It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


how to fix our education system

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:25 PM
ok so based upon my other thread the education system is really bad so how do we fix it? do we privitize it? elect our teachers whats your
edit on 5-5-2011 by nikkibee because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:28 PM
Privatizing it? You mean like letting Wall-Mart having there way with education? Or as in leaving education to the privileged few who have the money for it and everyone else get jack squat?

IMO either way, privatizing education is probably the worst idea.
edit on 5-5-2011 by anon102 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by nikkibee

get a bunch of books and teach them yourself, screw those brain washing institutions, they are little more than baby sitters indoctrinating our children ingsoc syle while the parents pull double shifts as slaves for corporations,theres so much i could say but theres not enough threads or forums

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:33 PM
the parents should be helping teach on off times naturally. of course i advocate limiting family size to 2 offspring which would give parents more time.
edit on 5-5-2011 by gougitousakusha because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:35 PM
My initial stance has always been to first totally shut down the Federal Department of Education. If this is not done, then there is no point in even trying to fix it. Private and home schools will win out. Once the DOE is closed, then get rid of all these politically correct "feel good" programs.

The issue basically boils down to the states needs. Each state is different, each state has its own needs, each state has its own pros and cons and each state has its own obstacles. When Jimmy Carter created the DOE, he effectively placed a blanket over the states in order to make each follow the same guidelines and rules and removed the ability from the states to individually tailor their school systems to fit their needs. Start there, then we can move on to fixing the school systems at the local level, but it will never happen as long as the feds have their hands in the states cookie jars.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by anon102

no definitely not i meant individual private schools. that way you could pick which one you like best. and they would have to constantly try to improve to keep up with the competition and the bad one would go out of businesses. it probably wouldn't work but its a nice thought.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by nikkibee

Privatizing education means that students are relegated to second (if they're lucky) after profit.

Electing teachers means that - within the framework of US elections in general - teachers will be representative of the image they pull off, and not the meat-and-potatoes of their pedagogical practices.

Plus, it'd be a logistical nightmare to have open elections for so many positions.

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for individual schools and the parents whose students attend them.

On second thought, strike that. That is a horrible idea. Parents do not always know the best way to teach. If they don't understand educational methodology, I do not want to see them making decisions on teachers.

How to fix the schools?

Increase federal funding for schools by taking a chunk out of that nice little pool for no-bid contracts known as defense.

End funding based on property tax such that the ghetto has bad schools and the wealthy neighborhoods get state of the art schools. Talk about a vicious circle.

Repeal NCLB.

Eliminate prescriptive standards and standardized testing.

In stead, elaborate general guidelines for what should be taught based on age/developmental readiness and allow for leeway based on the student, the class, the community and so forth.

Eliminate English-only and institute community-relevant bilingual education programs.

Lower student:teacher ratios!!!!! - raising them looks attractive to taxpayers and politicians because it means less teachers to pay. The opposite side of that coin is that 30 to 35 students in a classroom means little Johnny has little face time with the teacher; maybe none if there is a more needy, vocal or problematic student that is occupying the teachers time.

Allow for student-participation in the education process. Kids play. They need to feel like what they're doing is their choice, fun and stimulating. They don't need to feel like prisoners or Peanuts (whah-wha-whah-whah-WHAH).

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by anon102

More specifically, privatization means using tax payer money to pay a company to take over the responsibility of the given sector. In the case of education, privatizing does not mean creating private schools such as those that already exist and cater to the wealthy and practitioners of certain religions.

Privatizing means Charter schools. They are one in the same concept. Waiting for Superman, based on what I've read about it and the arguments it presents is total pro-privatization propaganda couched in gushy, seemingly liberal framing. I'll have to watch it myself and be the judge, so don't take my word on that.

It doesn't mean that there is no education for the poor. It means that the access to education they receive is fully privatized. The private company receives funding from the government to render a service - education in this case. But, as we all know, the sole purpose of a corporation is to turn a profit. We all know what happens when the profit-motive is central and everything else is distant second: corners are cut, safety and quality is by-passed, quantity is weighed against quality or substance, if you will.

In a privatized system, the rich will go to the extant elaborate religious and private grade schools. The middle class will have access to first tier charter schools where the government is subsidizing the third party (the charter) but the parents will probably pay on top of that for their student to attend. You have to pay for quality!

The poor, on the other hand, do get jack squat to put it bluntly: the charter schools they attend will only - ONLY - be subsidized. Perhaps extra money will have to be doled out, if possible, by the parents for meals or fieldtrips, etc. The Charter schools, whether the parents will pay extra or not, will all operate for a profit.

The reason that does not negatively affect the affluent is that they know they are paying for quality. The reason it affects the poor is that the Charter school knows their customer (the US government) will keep paying the bills and the their indirect clients (the students) cannot complain about the quality in any meaningful way, assuming the poor have time to undertake such formal activities as writing to their congressman or protesting on their day off from their second or third job.

No, privatization is most definitely not the way to go.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:38 PM
okayy scratch my two ideas....anyone else got a plan?

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 01:18 AM
Privatization should be the ultimate step, because then people don't get paid regardless of poor performance. A good way to start that is to have vouchers that follow the children rather than paying directly to the school. Then schools would have incentive to teach each student well or the child will leave the school and they won't get paid.

new topics

top topics


log in