Talk to me about taxes (Lincoln: schools, college, property taxes)

[damba]

It's one notion to utilize technology to supplement certain types of classroom material and/or subjects, but another entirely to 'blow up the entire battleship' because of the mere existence of bad curriculum, bad teachers and bad administrators.

Perhaps you had a bad experience in public schools which shapes your viewpoints. I can respect that if it's true. However your assertion that public education involving face/classroom time with trained educators somehow magically 'stifles liberty' and leads kids to be dependent on government handouts is at best a large quantity of pachyderm excrement. I suggest getting therapy if this viewpoint is anger based.

Originally Posted by usagisan

LOL. My way students can develop at their own natural rate without being restrained by the lack of motivation, talent, or ability of what you would deem their peers. Your way retards natural development and makes our children slaves to an archaic educational model that was designed for the benefit of the teacher and administrators. It does so at the expense of an education for our children that enthralls them and feeds their starving minds. It indoctrinates them into a culture of subservience to Government and stifles the very blood of liberty in their veins.

Obviously we differ.

[usagisan]

Originally Posted by damba

It's one notion to utilize technology to supplement certain types of classroom material and/or subjects, but another entirely to 'blow up the entire battleship' because of the mere existence of bad curriculum, bad teachers and bad administrators.

Perhaps you had a bad experience in public schools which shapes your viewpoints. I can respect that if it's true. However your assertion that public education involving face/classroom time with trained educators somehow magically 'stifles liberty' and leads kids to be dependent on government handouts is at best a large quantity of pachyderm excrement. I suggest getting therapy if this viewpoint is anger based.

If you use technology, i.e. the delivery is essentially the same, you remove the so called teaching disparity between rich and poor, between wealthy communities and poor communities. You remove one more variable from the equation: the teachers. Moreover no pensions or health-care are required by technology.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by usagisan

If you use technology, i.e. the delivery is essentially the same, you remove the so called teaching disparity between rich and poor, between wealthy communities and poor communities. You remove one more variable from the equation: the teachers. Moreover no pensions or health-care are required by technology.

The social fabric is so broken down in our poor communities that you need more teacher intervention, not less, probably to the point of boarding schools. The idea of sticking electronic nannies in a school like Fenger, Crane or Farragut is absolutely comical. Their "natural rate," as you put it, is basically to join a gang, sell drugs, and eventually get shot. That has to be disrupted.

[Bellamouse]

Originally Posted by usagisan

LOL. My way students can develop at their own natural rate without being restrained by the lack of motivation, talent, or ability of what you would deem their peers. Your way retards natural development and makes our children slaves to an archaic educational model that was designed for the benefit of the teacher and administrators. It does so at the expense of an education for our children that enthralls them and feeds their starving minds. It indoctrinates them into a culture of subservience to Government and stifles the very blood of liberty in their veins.

Obviously we differ.

<standing up and applauding>

[damba]

Ah, to live in such a black and white fantasy world. The irony of me saying this is that I have been working providing information, research and technology solutions in academia for over 25 years. You would think by now I would be 'all in' regarding a 'tech fix' for the educational process

I actually agree with you- using technology it is possible to deliver a quality lecture or content to a classroom of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The bottom line though is, what other support mechanisms are in place at home and at school for these students(?) That's where the rubber hits the road.

That said, this doesn't mean I don't feel the current state of many teachers' pension systems are a problem, many are a hot mess obviously and unsustainable. It's important though not to fault the teachers because of the system we allowed to evolve for so long by staying comfortably numb in the political process. Most people pay little attention to local elections/school board matters/etc. and only throw their hat into the ring when the presidential elections arrive every four years, spare a few choice referendum issues. Very sad to complain so late in the game.

Originally Posted by usagisan

If you use technology, i.e. the delivery is essentially the same, you remove the so called teaching disparity between rich and poor, between wealthy communities and poor communities. You remove one more variable from the equation: the teachers. Moreover no pensions or health-care are required by technology.

[Bellamouse]

You're never going to properly educate socioeconomically disadvantaged students until the root problem of that issue is solved. School, no matter how great, can force a child to learn, nor can they even do anything about disruptive, unruly children. They are powerless to do anything except suspend them or take them out of the class entirely (but you can't discipline them). Teachers just cannot do much for those children, it is their families and home lives that need to change before any teacher will truly be effective (of course there are individual exceptions here and there, but I'm talking overall).

Most people were self taught years back. Abraham Lincoln was self taught. Single room school houses were the norm, and kids went to school just in the mornings. Humans are quite able to teach themselves if properly motivated and provided with lots of study material. Home schooled children routinely out perform mainstream educated kids. Do you think home school parents stand at the front of the room and "teach" all day long? No, they assign kids stuff to do and the kids mostly work independently.

This notion that only the government can properly teach children is silly and has everyone brainwashed into believing it's the only "real" way to educate.

[damba]

I don't believe anyone in this thread asserted that only the government can properly teach children. You are the first.

The person I replied to is throwing the baby out with the bathwater- that's the pressing issue.

The 'home schooling' argument you present below can also be considered part of the 'fantasy island' approach to educating the vast majority of students since it's simply not practical.

Originally Posted by Bellamouse

You're never going to properly educate socioeconomically disadvantaged students until the root problem of that issue is solved. School, no matter how great, can force a child to learn, nor can they even do anything about disruptive, unruly children. They are powerless to do anything except suspend them or take them out of the class entirely (but you can't discipline them). Teachers just cannot do much for those children, it is their families and home lives that need to change before any teacher will truly be effective (of course there are individual exceptions here and there, but I'm talking overall).

Most people were self taught years back. Abraham Lincoln was self taught. Single room school houses were the norm, and kids went to school just in the mornings. Humans are quite able to teach themselves if properly motivated and provided with lots of study material. Home schooled children routinely out perform mainstream educated kids. Do you think home school parents stand at the front of the room and "teach" all day long? No, they assign kids stuff to do and the kids mostly work independently.

This notion that only the government can properly teach children is silly and has everyone brainwashed into believing it's the only "real" way to educate.

[damba]

Absolutely(!)

Originally Posted by BRU67

The social fabric is so broken down in our poor communities that you need more teacher intervention, not less, probably to the point of boarding schools. The idea of sticking electronic nannies in a school like Fenger, Crane or Farragut is absolutely comical. Their "natural rate," as you put it, is basically to join a gang, sell drugs, and eventually get shot. That has to be disrupted.

[usagisan]

Originally Posted by Bellamouse

You're never going to properly educate socioeconomically disadvantaged students until the root problem of that issue is solved. School, no matter how great, can force a child to learn, nor can they even do anything about disruptive, unruly children. They are powerless to do anything except suspend them or take them out of the class entirely (but you can't discipline them). Teachers just cannot do much for those children, it is their families and home lives that need to change before any teacher will truly be effective (of course there are individual exceptions here and there, but I'm talking overall).

Most people were self taught years back. Abraham Lincoln was self taught. Single room school houses were the norm, and kids went to school just in the mornings. Humans are quite able to teach themselves if properly motivated and provided with lots of study material. Home schooled children routinely out perform mainstream educated kids. Do you think home school parents stand at the front of the room and "teach" all day long? No, they assign kids stuff to do and the kids mostly work independently.

This notion that only the government can properly teach children is silly and has everyone brainwashed into believing it's the only "real" way to educate.

Exactly. In reading this thread the bias of many of the posters is obvious enough.

There is a huge difference in being a teacher and being a social worker. The state accepted mandate is to provide access to an education for children Technology fulfills that requirement and can do it in an extremely low-cost fashion that totally removes the skill of the teacher or facilities from the equation. All the other problems are either social problems or issues with mental retardation and should be addressed as such. The education process should be separate from the social worker aspect. At least then people with appropriate skills can focus on the issue (they can do it in the schools), Teachers should not be used as social workers.

But as I mentioned there is a bias at work. If you actually separate the education process from the social demographic issue you will be forced to face the reality of the situation which works precisely to the teachers and their unions disadvantage.

[My Kind Of Town]

Originally Posted by usagisan

The education process should be separate from the social worker aspect.

Why should the educational process and social aspect be completely separated? It's ashame society moves further and further away from positive social interaction in all phases of life. I truly believe this lends to an increase in mental/physcological issues in which people are living in further isolation and lose all connection to what makes us human rather than a bunch of robots. No surprise these mass murderers feel no remorse during the course of their actions, common theme that most of them feel isolated from society in some way. I think we need to promote more collaboration and teamwork rather than further isolation. Just my 2 cents.