Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Wow! I need to catch up to speed here!

Post one:

However, I don't think doing away with the public school system is the right idea for a couple of reasons.  1.  it will continue to feed the mentality of:  the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.  2.  The public school system is intertwined with other aspects of American life (Sports, music, politics, economy, etc.).  To destroy the system in one fell swoop, could bring down the whole house of cards.  Now a gradual replacement of working ideas with ones that don't work is what I'm for. 

1. This actually has little negative economic ramifications. If you mean that we should have public schools to serve those who cannot afford education, then I would have to disagree with this. Since we simply don't have a caste system like other countries, there is something called "hard work" that used to mean, in the good old days, the ability to earn your education. If indeed our country is built upon the concept of "Equal Opportunity" as it should be, then people simply won't go down the slippery slope of becoming poorer and poorer by default. People who care to be educated will have the opportunity to get an education. Likewise, it isn't the responsibility of the governemnt to take from those with money to give to those who are poor.

2. See my pragmatic solution that explains the practical transition from the public school to the private sector.

Quote from: Colin Michael on February 24, 2009, 11:36:07 PM

Demolish public school.

If there is a need for education, free-market will provide affordable schools to the poor.

You class-ist Bourguoise! 

The problem with "free-market" education is that only the rich will be educated and we will eventually revert to a highly structured class society where $$ determines how smart you get to be.  I may not like public school but I like the idea and I think that public education has done wonders for our society creating a highly skilled labor force.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it gives undue credit to our public schools. In all honesty, it is the global economy that has forced us to focus on "high skill labor" because all of our lower skill labor force is overseas. Maybe I am mistaking cause and effect, but I am pretty sure that the public schools are not responsible for what you see today in America's skill level. That seems to be the result of simple "supply and demand" logic. That is the only place where the money is to be made in America!

     I do like how our country gives the opportunity to all, and allow each person to make their personal education as much or as little as they can.

To be nitpicky, I would say it does a poor job in providing opportunity to the private sector.

I agree and I woudl go further to say that for many people, their education is what they put into it...but some dont want to put anything into it.

Would this cost? yes, very much so.  But those who want education would get it in spades because only earnest and willing students would be left on the main campuses, and those who are troublemakers would find themselves in a more closely supervised and structured situation (which is probably what they need anyway)  and in that program they would find a basic education and the value of hard work.

Who should be implementing and paying for this?

I don't really want to have this whole discussion again, after having a good one that was very similar with The Spy.  But the whole division of class thing does bring up one very important point.

The IDEA of public education is important for our country.  In the past when countries have had rich and poor, the poor have eventually risen up and overthrown the rich.  Most of the time this has been in bloody revolutions (ie. French and Russian).  This hasn't happened here in America, and doesn't appear likely to ever happen.  I think part of the reason why is that people FEEL like they have more control over their lives.

They THINK that they actually get to pick their leaders, which makes them not feel like they need to revolt over power.  They THINK that they could be rich, or their kids could be rich, if they only got a good enough job, which makes them not feel like they need to revolt over wealth.  They BELIEVE that education is the key to getting a good job, and education is free for everyone, which makes them not feel like they need to revolt over opportunities.

If there was no public education, then there would be a large number of people who would feel disenfranchised with the country, and they would be susceptible to violent ravings of a charismatic leader (particularly since they would also be less educated).  This is a recipe for disaster.

I think Israel provides a good model of education. When you were of the age of learning, you pursued academic interests. If you didn't show the capacity to be taken on as a disciple by a rabbi, you went to vocational school (via apprenticeship).

I had thought it was mentioned somewhere here in this thread already, but America's status as a production nation has been declining for years.  Production is outsourced and we are moving into a service-oriented economic model.  There wouldn't be nearly enough jobs in the country to support all the rabble that you are deliberately excluding from any opportunity for self-improvement.

We need to separate the intellectual elites from the workers; that kind of oligarchy works as long as its based of intellectual merit rather than heritage.

Now I KNOW we've had this conversation before.  What surprises me is you're still not acknowledging how stupid some smart people can be.

How do you come to terms with this biblically? We are called to be good stewards of our resources.

He said "forced".  Stewardship is a deliberate act of self-discipline.

Sadly though, it is this mindset that there are a huge amount of people sitting around doing nothing getting paid enough to survive that has been portrayed by the media and others to make ourselves feel righteous anger and injustice, when that's often not the case at all....

I have to say I don't see the media running with welfare momma stories.  If anything, I think the media and many of its consumers would be shocked at some of the stories I have heard from someone working with these very people in Philadelphia's system.

The problem with private school (which seems to be gettign advocated by a couple people) or homeschool is that those domain's simply can't offer variety that a publically funded school can, and as someone who attends a private school, we miss out.

Everybody has a right to their own opinion, homeschooling works for me, but a more social-based schooling system might work better for other people (considering that it isnt public school, since it does teach unlearned doctrines and wrong beliefs.) Of course, it depends on the system. Private schools can be just as bad if not worse, than that of an average public school. While homeschooling might bias the person's beliefs, who's to stop public school from being biased?

you guys are biased agenst homeshcool i HATE public shcool it is 100% agsent the lord and itteaches lies and its crap!

While I agree that public school does not present an appropriate Christian atmosphere, could you please stop shouting?

I think I can see your point of view.

Would you be in favour of splitting pre-college public education into two forms: liberal arts and vocational? If done in the current model, one could easily provide both in the current establishment and liberal arts minded people would be better prepared for progressing the culture of our society while the workforce would be better prepared for maintaining our society.

Thinkers need to be taught how to think by the education system; doers need to know the information required for them to do. Both types are necessary for society.
Those adept for natural sciences and such will learn nothing from a philosophy or logic course while those adept for the liberal arts will gain nothing from a biology or physics course.
Basically, education does nothing to account for the large percentage of "free-thinkers", who are commonly labeled with ADD.

Thinkers need to be taught how to think by the education system; doers need to know the information required for them to do. Both types are necessary for society.
Those adept for natural sciences and such will learn nothing from a philosophy or logic course while those adept for the liberal arts will gain nothing from a biology or physics course.
Basically, education does nothing to account for the large percentage of "free-thinkers", who are commonly labeled with ADD.

You honestly think that natural sciences do not need philosophy or logic? Where are they going to learn about the ethics of stem-cell research or cloning or the like? And what about the other side...liberal arts have much to gain from a basic understanding of how the world works. Again, I allude to the fact that students change their minds multiple times about what they want to do. Hence why a specialized education, ESPECIALLY one separated by "spheres of influence or what have you" is not going to be a good move in the long run....

If you want to talk about degrees of effectiveness, he probably does.  He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to have an excluded middle.

Quote from: The Schaef on February 26, 2009, 09:15:26 PM

If you want to talk about degrees of effectiveness, he probably does.  He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to have an excluded middle.

Well, is there a compromise to be reached between the two?

I mean, clearly, if the German and Japanese schools are beating ours, they're either being better educated or they're the master races.

Or American schools teach to tests (see SAT, various state tests used for funding gauges) and students don't actually learn.

So right now the two competing ideas in this thread are multi-faceted education (one size fits all) vs focused education (everybody is different and everybody should have different schooling options)? Can we have both?

We already have both.  Some people go on to college for more book learnin'.  Others go to technical schools to learn how to do stuff.  Others just get jobs.

I've known people who have gone on to college and earned degrees in things that qualified them for basically nothing except going on to get a Masters degree.  I've known people who have gotten a job at a convenient store right after high school, and stayed there.  I've known people who have gone to cooking schools, hairdressing schools, computer certification schools, and other "vocational" type schools.  All of these are available now

But the problem is, these schools don't start until 18 and should be started much sooner.

There are also vocational high schools.

Quote from: Colin Michael on February 26, 2009, 11:50:39 PM

But the problem is, these schools don't start until 18 and should be started much sooner.

This I would agree with.  I would like students to have the option to gaina general education that is balanced in all areas, but as they approach jr.high school and Sr. high school they are able to focus on the skills they like or preffer.  I think the magnet school approach is a step in the right direction here.  If someone knows they want to be a doctor after school, then I think they should be able to either go to a school that helps them focus on those skills or take classes in their school that will help prepare them for that skill.

I say this also knowing that many students will still not know what they want to do after HS and will therefore need a "general education" school just like what we have now.

I mean, the stuff learned in undergraduate college could easily be copy/pasted into highschool. Teaching kids more difficult things when they're younger makes them smarter. Also, if we move undergraduate down a step (or even just move down college general education), we will progress the entire chain of education proportionally.
There are some things that students learn senior year of high school or freshman/sophmore year of highschool that are both basic concepts and essential concepts for good intellectual development. High School freshmen and sophmores most definitely will benefit from taking logic courses, rhetoric courses, and grammer courses (for these things matter in any job far more than natural sciences, for they teach you to think rather than to memorise). Also, learning at least basic latin greatly helps both ones grammer and capacity for understanding romance languages (although this could very well be done in middle school; my brother and I had no problem with it then).

As for mathematics and natural sciences, students should definitely possess basic knowledge of them; however, the goal of institutions currently is to make kids pass tests rather than make them brilliant. Memorising facts doesn't build the logical side of one's mind.

I mean, the stuff learned in undergraduate college could easily be copy/pasted into highschool. Teaching kids more difficult things when they're younger makes them smarter. Also, if we move undergraduate down a step (or even just move down college general education), we will progress the entire chain of education proportionally.
There are some things that students learn senior year of high school or freshman/sophmore year of highschool that are both basic concepts and essential concepts for good intellectual development. High School freshmen and sophmores most definitely will benefit from taking logic courses, rhetoric courses, and grammer courses (for these things matter in any job far more than natural sciences, for they teach you to think rather than to memorise). Also, learning at least basic latin greatly helps both ones grammer and capacity for understanding romance languages (although this could very well be done in middle school; my brother and I had no problem with it then).

As for mathematics and natural sciences, students should definitely possess basic knowledge of them; however, the goal of institutions currently is to make kids pass tests rather than make them brilliant. Memorising facts doesn't build the logical side of one's mind.

Here's the problem. there are programs that happen like this (In Ohio it's called Seniors to sophomores, where students can start taking college classes their junior year. However as I discovered with my students, it's not for everyone. I have a hard time telling a student that a D in a college class is better than a B in their high school class. To me it means they are not ready and need two more years to prepare....just one example