EDUCATION:
We need to get government out of the business of teaching our children and return control to parents and local interests.
If a student's ability to learn is defined by their parents, then why are we throwing good money after bad? Let the parents have the consequence of the environment they provide. Currently, we take responsibility away from the parents. We force them to enroll their kids in schools by the age of six and all teaching and blame falls on government from then on.
Just as "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" it's also true that "you can send a boy to college, but you can't make him think." You can't force someone to learn. Schools must find a different method to accomplish this task. Poor kids can learn the lyrics to songs and many other skills, certainly we can find a way to teach them the things they need for survival.
1) Private schools cost less to operate than government schools and would be even more cost effective without government regulations.
2) Parents should have the right to decide what moral philosophy their child(ren) will learn.
3) Parents seldom have the money to pay both taxes and tuition and shouldn't be forced to pay for something they don't want to support like
4) Choice will force educators to teach well or go out of business.
5) In Harlem, choice increased the number of children reading at their grade level from 15% to 64% which shows that the poor can learn when given a choice. [John M. Hood, "Miracle on 109th Street", Reason magazine, May 1989, pp. 20-25.]
6) Those with the right skills can specialize in difficult students. One private institution specializes in those who are about to drop out and boasts an 85% graduation rate. [Carolyn Lockhead, "A Lesson From Private Practitioners" Insight, 12/24/90 pp. 34-36.]
7) We learned more when we weren't forced to. The US was once considered the most literate nation in the world. In the early 1800s a survey in Boston found that 90% of school-aged children were enrolled in school even though attendance was not compulsory and public schooling was not widespread. [Stanley J. Schultz, THE CULTURE FACTORY: BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1789-1860 (NY:Oxford University Press, 1973) pp.32-33.]
8) Some parents won't supervise their children's education properly. Current critics say the public schools are only as good as the parents anyway so choice would not change anything. These children would just disrupt and disrespect education. Why penalize those students who do want to learn and subject them to the negative influence of these subversives? Parents whose children are rejected from school will be burdened and take proper action to end the behavior that caused the rejection.
9) Good teachers will have greater earning potential. Those with special skills can teach their peers their techniques and profit from doing so.
10) Public school teachers are twice as likely to send their children to private schools according to David T. Kearns and Dennis P. Doyle, ["WINNING THE BRAIN RACE: A BOLD PLAN TO MAKE OUR SCHOOLS COMPETITIVE" (San Francisco: Institute For Contemporary Studies, 1988) p.17.]
11) Current methods of teaching are unproven and many seem counterproductive. There is indication that the current system can cause mental stress and behavior problems. "People develop differently. An educational system that assumes there's only one way to learn gets into trouble. It loses people. People who don't fit the mold are called stupid. There are different kinds of intelligence, and each has its own pathway. We need an individualized education system that can build upon natural talents and limitations. When we stop trying to fit people into a common mold, we'll be able to produce brighter, more effective citizens."[Kurt W. Fischer, Ph.D. Psychology Today Feb. 2000. p.26]
12) If I really had my druthers, I'd remove MANDATORY from education.
A) Freedom and mandatory are not compatible.
B) When something is forced it is often not appreciated.
C) Schools should be able to reject students who do not conform to the necessary behavior conducive
to learning.
1) Other students would see the example.
2) Parents would be forced to provide for their children or be burdened by their care during
school hours.
3) Education should be available for those who truly want to learn, including adults who didn't
appreciate it in their youths. This would reinstate education to its previous position of honor
and would insure that current teachers, buildings and administrations would be put to the best
use: teaching the teachable.
13) I recently heard a student say, "I got an A on my history test because my new teacher makes it fun." She gave specific ways this teacher did that. Should we expect teachers to entertain? Certainly we can expect that they make the material pertinent to the children. I think most people would have difficulty learning something that didn't seem necessary to them. After all, there are so many interesting things to compete with, education has to hold its own if we're going to reach our targets.
PROFICIENCY TESTS
It is necessary to use something to gauge whether schools are effective at what they're being paid to do. The current (3/20/00) proficiency tests are flawed.
1) Who designs the tests? As in the book Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen the tests are not necessarily prepared by the most qualified persons.
2) Government mandates what material a teacher must cover. The tests sometimes cover material that is not on the mandated list and which, therefore, the teacher doesn't have time to cover.