US Education 2017: Countdown to DeVos Destroying Public Education

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Education 2017: Countdown to DeVos Destroying Public Education

I believe the state of US education is...
	Doing very well...
	Could be better...
	Horrendously hosed...
	I have no idea because I only watch Fox News...

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

View Results

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I'm always shocked at how strongly SA threads about education cling to "trade schools" as a panacea for education reform. Like yeah, it seems like a neat thing some specific school districts could have that could fit in their needs but it just seems so not like a general solution. It seems like the DeVos solution though: stop universal public education and just send kids to different schools that don't have the same standards for things like literacy and math or special ed or anything.

Like the primary problems schools have are stuff like being underfunded, not being able to get the best teachers, having bad buildings, etc. Like it feels weird to treat the solution to that is to continue to underfund any of that and then just spend a whole second education system. One that requires even more specialized teachers and buildings and equipment. Unless the idea that it wouldn't even be "in addition to" but "instead of" and that certain towns would simply be deemed lost causes for traditional education.

I see at least three levels to look at problems, and the solutions for each level are probably going to be unrelated, even if solutions at one level have knock on effects elsewhere.

1) Parents want their children to receive an education that prepares them to live on their own, and schools today just don't even attempt that. Life lessons that 18 year olds desperately need are just not available. Classes that prepare you for jobs other than "go to college" are missing. Trade oriented and otherwise practical education are solutions to these problems.

2) Schools as an institution need to be supported. Overworked under-budgeted teachers will perform poorly. Poorly maintained structures probably creates a stress effect that inhibits learning. This doesn't necessarily stop any individual kid from learning any individual fact, but the school level results can be observed. Obviously correctly funding schools solves this, it's just a question of how.

3) Nationwide scores may suck globally (I haven't looked at them recently). This again doesn't really stop a school or student from being successful. You don't need to be writing intelligent analysis of Shakespeare to succeed at being a good member of society, but if nationally our students are for some reason worse at writing intelligent analysis of Shakespeare than the rest of the world, that's pretty suspicious, and forcing schools nationwide to start reading Romeo and Juliet isn't the solution. I honestly don't know the solution here, or if it's a problem even worth solving. If Americans as a society just don't culturally value reading classics maybe that's ok. Or maybe the Department of Education should host a bunch of live plays to boost interest. Regardless I'm pretty confident any solution will have a pretty attenuated value to any individual student (and therefore individual parents aren't likely to care), but that's ok if the aggregate is valuable, and the Department of Education doesn't answer to parents anyways.

quote:

I also don't get what percent of the population is expected to go through these schools in these plans. Like if it's 1 in 10,000 kids or something that that will be a huge boon for that kid, but if we restructure all of society to make 1 in 4 kids plumbers or something that goes no where.

Much like advertising, the goal isn't really "student takes plumbing unit -> student becomes plumber", but rather to make these roles visible in their education as viable careers. If someone takes carpentry and their three friends are taking shop, electrics, and plumbing, and their all talking about their projects, then the goal has been achieved.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2017 20:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 09:21

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

BarbarianElephant posted:

My idea is that it would be a voluntary thing - you chose to give up the degree so that the student loan agreements become dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Wait, you're serious about this? How in the world do you expect this work? I take out loans from the government, banks, and Aunt Alice. I use the money from the loans to pay a school for an education (and also other costs while attending school). I complete that education and obtain a degree. I walk up to the government, the banks, and Aunt Alice and say "I will not be paying back the loans I got from you". They (separately? collectively?) petition the school to "revoke" my degree? They school sends the sheriff department to my house to collect my degree? The school (or the lenders?) seeks a gag order preventing me from saying "I attended Awesome School and completed their Awesome program with honors"?
edit:
I guess at a bankruptcy hearing you could agree to not mention your degree as a condition of some debt being discharged, but that seems like a really weird thing for a judge to care about, and I don't see anyway for the judge to enforce it even if they cared.

twodot fucked around with this message at 18:24 on May 1, 2017

# ¿ May 1, 2017 18:21

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Quidthulhu posted:

For a ten year old, yes.

Why do 10 year olds need more free time then not-10 year olds?

# ¿ May 2, 2017 02:57

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Quidthulhu posted:

Because as you progress through your education to higher level tasks they take longer to complete as you are learning how to do them?

When are you suggesting students should reinforce and independently practice the material they have learned in order to complete the transfer to prior knowledge, so that they are able to then do it without reference or assistance?

So you're not saying that 10 year olds need more free time, but rather that 17 years olds need more education time to accomplish their education goals? I'm legitimately trying to understand your point. If 17 year olds need 55 hours a week of education, but we're only willing to employ teachers for 40 hours a week, I get it, but I can't extract a thesis from your posts.
edit:
Does three hours a day include weekends? If so, adjust numbers accordingly.

twodot fucked around with this message at 03:13 on May 2, 2017

# ¿ May 2, 2017 03:11

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

litany of gulps posted:

Since when were teachers employed for 40 hours a week? Last I checked I was on a salary, like most of the professional workforce, where you work as much you need to work to accomplish your goals.

If teachers are willing to work literally as many hours they need to work to accomplish their goals why is there such a thing as unsupervised school work?

# ¿ May 2, 2017 03:23

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

litany of gulps posted:

What about college, for that matter? I had semesters where I had to read upwards of 25-30 books, plus... you know, classtime and assignments. And a loving job. When do you prepare kids for reality?

In the case of college, I think there's broad agreement that students need more education hours than classroom hours to learn the material, but also we're not willing to employee professors as baby sitters watching 20 year olds reading a book. Preparing kids for reality would involve have a generally fixed work week and paying them for their efforts, so the answer to that appears to be "after their education is done".
edit:
Also, you sound like a person who attended college, but in my experience lecture hall hours at college was significantly smaller than the hours I was expected to attend school prior to college which seems extremely relevant and not addressed by you.

twodot fucked around with this message at 03:31 on May 2, 2017

# ¿ May 2, 2017 03:28

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

litany of gulps posted:

So you acknowledge the absurdity of having 20 year old students do their independent work during classroom hours, but you question the validity of the idea of having 17 year old students do their independent work outside of classroom hours?

No not at all. I'm just saying society doesn't seem to think college professors should behave as baby sitters, but teachers of children below a certain age should behave as baby sitters. Maybe that's sane policy, maybe it's not. It's a fine argument for someone to say "10 year olds only need 20 hours of education time, but 17 year olds need 55 hours of education, but in any situation I only want to employee teachers for 40 hours a week", I just want someone to make that argument out loud. I'm not an expert on how many hours a week kids need for education, I'm just observing how society currently functions. (edit: 5 to whatever year olds mysteriously need exactly 40 hours of education, but at some point that sharply jumps above 40 is clearly suspicious)

quote:

You can argue that the guided workload is reduced, but if you are in favor of eliminating independent practice outside of school hours for secondary school, you surely understand that this means that the independent practice must be done during school hours.

I'm not really convinced of this (see the earlier discussion of busy work), but it's certainly possible.

twodot fucked around with this message at 03:50 on May 2, 2017

# ¿ May 2, 2017 03:43

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

litany of gulps posted:

What is your job?

I'm surrounded by degree'd professionals who put in far more than 40 hours a week every week. I'm surrounded by kids who go to school and work. I'm surrounded by kids whose parents work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. My graduated students - the ones who actually are successful - work constantly and are still always on edge, trying to meet incredible demands. A shocking number of them hit the college level and almost immediately drop out because they are not prepared for the reality of having to work independently and study a LOT outside of class hours. Forgive me for dismissing your vague anecdote, but I suspect your experience may not be the norm.

So you've got something other than a vague anecdote?

litany of gulps posted:

Last I checked I was on a salary, like most of the professional workforce, where you work as much you need to work to accomplish your goals.

# ¿ May 2, 2017 03:57

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

litany of gulps posted:

Sure, you absurd pedant gimmick. It is (or should be) commonly known by everyone involved in this argument that the average adult US worker does more than 40 hours a week of work. The most basic searches on our great information network can get you this information. Here, I will help you.

https://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/chart1.pdf

According to the BLS, the average adult American worker does almost 9 hours of work (not including lunch or breaks) per weekday. I'm sure you can do the basic multiplication, or do you need your hand held for that too?

Cool, I'm happy to replace every instance of "40" with "45" in my posts on this thread if that will make you happy.

# ¿ May 2, 2017 04:03

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

litany of gulps posted:

Your tone implies a dismissal of nearly a full extra workday of hours. Is that what you mean to imply? That almost an entire full extra workday of hours is trivial?

Edit: Let's see, the average American has 2 days off a week, no? If you spend nearly a full extra workday of hours working on one of those days, what percentage of your time off have you lost?

It's trivial to my point that society is unwilling to employee secondary teachers for the length of time necessary to teach secondary students, according to certain posters in this thread.

# ¿ May 2, 2017 04:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 09:21

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

litany of gulps posted:

Your point is flawed at the core because you fail to recognize that independent study is a part of education at the secondary school level.

Arguing your point is trivial because your point lacks merit.

So your argument is that society is willing to employee teachers for as long as is necessary to educate secondary students, but doesn't for what reasons? Independent study can exist at schools.

twodot fucked around with this message at 04:12 on May 2, 2017

# ¿ May 2, 2017 04:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Education 2017: Countdown to DeVos Destroying Public Education