Bowen and LePages plans for education

[Mark S.]

The more that comes out about this "reform," the more it stinks to high heaven of just a corporate money grab.

Controversy deepens over firm seeking to operate virtual school in Maine | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by bangorme

Although I strongly favor a voucher system, a straight cost comparison isn't always possible. For example, if we say that the public school "educates" a child at an AVERAGE cost of $5,000 per year, we are missing something. Special education is a good example. One special ed child can cost over $70,000 a year to support in a public school setting. These kids usually aren't going to the private schools, so their AVERAGE costs are going to be lower than the public schools that have to accept them. The same for "problem" children. Private schools just boot them out, and of course the public systems have to take them. This not only effects costs, but AVERAGE standardized test comparisons.

In the last town I lived in, the regular school budget was $24 Million. The SpEd budget was an additional $12 Million. It was crazy. SpEd 'students' accounted for only a tiny fraction of the overall student population, but consumed fully half as much as the budget for *thousands* of children.

There is something very wrong with that picture. That does not make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Submariner

No faster method to destroy an industry than to give it to the government to operate.

I am a member of a fraternal organization that long ago had made it a primary focus to make education 'public-funded', to guarantee an education to every citizen. Those were lofty goals. Alas they were misguided.

People from back in that day, surely would be vomiting if they were alive to see what has became of education in America.

I think that *part* of the problem, is what people consider 'education' and how much each child should get while being funded from the public trough.

In addition to the basic skills of the 'Three Rs', children should be taught *how* to *learn*, how to learn things for themselves.

But does every high school need a state of the art Chem Lab? I don't think so, only a small percentage of students will ever go on to do anything with that 'education'.

I'll use myself as an example- I suck at math...really, really bad. I can do the basics on paper (not very well in my head), addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. But beyond that, I just don't get it. Why then, was I forced through Algebra I & II, Trig, and Calculus, falling further and further behind, becoming more and more confused and feeling like a dolt (I'm not, but I certainly felt like it in those classes) when I just couldn't Get It? Why was all of that money wasted in a futile attempt to 'educate' me in something that I clearly had no talent for? (And, why did not my poorer and poorer test results not trigger some kind of review of my [lack of] skill in this area, and/or the method(s) being used in the attempt to teach me?) But, at least I can make change without a computerized cash register to tell me how much to give back.

Chemistry, on the other hand, I had a talent for...and I had also learned how to learn and had a set of reference works available (at home, as well as at the public library...someone gave me a chemistry set for my tenth birthday and it wasn't very long before I started making things that went 'BOOM!' We had a 'state of the art' chem lab in high school, but I'll wager dollars to donuts that only a very small percentage of students like myself ever made much use of that 'education'. (The Army certainly appreciated my talents for making things go BOOM!)

I don't think that *every* subject should be crammed down every kid's throat, nor do I think that the general public should be paying for this attempt. Beyond the basics, there should be some kind of assessment of a child's skills and abilities, and some directionality to any further education based on testing and a reasonable evaluation of the results. Isn't that what testing is supposed to be for?

Why waste money trying to cram *everything* into *every* kid's head? Would it not be better to direct students into areas in which they have an apptitude? Perhaps smaller, more specialized schools serving a larger area, for those students who are capable of learning the material?

Bah, I think I'm starting to ramble now...

[Kristin85]

Originally Posted by Zymer

I don't think that *every* subject should be crammed down every kid's throat, nor do I think that the general public should be paying for this attempt. Beyond the basics, there should be some kind of assessment of a child's skills and abilities, and some directionality to any further education based on testing and a reasonable evaluation of the results. Isn't that what testing is supposed to be for?

Why waste money trying to cram *everything* into *every* kid's head? Would it not be better to direct students into areas in which they have an apptitude? Perhaps smaller, more specialized schools serving a larger area, for those students who are capable of learning the material?

I believe this is how the Chinese education system is structured and it is the reason why they always outperform Americans on standaridized tests. Less intelligent students are pushed into trade while teenagers and never take the courses that lead to standardized testing. If a student is a phenom in one area but struggles with another, he will be pushed into his area of interest without getting a diverse education either. The students that "know everything" are at the upper echelon of their society and study their behinds off with tutors to completely understand everything. The US education system could learn a thing or two from them. At any rate, virtual schooling will definitely allow for less diversity in teaching than a physical school. To Mainegrl's point, vocational educations are near impossible to offer with virtual instruction.

[bangorme]

Originally Posted by Kristin85

To Mainegrl's point, vocational educations are near impossible to offer with virtual instruction.

We already have regional vocational schools at the secondary and post-secondary levels. I'm not sure that the intent is to make all these programs available through virtual instruction. Something that is "hands-on" would still have to be done in a facility (e.g. auto mechanic or truck driving), although many of the support classes could be done virtually. Many programs could be mostly virtually taught (e.g. office occupations or medical transcribing).

[mainegrl2011]

Originally Posted by bangorme

We already have regional vocational schools at the secondary and post-secondary levels. I'm not sure that the intent is to make all these programs available through virtual instruction. Something that is "hands-on" would still have to be done in a facility (e.g. auto mechanic or truck driving), although many of the support classes could be done virtually. Many programs could be mostly virtually taught (e.g. office occupations or medical transcribing).

Many programs could be mostly virtually taught? I think you are correct in saying some would have to be done in a facility. Auto mechanics? diesel/heavy equipment? welding? carpentry? masonry? electrical trades? health science/CNA program? criminal justice/law enforcement? plumbing? painting cars/repairing them after car accidents? culinary arts? cosmetology? What ever happened to apprenticeship programs/on-the-job training? This type of career training was quite prevalent in New England during colonial times, was it not?

[mainebrokerman]

Originally Posted by mainegrl2011

Many programs could be mostly virtually taught? I think you are correct in saying some would have to be done in a facility. Auto mechanics? diesel/heavy equipment? welding? carpentry? masonry? electrical trades? health science/CNA program? criminal justice/law enforcement? plumbing? painting cars/repairing them after car accidents? culinary arts? cosmetology? What ever happened to apprenticeship programs/on-the-job training? This type of career training was quite prevalent in New England during colonial times, was it not?

maine has many of these programs...even Apprenticeships, I met with the Apprenticeship director of maine a few years ago to set up training programs in each county..

if you look on the decd...department of economic development, they have a good web page ...

its worth the time to take a look

[bangorme]

Originally Posted by mainegrl2011

What ever happened to apprenticeship programs/on-the-job training? This type of career training was quite prevalent in New England during colonial times, was it not?

Lots of these still around, but in fields that require strong academic skills. For example, auto technician. These are the guys and gals (yeah, that's right, women have won competitions held between the centers in this field) that actually diagnose what is wrong with your car when you bring it into a dealership. Owners of dealerships will actively recruit high school students that excel in this within the technical centers. They offer them summer jobs until they graduate, then pay their tuition thru post secondary technical training. Once they've graduate, they send them to the company academies to finish their training. They make GREAT money once they get done with all this. But, here's the rub... they have to have good math and science skills. Today's cars are about computers, and complex diagnostic tools. Grease monkeys need not apply (unless you've got the math of course). To address this issue, some tech high schools offer math and physics courses at the technical centers. You don't have to go to college anymore, and in fact, anything is better from a tech school than a B.A. in Women's Studies, for example, lol.

[LordSquidworth]

Originally Posted by bangorme

Although I strongly favor a voucher system, a straight cost comparison isn't always possible. For example, if we say that the public school "educates" a child at an AVERAGE cost of $5,000 per year, we are missing something. Special education is a good example. One special ed child can cost over $70,000 a year to support in a public school setting. These kids usually aren't going to the private schools, so their AVERAGE costs are going to be lower than the public schools that have to accept them. The same for "problem" children. Private schools just boot them out, and of course the public systems have to take them. This not only effects costs, but AVERAGE standardized test comparisons.

I'll probably receive some hate for this but...

Special education seems by and large just social daycare. I'd separate it from the normal system. I've noticed the disproportionate budget for special education vs the general school budget and find it highly unfair to the tax payer base already over paying for a failed schooling system.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by bangorme

... To address this issue, some tech high schools offer math and physics courses at the technical centers. You don't have to go to college anymore, and in fact, anything is better from a tech school than a B.A. in Women's Studies, for example, lol.

I have never understood the career advantage that a B.A. in Women's Studies would give a person. I have nothing against women, at times I like to 'study' them myself. I have met a few ladies who were studying Women's Studies, as yet I have not heard good reason for why so much funding needs to go into such a field. I certainly do not mean any insult to Women.

The same could be said for 'Early Childhood Development'. I have known a few ladies who were studying such, I have been known to joke with them about their 'Mommy degree'. I do agree that it is a subject that does warrant some study. Today's children are tomorrow's unemployed. However do you really need such a degree to work in a 'Day Care'? Does 'Day Care' salary justify the costs of the degree?