Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The students do. But I suppose the parent would have to decide what's best for their child--instead of the government.
Imagine that! Parents actually being responsible for their kids' education! Probably market forces would determine what trade is best for the kid to learn.
The students do. But I suppose the parent would have to decide what's best for their child--instead of the government.
Imagine that! Parents actually being responsible for their kids' education! Probably market forces would determine what trade is best for the kid to learn.
Then, at the age of 8, studying geography would be a good thing - inasmuch as you don't know what that child will choose as a profession -
Who chooses what concentrations/majors students study now?
There isn't much of a concentration in the schools at all. They get taught every subject. There are some subjects that they CaN choose.. and maybe substitue.. but not many. For example, students can study whatever language they choose from what is offered in the school district.
College is where students really get to choose a concentration and i'm sure they'll base it on how well they enjoyed their subjects in H.S. For example,my brothers both excelled in science and math and went on to choose majors that revolved around their strengths (ones has a doctorate in genetics the other a degree in engineering).
I think choosing your life course in H.S or earlier may be good for some, i believe that children are too young to decide the rest of their life at that age..
Until high school, they are on an academic track. In high school, there may be some limitations placed by the state, but there are more electives, such as shop classes, that students can take.
However, there is nothing wrong with a child's PARENTS deciding what courses that child takes.
A course of study that includes reading, writing / grammar / spelling, mathematics, science, history (world and united states), music and the arts, social studies etc are essential for ANY child today -
I'm sorry, I didn't see where you asked specifically about the 5-8 year old student population.
Are we to imagine in this hypothetical scenario that the government has completely washed it's hands of the role of educator. There are no subsidies handed out and no taxes collected?
Possible alternatives that could happen.
With decreased taxes, private companies could hire teachers to teach their employees' children as a benefit to retain good employees... like how some now offer daycare.
Newly unemployed teachers could open up smaller class rooms that key on education, and not necessarily physical education, music and arts... As much could be tought in a shorter school day for less money per student.
Private philanthropists could start their own schools.
I'm sure there are many other possible scenarios that could play out.
How do we possibly feed and clothe all of our nation's children? Those that can, feed and clothe their children. Some eat and dress better than others, but very few die from starvation or the elements. Those that cannot afford to feed and clothe their children rely on government help and the helping hand of others until they're able to support their family on their own.
I didn't specifically point out that age group, but it appeared you only gave an option for older children, not all. And that's what has been happening throughout this discussion. Not very many "complete" solutions or alternatives. People have been pointing out quick fixes that seem to suit themselves without taking the big picture into account.
You point out "possible scenarios" - but I'm sure others would want to see "probable scenarios". A change of this scale would be a huge risk and details would be important - no, critical for many children. Those who want to see things changed should provide complete solutions and point out the risks, the benefits, and the potential upside and downside.
you teach the children the skills they need to do the jobs they are getting, and that's all.
Talent, even, doesn't enter into the picture. Even if you're a talented artist, on the level of Gaugin, you take the education that's going to get you gainful employment, like being a stockbroker (like Gaugin).
you teach the children the skills they need to do the jobs they are getting, and that's all.
Talent, even, doesn't enter into the picture. Even if you're a talented artist, on the level of Gaugin, you take the education that's going to get you gainful employment, like being a stockbroker (like Gaugin).
Sorry but, a well rounded educated person is better apt to be able to cope with today's challenges than someone who have myopic education.
I encouraged my children to explore the many different things in life available to them - to help THEM decide what THEY wanted to do / be: Not what their parents wanted them to be.
One took a couple of years after high school to travel extensively - traveled the world - and found himself wanting to be able to help the disadvantaged in other countries - and has -
The other graduated from high school in a little over 3 years and enlisted in the Navy (has been attached to the Marine Corp since right after basic). He just celebrated his 20th anniversary in the Navy - planning on staying until 30 years - will be returning to the ME (6th tour) in January - he is in the medical profession - and loving his career.
My Foster daughter (been with us for 14 years) just started at AZ State Univ - going for an engineering degree -
It's their choice - not mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.