition, no creativity, no nothing. I agree. But how do you stop it?

Now, with the curriculum. Like icy said, the curriculum of schools is so tight, you can rarely ever venture out to what you might need to learn to make it fun and cool. Many times, we, as a class, and an honors class mind you, have needed to keep going to keep up with curriculum, leaving many students behind. It has gotten to a point where it is no longer "they need to learn this, this, and this" It has become "they need to learn this, this, and this, using that, that, and that, at this time, this time, and this time" I have seen teachers curriculum plans, and trust me, it is like that. One could easily say that in order to end it, you just need to stop, but then you face a problem of not everyone in a class or a school, or a district, or a state, or a country is equal. You might have one class end the year at chapter 4, when another ends at 12. This entire thing also brings back point 2. This is turning all students into one of the same.

So, those are my points, sorry if they are kinda scattered.

[William Wallace]

Whether schools are public or private, there NEEDS to be curricular standards.

Or what? We have a largely uneducated populace with such standards in place. What we really need is choice in education. Parents understand the difference between good and bad schools. If allowed to send their kids where they want, I bet most would choose the ones that will provide a sound education.

I will also point out that school boards who want to eliminate Thomas Jefferson from American history are the exception and not the rule. I just don't see a mass uprising of quackery being possible; most educators and parents aren't interested.

[rumborak]

Whether schools are public or private, there NEEDS to be curricular standards.

Or what? We have a largely uneducated populace with such standards in place. What we really need is choice in education. Parents understand the difference between good and bad schools. If allowed to send their kids where they want, I bet most would choose the ones that will provide a sound education.

Limited information, limited money and limited mobility are the main issues here. By pushing schools into market competition you're inevitably increasing the range of quality of schools, with the poor segment of the population inevitably being forced into the bad schools (because they're cheaper), creating a vicious cycle.
Schooling systems IMHO are one of the few things where market forces create more harm than they do good. Education is about creating a level playing field for everyone so they can be what they want to be.

rumborak

[Nigerius Rex]

Schooling systems IMHO are one of the few things where market forces create more harm than they do good

And this is based on what evidence?

[rumborak]

A) Coming from a country where there are virtually no private schools and it works remarkably well
B) The way markets work. You choose to only consider the positive aspects of free markets, I think one needs to look at both sides, and decide whether one is fine with the inherent "low-quality turnover" of markets when it comes to people's education.

rumborak

[Adami]

Is Our Public Education System Crippling Society?

I think a better question is, is our children learning?

[eric42434224]

Whether schools are public or private, there NEEDS to be curricular standards.

Or what? We have a largely uneducated populace with such standards in place. What we really need is choice in education. Parents understand the difference between good and bad schools. If allowed to send their kids where they want, I bet most would choose the ones that will provide a sound education.

Limited information, limited money and limited mobility are the main issues here. By pushing schools into market competition you're inevitably increasing the range of quality of schools, with the poor segment of the population inevitably being forced into the bad schools (because they're cheaper), creating a vicious cycle.
Schooling systems IMHO are one of the few things where market forces create more harm than they do good. Education is about creating a level playing field for everyone so they can be what they want to be.

rumborak

With vouchers, the poor still have to go to public schools, including the majority of average income families, because the private schools cost WAY more than what you pay in taxes.

[rumborak]

The vouching system also strikes me as an intentional "gateway drug" by conservatives and libertarians. That is, you introduce it, and soon after you start cutting the voucher amounts (after all, it's the intrusive gov't again, let the market figure it out!!), with the result of a complete free market education system.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

The vouching system also strikes me as an intentional "gateway drug" by conservatives and libertarians. That is, you introduce it, and soon after you start cutting the voucher amounts (after all, it's the intrusive gov't again, let the market figure it out!!), with the result of a complete free market education system.

rumborak

Yes and no. There are some people certainly pushing towards that end. However, if it happens it will be because parents consider the alternatives to traditional schooling to be better options. Whether it be vouchers used for private school tuition or tax credits utilized for home schooling, both are in use and could be expanded, public schools would go into decline for a lack of support, not because of some centralized effort to dismantle them.

[Nigerius Rex]

A) Coming from a country where there are virtually no private schools and it works remarkably well
B) The way markets work. You choose to only consider the positive aspects of free markets, I think one needs to look at both sides, and decide whether one is fine with the inherent "low-quality turnover" of markets when it comes to people's education.

rumborak

A. Germany? If so, not a good example if you are setting the precedent of nations with a public school system similar to the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

Sweden is a much better example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden

B. Thats overly vague. What precise downsides are we looking at? Why all of a sudden because schools are private are there no curricular or behavioral standards?

[rumborak]

A) Coming from a country where there are virtually no private schools and it works remarkably well
B) The way markets work. You choose to only consider the positive aspects of free markets, I think one needs to look at both sides, and decide whether one is fine with the inherent "low-quality turnover" of markets when it comes to people's education.

rumborak

A. Germany? If so, not a good example if you are setting the precedent of nations with a public school system similar to the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

Sweden is a much better example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden

Well, obviously one can't choose what one country comes from. I used the German system as a backing point because I know it to produce, when taken as whole, higher quality education than the US one.

B. Thats overly vague. What precise downsides are we looking at? Why all of a sudden because schools are private are there no curricular or behavioral standards?

That's not what I'm saying. A properly functioning free market exhibits a spread of product quality, with higher-quality options available for increasingly high prices, and lower-quality ones for increasingly cheaper. That's just how markets work. And it's fine when it comes to cellphones or fruit juices. I'm just not willing to relegate people's potential to their own economic prowess, or to be more exact, the one of their parents (the most important part of one's education is during the phase where one relies on their parents' money).

rumborak

[EPICVIEW]

 

[Perpetual Change]

I don't trust the market with education or anything else that people can't tell has an immediate benefit.  Because the market is the people, and the vast majority of people don't give a damn about things that they may never see serve any meaningful purpose.  Between public and private schooling, I think I'd much rather force people to learn and retain and perpetuate the knowledge and culture of the world than give people the choice not to. Not saying that the US does a good job at either.

[Nigerius Rex]

Well, obviously one can't choose what one country comes from. I used the German system as a backing point because I know it to produce, when taken as whole, higher quality education than the US one.

No, obviously what one cant choose what country comes from. Germany must be proud. .

That's not what I'm saying. A properly functioning free market exhibits a spread of product quality, with higher-quality options available for increasingly high prices, and lower-quality ones for increasingly cheaper. That's just how markets work. And it's fine when it comes to cellphones or fruit juices. I'm just not willing to relegate people's potential to their own economic prowess, or to be more exact, the one of their parents (the most important part of one's education is during the phase where one relies on their parents' money).

So you pretty much just ignored my question in favor of repeating your favored caricature of free markets. The schools are going to be subject to the same competitive rules any business would. Attract customers by offering the highest quality product (teachers/materials) at the cheapest price or die off trying.

Regardless of that, the government is paying for the schooling in a public voucher system. Just another one of the benefits is that private schooling costs are projected to be cheaper than the cost per child in our current system. The vouchers would also not be based on race, religion, or location so poor people would receive no more or less than anyone else.

There are going to be some variables to take into account but generally Sweden outscores the United States when it comes to literacy and science.

Sweden:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country/sw-sweden/edu-education

USA:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/edu-education

[Birch Boy]

I'll see if I can find a reference for this, but the US public school system is designed after a Prussian model that was explicitly intended to make students into good soldier/subjects, i.e suppress creativity, imagination, individualism and entrepreneurialism.  It's goal is to churn out standardized, obedient consumers & constituents, not to help people maximize their inborn talents or become their best selves...and certainly not to teach people how to rock the boat (or even give them the idea that they can).  It's primary goal is propagation of the status quo and the associated worldview, not real learning.

This is indeed true. One of the essays I read talked about it. The same essay is where I got most of the OP stuff from as well.

Is Our Public Education System Crippling Society?

I think a better question is, is our children learning?

Oh Bush, what will we do with you.

Wow, you guys really took this thread into an elevated discussion out of my knowledgeable reach, so:

[rumborak]

So you pretty much just ignored my question in favor of repeating your favored caricature of free markets.

What part of my description was a "caricature"? Isn't the offering of different-quality products for different prices the exact wanted outcome of a free market? Every market segment I can think of right now has "high-end" vs. "low-end".
Or do you simply not want to apply this plain feature of a free market onto an education system because you know if would make it look as an unfavorable solution?

rumborak

[eric42434224]

So you pretty much just ignored my question in favor of repeating your favored caricature of free markets.

What part of my description was a "caricature"? Isn't the offering of different-quality products for different prices the exact wanted outcome of a free market? Every market segment I can think of right now has "high-end" vs. "low-end".
Or do you simply not want to apply this plain feature of a free market onto an education system because you know if would make it look as an unfavorable solution?

rumborak

Of course it is unfavorable. 

Some schools will focus on the lower income family and cut expenses and overhead to offer the cheapest education.  They will compete against other schools offering education to the same lower income families.  Some will do better as they may work out a better system, or get better teachers, therefore giving a marginally better education.  But most kids will have to simply go to the cheap school, and many will be forced to go to the closest one geographically regardless of quality.

Then there will be schools that will cater to the more afluent.  They will be in competetition with other afluent schools, and will have to work to be competetive...but only against each other.  The education will be a better one than at the "cheaper" schools.  They will have the financial resources to offer better teachers, better teacher/student ratios, beeter learning materials, trips, safety, etc.

The free market will only cause a bigger rift between the have and have nots than exists now.