[tvtimeout]

OK, I have been going back and rereading a book from my philosophy class in college. I attended a liberal arts school and it was mandated that I take the class. It was a great eye-opening experience. To listen to Plato, Socrates, to John Locke, to Adam Smith, to even Karl Marx. I found it quite interesting in the fact that each of the gentlemen were trying to answer the question of why, to understand the idea of Universal Law, to what is soul, if there is even a soul?

I have stated all the above (because it sparked something in me) to ask this simple question about our educational system. Do you believe that we should go to the idea of a liberal arts education for our public schools in the Commonwealth of Kentucky?

Right now, we do not have this system. We have a system much like the automoble industry or what a computer programmer does to a computer. We give students a certain skill set to obtain, build upon that skill set, with another skill set, and continously do this. We assess the teachers and schools about how well the children have mastered a certain skill set. That is in a nut shell of what we do in this Commonwealth.

Is this what we want? Where do you draw the line between critical thinking and giving skill sets? Or do you?

Another poster will come on here and tell us about India/China and how well they program their best children and how they come over in the U.S. and take away jobs and so forth. Which does happen! But, what is not realized by many is that Kentucky as well as all of the U.S. educate all citizens. Our top citizens in education, well most of you work for them in some capacity, or the military takes them or they work for M.I.T, Silicon Valley.

I say that because this too must be addressed for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Do we educate everyone the same?


We also know in this Commonwealth and more important in our area, we have a brain drain. Many of you have children or grandchildren and you tell them to go and make something of themselves, because you want them to have a better quality of life then you do. But yet the point remains we tell or children to go (or at least where I live).

Another quick point, when I go to doctor (hopefully, for nothing serious) I want his or her full attention. I want him or her to know everything and to spend time looking at the problem, fixing it, and moving on. I do not want him bouncing room to room to room, seeing 60 patients at once. Do I feel the same way about my child and his teacher? Do you want a large class size or a small one, which is more efficitive?

I have brought up several issues, non of which has mentioned funding a educational system, I would like to not talk about funding, first find out what you think about our educational systems, then in another thread start one about funding your ideas. I can not wait to hear what you have to suggest.

[LWC]

I don't post much but if we reduce the teacher-student ratio, funding has to be discussed.

[Hoot Gibson]

Where public schools and universities in this country, including Kentucky, fail miserably is teaching students to learn and making learning itself "cool." Too many people look at their final graduation date, whether that comes after 12, 14, or 16 years as the end of their education. Too many teachers reenforce the common American belief that math is "hard."

As LWC said, if you want to discuss class size, then you have to talk about funding. If you want to make the argument that smaller class sizes and larger per pupil expenditures equate to a better quality education, then be prepared to explain how Utah ranks so high in average college entrance scores - and why so many school districts (e.g., the District of Columbia) rank high in per pupil spending and low in virtually everything else

Also, be prepared to explain why a Libertarian believes that the burden for improving education lies with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. What about privatizing schools or at least diverting some additional resources to private schools through a voluntary voucher system.

Would the elimination of the Department of Education fall under the taboo heading of school funding? I would like to see concrete evidence that the quality of public education has improved since the creation of the Department of Education. If not, then I want to know why anybody believes that it should continue to drain resources away from local school districts.

[tvtimeout]

Where public schools and universities in this country, including Kentucky, fail miserably is teaching students to learn and making learning itself "cool." Too many people look at their final graduation date, whether that comes after 12, 14, or 16 years as the end of their education. Too many teachers reenforce the common American belief that math is "hard."

As LWC said, if you want to discuss class size, then you have to talk about funding. If you want to make the argument that smaller class sizes and larger per pupil expenditures equate to a better quality education, then be prepared to explain how Utah ranks so high in average college entrance scores - and why so many school districts (e.g., the District of Columbia) rank high in per pupil spending and low in virtually everything else

Also, be prepared to explain why a Libertarian believes that the burden for improving education lies with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. What about privatizing schools or at least diverting some additional resources to private schools through a voluntary voucher system.

Would the elimination of the Department of Education fall under the taboo heading of school funding? I would like to see concrete evidence that the quality of public education has improved since the creation of the Department of Education. If not, then I want to know why anybody believes that it should continue to drain resources away from local school districts.

You raise some excellent questions. Where to begin...

Money seems to be on the topic of most people. However, I think it is important to get a job description first, before, I am willing to tell how much money I am ready to pay for that person.
As Hoot would agree in the private world you would look at the following: I paraphrased for a teacher.

Qualifications high school diploma, or PHD in the subject area that is being taught)

Job Description (what the teacher is going to teach curriculum, how many children I am going to deal with on a day to day basis)

Accountability: (who is accountable for what and how it is measured)
Experience: (how many years taught)

Vacation Time: (Holidays or just two weeks)

Contract Time: (the standard 175 days, or do I pay 351 days)

As pointed out by Hoot, I am a libertarian and believe completely in the free market, so money is a variable on of this isn't it. I am going to pay someone differently with a highschool diploma than a PHD, I am going to pay someone differently based on experience, I will probably have to increase the pay if accountablity standards are high. I will probably pay less if my child is in a crowded room, because I believe that MY child deserves the teacher's best effort and time. I will probably have to pay more if the contract has more days in it.

So answer those questions and I will talk money for a single teacher.

I will answer another interesting point in the next thread.

[tvtimeout]

Where public schools and universities in this country, including Kentucky, fail miserably is teaching students to learn and making learning itself "cool." Too many people look at their final graduation date, whether that comes after 12, 14, or 16 years as the end of their education. Too many teachers reenforce the common American belief that math is "hard."

As LWC said, if you want to discuss class size, then you have to talk about funding. If you want to make the argument that smaller class sizes and larger per pupil expenditures equate to a better quality education, then be prepared to explain how Utah ranks so high in average college entrance scores - and why so many school districts (e.g., the District of Columbia) rank high in per pupil spending and low in virtually everything else

Also, be prepared to explain why a Libertarian believes that the burden for improving education lies with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. What about privatizing schools or at least diverting some additional resources to private schools through a voluntary voucher system.

Would the elimination of the Department of Education fall under the taboo heading of school funding? I would like to see concrete evidence that the quality of public education has improved since the creation of the Department of Education. If not, then I want to know why anybody believes that it should continue to drain resources away from local school districts.

Why class size is so important... well is it easier to control 16 of anything or is it easier to control 23+ of anything.

I never said spending money was part of the equation.

Personal story here you can tune me out now...

When working on my Rank I had take a research class. I had the priviledge to go and see the best school elementary school in Kentucky. I was surprised when I got to this place, I thought they would have all the new technology, new buildings, so on and so forth. Wrong, it had regular chalk boards, money was no where to be found. This school was also appealing to me because it had the highest Free and Reduced Lunch in the Commonwealth. So, it had the highest CATS scores and the highest Free and Reduced Lunch rate. It was located in the Mts. Nowhere, close to civilization, but it did have one thing. Teacher to Student Ratio: 12 to 1. The very next year the school consolidated with another and no longer exist today. The best elementary school in the Commonwealth, closed down to save MONEY... brilliant!

[tvtimeout]

Where public schools and universities in this country, including Kentucky, fail miserably is teaching students to learn and making learning itself "cool." Too many people look at their final graduation date, whether that comes after 12, 14, or 16 years as the end of their education. Too many teachers reenforce the common American belief that math is "hard."

As LWC said, if you want to discuss class size, then you have to talk about funding. If you want to make the argument that smaller class sizes and larger per pupil expenditures equate to a better quality education, then be prepared to explain how Utah ranks so high in average college entrance scores - and why so many school districts (e.g., the District of Columbia) rank high in per pupil spending and low in virtually everything else

Also, be prepared to explain why a Libertarian believes that the burden for improving education lies with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. What about privatizing schools or at least diverting some additional resources to private schools through a voluntary voucher system.
Would the elimination of the Department of Education fall under the taboo heading of school funding? I would like to see concrete evidence that the quality of public education has improved since the creation of the Department of Education. If not, then I want to know why anybody believes that it should continue to drain resources away from local school districts.

There are some things I disagree with one is a voucher system, and here is why: I am a biggot. I don't want any tax payer money to go to any private school. I can not stand the thought of my money going to a child who decides to go to be taught at a Mosque. Again, I am biggot. I know this, because I can not stand to see my money go to a Mosque, I will deny myself that same right and not send tax payers money to Christian School. This is what a voucher system would do.

The other alternative is people would not pay a school tax and self fund themselves going to school. That can work, student loans, so on and so forth, which to me is a better option. That to me is a way better option, people still maintain choice. With this senerio, is any one willing to end up with a huge debt. To give some figures on this, $15,000 X 13 yrs (count Pre-K) that equals $195,000. Now let us add college funds $40,000 X 5 yrs (what it now takes most college people) $200,000 + $195,000 = $395,000, now let us keep the interest rate low at 4% for student loans at 15 yrs, your payment a month is $2921.77. Just to give an idea a teacher with 6 yrs experience and a Masters + Rank 1, woluld not cover that payment. Therefore, it is unrealistic at best.

So, I go back to the Commonwealth's rights and the right to educate its people as it see's fit.

I agree with you completely on the Department of Ed. I would have abolished it a long time ago... I think I posted that somewhere else though, along with the IRS and the Fed. Reserve Bank!

[tvtimeout]

Now would anyone like to comment on the Curriculum... Liberal Arts Education or what we are currently doing?

[Hoot Gibson]

Now would anyone like to comment on the Curriculum... Liberal Arts Education or what we are currently doing?

It is horrible. The results speak for themselves.

Seriously, the most important subjects are math, reading, and writing. No other subjects are necessary if schools instill a love of learning in their students because people who are well versed in the basics can teach themselves anything else that they need to know. Obviously, schools should be able to teach much more over the course of 12 years but if they fail to graduate students who are deficient in reading, math, and composition, nothing else really matters much. Teachers are professionals who should decide for themselves how much education they need after graduation to perform their jobs at a high level.

I would eliminate all requirements for teacher certifications. We have all had teachers who have had Masters and Doctorates who were awful classroom instructors. Most of us have also probably had first or second year teachers who were outstanding. There is no reason to pay more for a bad teacher with good credentials than a great teacher who has no degree. Salaries should be tied to performance and nothing else. Schools should be run by principals who can spend some time in the classrooms and recognize quality teaching when they see it.

BTW, I would eliminate most registration and certification requirements in other professions as well. The main reason that they exist is to limit competition and to keep salaries artificially high.

[LWC]

I want to disqualify myself to start off with. I have done no research and never took an education class while in college.

I believe the requirements to be a public school teacher are too high. I understand that salary is commensurate with education and experience, which I like.

I have always been baffled that a person would need to have a Masters Degree OR be en-route to obtaining their Masters degree to teach elementary or middle school. High school, I understand.

I know that I am strange in my thinking but I am an Avenue of Learning fan. What I mean by that is when a person gets to high school or at least the beginning of their Senior year, they should choose an avenue of learning. This would be college-prep or a skill like welding, nursing (something like a vocational school class.)

With the Avenues of Learning, I would do away with the year-end tests for all high school Juniors and Seniors. Their "evaluation" would be obtaining their certification (welding certificate, for nursing their CNA/SRNA, Computer tech would be their A+ [maybe not the A+, that is a whale of a test], etc...) for college prep it would be a certain score on the ACT/SAT (a person can take those tests like 500 times so a certain score would be okay to require.)

As I said before, I disqualify myself from this field of expertise because I just simple don't know how it works. Something is to be said for my personal experience. I graduated from a public 4A high school with a 2.28 GPA. I graduated college in 4 years with a Bachelors degree with a double major, and a minor, as well as an Associates Degree with three earned majors on it, with a GPA that was over a full point higher than in high school.

When I can learn more and easier in college than I did in high school, reform needs to be done.

[nky]

By Liberal Arts do you mean in the Classical sense?
the Trivium

1. grammar
   
2. logic
   
3. rhetoric
   

the Quadrivium

1. arithmetic
   
2. astronomy, often called astrology; both modern senses were covered
   
3. music
   
4. geometry
   

Because in a way the states core classes for graduation are based on these. Look at graduation requirements, then look back at the 7 Liberal Arts

[nky]

Across the country schools are moving away from a "liberal Arts" style curriculum and moving toward Learning Academies or schools of study in which you specialise into a certain educational track (STEM, Business, Arts, Social Services) but this is another fad that hits education every so often.

[nky]

Money is an issue to a point. Schools need to keep pace with technology to help the students perform in the 21st Century. Does paying a teacher more increase learning? I doubt it because if it does what is that teacher doing now?
Class size in the perfect world doesn't matter because all students are eager and prepared to learn. We are not in the perfect world. Public Schools today deal with many issues that they haven't dealt with in the past. smaller classes can help. Longer school years can help, longer school days can help, and understanding college isn't for everyone.

[nky]

Unfortunately Education is a political pawn.
On the National level each new administration brings their ideas to the table- "race to the top" concepts. So changes blow in the wind with the whim of each administration.

The same could be said almost on the state level. But over the last 20+ years of KERA on the outside(general public) it's been a pretty consistent program but teachers who have seen the program know that every few years the "standardized" test has been tweak to manipulate test scores. It is difficult to compare test data across the years because the test are not constructed the same.

Reform on education has been an ongoing event in this country since compulsory education first came on the books. Every generation can point to radical changes, every parent can claim how it's so different from when they were in school. Reform movement really took off after the Soviet lunched Sputnik on a National Level, re-invigorated in the 1980's with "A Nation At Risk" published, and continues with the standards based concept.

[nky]

http://www.factmonster.com/world/statist...years.html
interesting site for how other countries school years go.
For example:
The school year in China typically runs from the beginning of September to mid-July. Summer vacation is generally spent in summer classes or studying for entrance exams. The average school day runs from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a two-hour lunch break. Formal education in China lasts for nine years.
There are about 21 students in each classroom. All Chinese students study from textbooks that emphasize China’s unity, past and present accomplishments, and its future. Students in China also have great access to computer technology, with a computer to student ratio of 1:2. Chinese language and math skills are tested at the end of each year. Math is typically taught by drill, which means students are repeatedly taught the basics of math until they are able to demonstrate comprehension. Education in China since the turn of the 21st century has been undergoing reform, with curriculum being redesigned to emphasize group activities and other methods believed to foster creativity and innovation.

At the end of their 9th grade they must pass a test to move on to Secondary school. If they don't pass they move on to a career path.
At the End of Secondary they must pass another test to move on to college

[Truth]

The main problem with education in this country has little or nothing to do with any perceived need for more funding. More funding is not needed. What our system lacks is responsibility at all levels.

Few students have any interest in learning. They expect to be entertained. They expect to spend their time at school socializing. On the whole, they have never been expected to work and perform at any meaningful level and, obviously, they are incapable of performing basic tasks. Most cannot read, write, or perform math skills at an acceptable level. If you don't believe this, see how many high school seniors can manually do long division and see how many can manually write a paragraph with proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Does anyone else find it unacceptable that a significantly large percentage of college classes are remedial? Why? Obviously, it is because so little was expected of these students in elementary and secondary school. They are completely unprepared. Social promotion has replaced learning. Developing a false feeling of self esteem and self pride have replaced reading, writing, and arithmetic. Now, before you argue that some students are exceptional learners, let me suggest that these students learn in spite of the system and not because of it.

Most parents are so wrapped up in their own mundane and insignificant little lives that they demand no level of excellence from their offspring. Discipline and duty at home has continued to decline year after year. Most of these parents grew up in a permissive environment and, thus, we are reaping another generation of duds.

School officials, particularly those making the decisions and setting the "rules"(administrators, state officials, alleged education "experts"), expect little or nothing other than to continually cry for more money. Classroom teachers, at least those motivated to do so, cannot teach because of the lack of discipline, lack of motivation of students, and useless standards set by pinheads in positions of "authority". Classroom teachers are far more likely to be disciplined than are students (look at the pitiful mess at Greenup County). Therefore, most teachers have abandoned all the ideals of teaching and have chosen to just wait it out and refrain from rocking the boat until time for retirement.

Why do students in other countries outperform our students? It should be obvious. Will it change? No.

[tvtimeout]

The main problem with education in this country has little or nothing to do with any perceived need for more funding. More funding is not needed. What our system lacks is responsibility at all levels.

Few students have any interest in learning. They expect to be entertained. They expect to spend their time at school socializing. On the whole, they have never been expected to work and perform at any meaningful level and, obviously, they are incapable of performing basic tasks. Most cannot read, write, or perform math skills at an acceptable level. If you don't believe this, see how many high school seniors can manually do long division and see how many can manually write a paragraph with proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Does anyone else find it unacceptable that a significantly large percentage of college classes are remedial? Why? Obviously, it is because so little was expected of these students in elementary and secondary school. They are completely unprepared. Social promotion has replaced learning. Developing a false feeling of self esteem and self pride have replaced reading, writing, and arithmetic. Now, before you argue that some students are exceptional learners, let me suggest that these students learn in spite of the system and not because of it.

Most parents are so wrapped up in their own mundane and insignificant little lives that they demand no level of excellence from their offspring. Discipline and duty at home has continued to decline year after year. Most of these parents grew up in a permissive environment and, thus, we are reaping another generation of duds.

School officials, particularly those making the decisions and setting the "rules"(administrators, state officials, alleged education "experts"), expect little or nothing other than to continually cry for more money. Classroom teachers, at least those motivated to do so, cannot teach because of the lack of discipline, lack of motivation of students, and useless standards set by pinheads in positions of "authority". Classroom teachers are far more likely to be disciplined than are students (look at the pitiful mess at Greenup County). Therefore, most teachers have abandoned all the ideals of teaching and have chosen to just wait it out and refrain from rocking the boat until time for retirement.

Why do students in other countries outperform our students? It should be obvious. Will it change? No.

Adam Smith talks about this in his introduction to Wealth of Nations.

[tvtimeout]

It is horrible. The results speak for themselves.

Seriously, the most important subjects are math, reading, and writing. No other subjects are necessary if schools instill a love of learning in their students because people who are well versed in the basics can teach themselves anything else that they need to know. Obviously, schools should be able to teach much more over the course of 12 years but if they fail to graduate students who are deficient in reading, math, and composition, nothing else really matters much. Teachers are professionals who should decide for themselves how much education they need after graduation to perform their jobs at a high level.

I would eliminate all requirements for teacher certifications. We have all had teachers who have had Masters and Doctorates who were awful classroom instructors. Most of us have also probably had first or second year teachers who were outstanding. There is no reason to pay more for a bad teacher with good credentials than a great teacher who has no degree. Salaries should be tied to performance and nothing else. Schools should be run by principals who can spend some time in the classrooms and recognize quality teaching when they see it.

BTW, I would eliminate most registration and certification requirements in other professions as well. The main reason that they exist is to limit competition and to keep salaries artificially high.

Spoken like a true libertarian! Are you sure you are not a libertarian?

[tvtimeout]

I do teach elementary students. I have a masters degree and something called a Rank I, (basically 30 hrs over a masters). All of that is for full disclosure. The one thing that I wish we taught more of is critical thinking. I think we have missed the boat. We want students to be able to memorize a set of facts. Well, why, nine times out of ten I have a machine that can do it. Maybe that is what we want to create though...

I believe that the gov't would have this done. It is easier to control a population to have mindless robots, good citizens (by their definition) working for someone else, balance a check book, have a few kids, pay taxes, and die. (Someone said earlier parents are to ingrossed with their own lives that is because of what they were taught, just an opinion).

Every time a person is able to think for him or herself, they are no longer easy to control. They ask questions, which can irritate the bosses or gov't. They can spark the ideas that cause revolution John Locke (idea of liberty our ForeFathers believed in this guy alot). Karl Marx (USSR), Adam Smith (Capitalism what many today hold ideal to) Newton (gravity) the church hated him, Pythogroes (mathematics) had on sect that said the world was nothing but numbers.

They debated these ideas openly, kinda of like we do on this forum. Schools do not foster these types of environments. Therefore, I don't know if education is really taking place, maybe just programming. Now, I don't know if you need to strike a balance though, because facts are important, easy to control. But maybe our schools need to strike this balance, free thinking, creativity, questioning, along with facts.

I hate to say that I care less if a Chinesse person can add quicker than I can as long as I know why adding is important, why medicine works, well as long as I know why... I think facts will then make more sense, and puts into perspective.

This to me is what education is about to nurture a mind, yes to fill it with facts, but to also teach it to think... What do you think?

[nky]

Problem with education reform and education policy both are created by people who have not experience in education. As long legislature control education very little will be taught. Education is a political stump speech. Talk tough, promise the world, and mess it up every few years.

[Hoot Gibson]

Spoken like a true libertarian! Are you sure you are not a libertarian?

I am sure that I am a libertarian and I have stated so many times on this forum.

[tvtimeout]

I am sure that I am a libertarian and I have stated so many times on this forum.

I thought you were, but remember I am new to the forum. :biggrin:

[Old School]

The main problem with education in this country has little or nothing to do with any perceived need for more funding. More funding is not needed. What our system lacks is responsibility at all levels.

Few students have any interest in learning. They expect to be entertained. They expect to spend their time at school socializing. On the whole, they have never been expected to work and perform at any meaningful level and, obviously, they are incapable of performing basic tasks. Most cannot read, write, or perform math skills at an acceptable level. If you don't believe this, see how many high school seniors can manually do long division and see how many can manually write a paragraph with proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Does anyone else find it unacceptable that a significantly large percentage of college classes are remedial? Why? Obviously, it is because so little was expected of these students in elementary and secondary school. They are completely unprepared. Social promotion has replaced learning. Developing a false feeling of self esteem and self pride have replaced reading, writing, and arithmetic. Now, before you argue that some students are exceptional learners, let me suggest that these students learn in spite of the system and not because of it.

Most parents are so wrapped up in their own mundane and insignificant little lives that they demand no level of excellence from their offspring. Discipline and duty at home has continued to decline year after year. Most of these parents grew up in a permissive environment and, thus, we are reaping another generation of duds.

School officials, particularly those making the decisions and setting the "rules"(administrators, state officials, alleged education "experts"), expect little or nothing other than to continually cry for more money. Classroom teachers, at least those motivated to do so, cannot teach because of the lack of discipline, lack of motivation of students, and useless standards set by pinheads in positions of "authority". Classroom teachers are far more likely to be disciplined than are students (look at the pitiful mess at Greenup County). Therefore, most teachers have abandoned all the ideals of teaching and have chosen to just wait it out and refrain from rocking the boat until time for retirement.

Why do students in other countries outperform our students? It should be obvious. Will it change? No.

Excellent post. IMO parents have to be more involved not only in their children's education, but their social and family life as well.

There have been several instances where the students will stand up to the teacher and just say, I'm not going to do that assignment or turn in their homework. What can the teacher do? School discipline (if you want call it that) is a joke, kids know they can't be paddled, sending them home for three days is the harshest punishment they can receive.