Happy Birthday Public Education

Remove all ads!

The first public school, The Boston Latin Public School, opened on this date in 1635...starting a legacy of public education.

If the forefathers could have seen the degeneration of our school system from that bright start to the place as it is now (detailed appropriately enough in FOX's TV show Boston Public), they might have looked for other options.

What's your take on public schooling?

Personally, we're going to homeschool my daughter up until High School. Today's public schools in the US are more of a liberal propoganda tool than educational enviorment.

So, put a candle on a cake, sing Happy Birthday to a local public school, and as you blow out the candle, make a wish for some big time reform.

 

I understand your concern, Mathetais, and public education is in poor shape today, of that there is no question. As a teacher, I no longer have to worry about teaching kids how to read, write and compute. I'm also supposed to teach them the pro-social behaviour they are not learning at home, some degree of cultural tolerance, "correct" thoughts on such issues as homosexuality, abortion, capital punishment, foreign policy, dealing with grief, and personal hygiene -- even if those "correct" attitudes contradict my own beliefs.

The basic idea that early pioneers had in making public education was a belief that education should be available to all, not just the rich. While strides have been made, it's pretty clear that rich people still get a better education than poor people. I don't know if that can ever be changed.

Drop the blame on the government and whining special interest groups, though, and not on teachers. We don't do this job for the $. We keep doing it because of the hope, however naive it may be, that what we do might make a difference to at least a few of the students we teach. We do the best we can given the ridiculous strictures placed on us.

 

Things might be different in Canada, but in the US one of the biggest political lobbies is the Teacher's Union (NEA). While they don't "set policy" per say, they do have a major influence upon it.

Despite that, I don't blame the teachers. Many of my friends are teachers and are as frustrated as you. If we could introduce the spirit of competition via a voucher system or some such, things could get much better.

I know quality teachers would flock to school systems that would free them to actually "teach". Amazing concept

 

I'm not familiar with your American Union, but on general principle I figure that the people being asked to teach the children should have at least some influence on what is taught and how.

Let me give you an example of how stupid things can get in education. This happened in Ontario, Canada. Grade 2 or 3 spelling list. One of the words was "gun". Some whacked out parent complains to the schoolboard that this word (which has been around for centuries) is inappropriate and harmful. The idiot school board reprimands the teacher and removes the word from ALL spelling lists across its jurisdiction. Teaching in an environment like that, where one psycho can get you an official reprimand, well, it makes me sick to think about it.

 

I must admit that I dont know much about the american system of education but what has always struck me when reading about it and seeing it in movies is that is too little of what you say it is too much of Math. Competition is school is something I see as something really bad and that the americans schools arent nearly liberal enough. And I dont mean liberal in the political sense. Alot of archaic rules and notions still seems to have a firm grasp of the US school system.
About schooltutoring, she may get a really good education but have you thought about the social interaction she miss out on? That is a very big part of the reason for going to school, to learn how to interacti with other people.
As I am going to be a teacher I am quite interested in school issues and am generally annoyed at all the dirt teachers tend to get, 90% of them do their best with inadequte resources and that I think is an universal fact.

 

Competition is the cornerstone of the free market system. As such, it's no surprise that the more socialistic countries of the EU should dislike it. However, to remove it in our schools (as they are trying to do in many places) is un-American and will destroy our culture -- unless of course we are TRYING to become socialistic.

Anyway, I can vouch for the scholastic superiority of homeschooling, as I only spent the second grade in the school system. Already at that point I was so far advanced that the public school I attended bored me, and straight A's were no challenge. Upon graduation from my parents' newly formed private school, I was quickly accepted with full scholarship to the University of Tulsa (a top-ranked engineering school), helped in part by perfect SAT and ACT scores. This type of scholastic performance can be readily found in homeschooling communities across the country, and there have been many studies comparing them favorably to public and private alternatives.

Naturally, extracurriculars are a little scarce for homeschoolers, and it's easy to become a socially inept person. However, if you're willing to make the efforts, there are plenty of solutions available. I'd say even growing up in rural Arkansas as a homeschooler, I didn't suffer too much socially. While the big city and crowds of people at the university were somewhat of a culture shock, it wasn't too difficult to adjust. And quite frankly, there's plenty of culture out there that I'm glad I didn't experience when I was younger and more impressionable.

If you need any pointers or have any questions, Mat, my mom is pretty good at helping people with that type of stuff. Just post here or email me. Good luck!

 

I'd just point out that the superiority of homeschooling will depend on the existence of willing and able teachers to do the home schooling -- something lacking in many cases. Shouldn't the success cases of homeschooling often due to superior teaching by highly intelligent and motivated parents/teachers be measured against the superior public or private schools to determine whether it is superior rather than the average or below average schools? Just a thought.

The other question I have is: what's wrong with the American public education system? Seriously, I don't consider Boston Public to be evidence of a collapse of the system any more than I consider the Simpsons to be proof of the decline of the American family. That's not to say I think there isn't anything wrong, I'm sure there is, but I suppose this should be expected when you're dealing with what I assume are millions of students across thousands of miles.

A quick glance seems to indicate that relative to the other OECD industrialized nations that the U.S. public education is pretty average. Now average isn't something that we should strive for but I wonder if the claims that the American public education system are in the toilet aren't a tad overblown. http://nces.ed.gov//programs/coe/

It's a political hot button which makes it easy and common to yell about. It is fun to make shows that criticize it which in turn alters perception. A really quick glance seems to show me that it's pretty average though and for at least the last decade has remained the same. The rise in private education enrollment probably contributes to an overall lowering of the scores for public students as well and should probably be taken into account.

What are reasonable expectations for educating millions? How superior should the system be compared to other nations (who don't have nearly as many students many times) in order to be considered a success? How do you factor in the increased exposure to arts and other alternative courses not available in the past? In short, what goals are failing to be met?

 

Since my son is only 2 and it's been many years since I've been in the public school system, much of my opinion is formed from anecdotal evidence from friends with older children. What strikes me as the biggest sea-change since my schooldays is the emphasis on self-esteem over education. In the long run, social promotion doesn't do anyone any good.

Anecdote #1: Student A tries to cheat off of Student B during a quiz. When Student B covers his paper, Student A complains to the teacher. Student B is disciplined for "not being a team player."

And when did parents get so lazy, to think that they could place the burden of uneducated children solely on teachers?

Anecdote #2: 7-year-old boy is lagging behind his clasmates in reading skills. Teacher tells Mother she should read to the child for 15 minutes each night. Mother refuses, saying that it's not her job to teach her son how to read.

We're lucky to be living in Pennsylvania's best school district, but even so we intend to be highly involved with our son's academics.

 

That I think that competition is a bad thing in the academical school environment has nothing to do with the political preferences of the country I live in. A large chunk of it is common sense, the kids have enough pressure on themselves even without the official competetive aspect and alot of people cant handle the pressure and cracks.

And of course that the science of pedagogy is not fond at all of competitive schooling, now even I can agree that the pedagogic science is very fuzzy must of the time but here it is pretty clear and logical. Competetition may be helpful for a few pupils but it is negative for alot, everyone that isnt best gets more or less told by the school that he is a loser which is not good for future studies.

 

One aspect of competition that needs to be addressed is the underlying rules that govern any competition. The playing field must be level with regards to to the players actively on the field or else the competition is unfair. The nature of America's capitalist system (which I do NOT think should be changed, I'm merely pointing out a fact) unbalances this playing field.

Let me give you a slightly melodramatic example. The Adams family is a wealthy one, and they have the free time to read with, work with, and otherwise nurture their child. They have social connections and the funds to hire tutors should their own efforts to aid their child (Alan) fall short. Alan is well fed, cared for, and loved.

The Burke family is poor. Both parents work 2 jobs apiece. They have no money to pay the rent from month to month, and no time to read with or otherwise support their son. Their son (Billy) is often left with strangers, some of them who bugger him, others who merely ignore him. Billy eats about 1.5 meals a day, knows his parents wish he had never been born, and has few friends due to his unfortunate hygiene habits.

Comparing Alan's scholastic scores with Billy's would be stupid. Through no fault of their own, the playing field is not level. Putting Alan in a private school and then saying that private schooling is the factor that makes him more successful is also stupid.

Now listen carefully -- such inequality exists not only in America's system, but in ALL systems. People with connections in the former USSR got perks and advantages their competitors did not, despite all government programs trying to make everything equal. It's a fact of life, not just American life.

Going to the public school that educates Billy, a system that tries to give the boy a chance should not be bashed for trying to do something decent, or compared to the system that the Adams can afford. At the risk of sounding overly pro-American, I'd rather be a kid in the worst inner city school in America than some starving kid in one of the poorer African or Asian nations.

 

As distressing as the public school system can be, I fear the day it no longer exists. THen only the wealthy children will be educated.
Even now, a child in the public school system that tries can achieve success. It not easy, especially in large inner city schools, but it is possible. Take that opprotunity away, and all poor, and most middle class children will suffer.

 

I wish I could find an article I read a couple of weeks ago about this, it was very a propos. It was about countries that do *not* have public education - Somalia was one of the countries in the study - and how well the dirt-cheap private schools that had sprung up to fill the gap were doing. The consensus was that the quality of education was actually improving, as well as providing independence and business opportunities for a small but growing class of literate women, who were able to make a living as private-school owners and teachers.