Science Education in America: Why I'm Homeschooling My Kid in Science

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I just have to point out that this is untrue. Look at his last 100 posts and several OPs (or any time before that) and see how many times I've responded to him...none apart from this thread. I respond to maybe 1 in 10 of his OPs (mostly when he posts thinly disguised AC rants in SMP that are contradicted by evidence) and virtually none of his posts. There is no pattern of trolling at all like you suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really care to sift through old threads to determine the extent of your trolling, so I'll take your word for it that it's not as bad as I suggested.

Would you agree though that you and Boro aren't exactly chums and the discourse between you is usually unproductive? I don't really care who says what and am fine with retracting my claim that you are entirely to blame, but I think you'd agree that it should be no real stunner if Boro just doesn't want to deal with you (even if you raise a legitimate point once in a while).


[ QUOTE ]
In the first set of analyses, all private schools were compared to all public schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop right there. If we're determined to talk about this from an AC/state angle, then there are no "private" schools compare to.

I personally have no interest in defending the "private" schools that exist in a saturated market, and would be entirely open to the idea that public schools maybe even outperform them. This should not be seen as the same argument as "in the absence of all government interference, private schools would be better still." It's possible that given a certain arrangement of laws (such as my sub sandwich example) the market just could not provide a product that was a better quality than the one government forced people to pay for.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are private schools failing as badly as public schools? Surely competition from the significant middle-upper class in the US is sufficient to provide market driven improvements in school quality and outcomes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it enough to overcome the enormous barrier that is artificially free schooling existing in the "market"? Apparently not, if it's true that private schools perform as bad. You shouldn't look at these schools as a result of what the free market would provide.

If what you want is to compare public schools vs private schools in an unfair market, then all your arguments apply. But the latter is not something I care to defend, because I admit it might be equally flawed (or in some cases even worse).

[ QUOTE ]
One other point - the US trails significantly behind the Western world in terms of student proficiency - near the bottom, in fact. Yet they have one of the most decentralized educational systems in the Western world, and similar private school percentages to other countries who outperform them. So why are they failing?

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most decentralized systems? How so? The difference between US public education and European public education is awfully small compared to the difference between either and a free market (which is, I think, what you claim to be arguing against).

A better example would be to look at the US university system, where public interference is small enough to be at least a passable insight into what a market provides. I don't think it's coincidence that the US system blows everyone else away.

[ QUOTE ]
So, you can keep posting "statist clown" pictures if you want, and blinding asserting your AC mantras, but the silence of you guys regarding the actual evidence is deafening....

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe ACers are silent because your evidence and questions don't have anything to do with AC, so we have nothing to defend. I have to say, you're awfully good at deflecting the actual issue into something slightly different that makes you appear to have raised a good point. Since my hunch is you actually believe what you're saying, I think you must do this on a subconscious level. Either way, you have quite a knack for it. You should be a politician, or maybe a cable news personality.

If what you want to do is empirically compare public school systems with varying degrees of interference and slightly different sets of laws to determine which one is worse, then carry on. But it really has nothing to do with AC or our positions on education, so don't be surprised when we show no interest.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
But do you think you were not the typical student? How many pre-high schoolers would you say could really understand the kinds of things you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is precisely that a one-size-fits all curriculum is DESTINED to screw non-typical students. It can't help but screw them, by design.

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm not disagreeing with you that there are problems with the mentality you are talking about. I'm wondering how to fix that. And please no general "free market will take care of it answers", I think there will be a similar problem there in measuring quality of education and as I said in my previous post. If the free market is better, why specifically in this regard?

[/ QUOTE ]
Practically anything would be a step in right direction, compared to the one-size-fits-all centrally regulated system (unless you're just a bit below average ability and the standard curriculum is just enough of a challenge to lift you to new intellectual heights). Not only is the standard quality of education poor, but it eats up time during which an interested individual could be learning something useful. If someone would have told me to knock myself out and surf Wikipedia for 8 hours a day for four years instead of going to class, I would have learned a hell of a lot more prior to university.

What we need is flexibility, and this is precisely what centrally regulated systems are least-equipped to deliver. You don't have to be an ACist to understand that free markets are going to be more flexible than government.

[Phil153]

Some of what you say is reasonable. But the main problems I have with your post are these:

- You're merely asserting that schooling would be much better if it was all private. Where is the evidence?

- I don't find your saturated market comments compelling. Mainly because:
a) private schools need to significantly outperform public schools to get parent dollars;
b) There are more than sufficient private schools in many areas for parent choice to exist, which is the sole driver of market improvement;
c)The 10% driving the market are equivalent to a fully private solution in a lower population country (such as Australia or Holland). New providers already have the guarantee that x number of people in their local area will be seeking private education. Private education levels have been stable for a long time. It seems strange to argue that the market will fail in these circumstances, or that it requires a certain population size in order to be viable.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the most decentralized systems? How so? The difference between US public education and European public education is awfully small compared to the difference between either and a free market

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd agree with you, but I made that point against those who are arguing in a knee jerk fashion against centralization. The US system is fairly decentralized compared to other systems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati...States#Control for example)

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's coincidence that the US system blows everyone else away.

[/ QUOTE ]
The US has an ivy league built by those with immense wealth and power. Apart from that, it's fairly mediocre compared to the rest of the world. BTW - the best of the US private high school system (mainly for the elite) blows everyone else away as well, which invalidates your point I think. I'd suggest that wealth is the key factor in both.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe people are silent because your evidence and questions don't have anything to do with AC, so we have nothing to defend.

[/ QUOTE ]
This thread isn't about AC...it's about the state of the public vs private education system in the near future, and how to fix it. AC is not going to come about in the next 20 years, nor is the public school system going to go away any time soon. So while the AC stuff is an interesting (or boring, depending on your perspective) intellectual exercise, it has little relevance to the actual state of affairs as they'll exist in the foreseeable future. And again...do you have any evidence for what you assert, beyond "the market will fix it", which is theory, and not evidence.

[tame_deuces]

I'm abit curious as to why newspapers weren't contacted, the scoolboard or the parents' association etc. Surely there are plenty of tools at one's disposal to try and remedy this situation?

Makes one wonder if the official stance from some posters here is that that once schools get completely privatized, all bad teachers will magically disappear and we never have to take action.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
No child of mine will ever be fed to the public "school" system.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those of you who do not have a spouse at home full time to home school, or the money for a private school, there are some things that help cope with the public schools.

1. Schools teach your child resistance to illegitimate authority, which is a crucial lesson. In my sons third grade one day, they were discussing classification of animals, and put snakes in the reptile category. My son, who loves and owns snakes, volunteered that they used to be lizards, but lost their legs. Teacher asks class how lizards lost their legs. Lukas' hand shoots up and says "they evolved." Teacher said that was incorrect (no lie). She calls on a girl who quoted a Bible verse about the serpent being cursed by God for tempting Eve, and condemned to crawl on his belly and eat dust. Teacher says, "yes." My son knew that was dead wrong, and now knows to find truth from his own thinking, rather than accept force feeding from adult authority. Kids from touchy-feely free schools do not get the same experience in resisting forced stupidity. He carries around evolution books and is in the trenches, which society needs. At least he did last year, but now he's being homeschooled.

2. If you back you kid up against stupid rules, and incorrect information, they get stronger. The rules don't change, but the knowledge that you backed them, and that they are not crazy -- the school is -- is essential.

3. You have to supplement, especially in science, which is the worst.

And in that link, they astronomer complaining 5th graders did not know man landed on the moon is a whiner. That stuff is rampant. You respond by providing the information, not bitching. I was talking to a 6th grade teacher once, and started to complain about the quality of the college freshmen. She stopped me, and said in every single grade, the teachers complain that last year's instructors did not properly prepare the kids. You take them where they are, and raise them up from there, rather than bellyache for the world that should be.

[Wyman]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, a good class should be about knowledge of the subject matter, but it should also be about more than that. Learning to be organized and to do what you need to in order to prosper are, IMO, much more important skills than knowing science.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This point is extremely valid. While marks in school should (in theory) measure your knowledge of basic subjects, they should also measure your ability to follow instructions and meet deadlines. I agree that 80% for notebooks is extreme (and should be significantly reduced), but I think that the problem here lies more with the child (who may feel a sense of entitlement) or the parent (who may feel a sense of entitlement on behalf of the child) than with the school system.

I'm a product of the public school system myself. Although my school was behind many of the public schools in the area in terms of course offerings (did not offer foreign languages or math above pre-algebra, and this was a K-8 school in a small, semi-coastal, not wealthy, NJ town), there was never a noticeable curriculum gap (other than teaching religion obviously) between our school and the local parochial schools. Thinking back, it's also not clear whether my friends from public school or my friends from the local catholic school are doing better -- probably about the same.

I understand that many large public school systems have problems. Large cities and small poor communities, especially. However, I think all but the best private schools are not worth it, except in the most extreme cases. With involved parents/family (which includes the child learning discipline at home), a child will likely come out of either school system with approximately the same knowledge, demeanor, and potential.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In any case a system that allows people willing and able to arrange notepads to do better then people understand the subject far better is aweful for science education and a disaster because it fills the world with people who value presentation over content.

[/ QUOTE ]

But as Andy has said, this is also the case in some private schools. This is an individual teacher and student here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, I'm not arguing state vs fee-paying except that if you pay you can chose.

The UK used to have a much deserved very high reputation for meaningful qualifications has had this ruined by grade inflation. Like the easy printing of money the government found short term votes in 'improving' education by ensuring more and more passed exams with higher grades. The method is to increasingly measure things that require very little ability or knowledge (as before this is popular so people going private will pay for it as well).

Maybe some don't think this is a disaster, I do. it would make me very angry if I wasn't still thinking about the rugby.

chez

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
- You're merely asserting that schooling would be much better if it was all private. Where is the evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't intend what I said to be a thorough analysis of why privatized schooling would work. I'm merely saying that you also have not provided any evidence against a truly privatized system (since such a system doesn't exist and can't possibly be empirically explored). So if you think your arguments are valid empirical arguments against AC's assumptions, you're wrong. If anything, they merely suggest that government's interference in education handcuffs the market severely (which is what I would have assumed was true anyways).

Do you have any evidence showing that in a truly free market schools would still be on par with government?

[ QUOTE ]
The US has an ivy league built by those with immense wealth and power.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if this is your argument, I could just as easily say "US high school education fails because we have so many urban blacks who have no interest in learning." But drawing out the good or the bad as separate from the system as a whole seems really pointless.

[ QUOTE ]
Apart from that, it's fairly mediocre compared to the rest of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Do your friends help you out by bending over so you have new and exciting [censored] to pull [censored] out of when it's convenient to a particular argument? After the Ivy leagues, the US universities are mediocre compared to the rest of the world. What a claim.

It amazes me on two levels. One, because: "Yo, when you take the all-stars off the Spurs, they're mediocre compared to the rest of the league." It's just such an odd thing to need to say. "Other than that" I guess Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play.

And second, it seems just blatantly wrong. Last time I checked, students emigrate from all over the world (much more than to any other country's schools) to attend MIT, Duke, Rice, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Tufts, Wake Forest, Boston College, and a plethora of other names I could come up with if this argument of yours was actually worth putting further thought into.


[ QUOTE ]
BTW - the best of the US private high school system (mainly for the elite) blows everyone else away as well, which invalidates your point I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does!?

[ QUOTE ]
I'd suggest that wealth is the key factor in both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree! It's almost like there's a rational order to it all. People with more money will always have more and better goods than everyone else. Oh well. Rather than bring everyone down to one level so that some people won't feel bad, I'd rather people be free to do as they please, so that we'll all be richer than we would be otherwise. I just want people do be happy, Phil. It might be nice to think we can close our eyes, say a wish, and manually solve everyone's problems at once. But when you're in touch with the reality that this mindset makes problems worse, you feel like sort of a dick when you support the idea of trying, even if you can myopically represent some piece of data to give a glimmer of encouragement to your position.

[ QUOTE ]
This thread isn't about AC...it's about the state of the public vs private education system in the near future, and how to fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, then don't wonder why ACers don't answer you or have an opinion on which policy they'd prefer, when our real answer is that we want no part of any of it.

Someone asked Boro a question, and he gave his honest answer. If y'all don't want to talk about AC, then ignore his answer and move on. But you seem to be caught up in arguing "this thread is not about AC" while simultaneously trying to argue against AC!

It's clear that you don't like AC. I guess you'd be happier if your misconceptions remained unchecked. But if you really don't want to talk about AC as a broad theory, then I'd suggest you stop compartmentalizing anyone who argues in a way that could be construed as opposing government as one entity. Since you're so big on evidence, if you want an example of this, you can look to the last post where you implicitly accused me of "posting statist clown pictures" etc., when I personally have been doing nothing of the sort, and am actually engaging you.

[ QUOTE ]
And again...do you have any evidence for what you assert, beyond "the market will fix it", which is theory, and not evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what am I trying to assert? You assume I'm as interested in misrepresenting various pieces of data to defend deep rooted misconceptions as you are. My interest lies in avoiding the logical misconceptions. If you don't want to talk about the theory here, fine. My only claim here is that since AC has nothing to do with what you're saying, you shouldn't be surprised or act like you're being snubbed when ACers don't have any opinion on what you're saying (especially when you intentionally direct your musings specifically at us!).

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

Re: Science Education in America: Why I'm Homeschooling My Kid in Scie [Re: PLOlover]
#12394436 - 10/07/07 03:05 AM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

Quote:

Quote:
So are you a voluntaryist yet?



criminal is probably the best label; I mean I can think.




What?

If you are purposely avoiding the question please state so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider myself a criminal. an outlaw. I consider the law unjust and therefore I consider myself outside the law. if force is used against me as I'm sure eventually it will be, I will consider it proper and just for me to meet force with force.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think this? If the government made us all pay a tax so that they could provide free sub sandwiches to everyone, and then they set up sub shops in every neighborhood where they gave away free subs, do you think this would improve or decrease the quality of food you'd be able to get from a private sub maker?

Hint: People like free subs. Sub makers would not be able to compete fairly, so the market (if it existed at all) would be a far cry from what it would be if it did not have this competitive barrier. And all the tax money that was taken to provide subs would have been better used by individual sub shop owners who have an obvious interest in providing a good service.

Moreover, I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure there are a plethora of laws that restrict who can provide schools and where, which I would of course argue interfere with what would be a better service if the market determined these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

substitute public universities with private universities and see what the result is. otoh I guess a lot of public money goes into "private" universities too.