<p>Some people will remain poorly educated, and some people will make themselves very sick (physical health). What government can do about it? The more government does, the worse off the situation is. This is my opinion based on my experience. I am sure that others will have different opinion based on thier experience.</p>
<p>frazzled,</p>
<p>Do you think enormous property taxes and throwing money at existing systems within failing school districts is the right approach for helping kids? I don’t.</p>
<p>
Yes, I do think that failing school systems need buckets of money to improve. I’m not saying that every cent has been spent responsibly, or even intelligently, but I’d say that’s true about military spending, infrastructure spending, entitlement spending, you name it. In what other area of life do we expect to solve a problem by spending less on the problem?</p>
<p>Spoken, btw, as a parent whose kids have never qualified for financial aid. We pay a bucketload of taxes ourselves each year. The thread asked about the future for ALL our children. If my taxes were reduced, I can’t see how that would secure the future for ALL our children. The children of poorly-educated (even “nonstriver”) parents are going to be citizens of this country whether we educate them adequately or not. I think it’s worth educating them well. I don’t see how that’s going to happen by spending less money on education.</p>
<p>^Adding more money into system that does not work will not make any diff. Look outside of USA. Look at poor African nations. I personally know several immigrants from Africa who were considering sending their kids back home for pre-college education because they were shocked by low level of k-12 education here. They do not live in poor school districts. They live in well off areas here in the US.</p>
<p>Well, I thought we were talking about poor school districts. I am certainly not of the opinion that schools in well-off areas provide a low level of k-12 education. Mine received a stellar k-12 education in a public school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s easier to “brag” about your tax bill than the price of your house…just saying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny…I know folks from the NE who are choosing to retire near the Jersey shore…more inland, but southern New Jersey.</p>
<p>I hope to be in the “dessert” too…maybe strawberry shortcake?</p>
<p>
I don´t see how you could even say that? Your kid´s private school´s science labs could rival any college labs. They have no more than 15 kids in most classes. Their papers get graded over night instead of waiting for months. Their athletic facility is used by Olympic training teams sometimes. Parents from Bernardsville, Basking Ridge, and many surrounding towns are just as educated or well off as parents from your kids´private school, but I would bet you that the kind of education they are getting from those public schools still not as good as from your kid´s school. No, I do not buy
It takes funding to provide good education for our kids.</p>
<p>"Mine received a stellar k-12 education in a public school. "</p>
<p>-You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, it is not clear in comparison to what they got stellar education. I am familiar with the best publics in NYC and expensive private preps in Midwest. None of them are performing at stellar level, since even privates are limited with general program. They cannot start physics in 6th grade and continue with it for 5 years (as one example). You absolutely cannot learn physics in one year (again, as one example). I wonder what details of your kids stellar k-12 education are different from teh rest of all schools in the USA (including the most expansive boarding schools). I am not arguing, I just would liek to know details of programs of successful k-12.</p>
<p>MiamiDAP, I do not believe that a school must offer a 5-year curriculum in physics, beginning in 6th grade, in order to be stellar. And I imagine that a number of NYC-area public schools, and a number of private Midwest schools, would be surprised to learn that the education they provide is not stellar. Perhaps I’ve set my bar for “stellar” too low. I don’t expect a school system to guarantee my kids success, I expect it to give my kids the tools needed to achieve success on their own. So, my school system = stellar, since it prepared my children well for college life, and they’ve done very well at their respective schools.
I don’t want to argue with you, either. In my experience and observation, graduates of our school district are routinely accepted at the most selective universities in the US, perform well and earn a variety of honors while there, and go on to excellent grad school programs, rewarding careers, and fulfilled lives. I feel they received a stellar education because the outcomes have been so good. I personally am not qualified to comment on “the rest of all the schools in the USA” and I wonder who is, actually.</p>
<p>“MiamiDAP, I do not believe that a school must offer a 5-year curriculum in physics, beginning in 6th grade, in order to be stellar. And I imagine that a number of NYC-area public schools, and a number of private Midwest schools, would be surprised to learn that the education they provide is not stellar.”</p>
<p>-They are all very well aware, they hear what is going on from immigrants families with lots of kids in big cities attending their own schools (like Japanese schools and Russian schools) to take care of deficiencies in k-12. You might not be aware of what is going on. But again, you can hold your own opinion. I am just providing an input. And, yes, very inadequate time for both math and science in k-12. Somehow English require 13 years to study, but Physics is OK with one, while it takes 5 years or so in other countries. Then we do not understand why Johny, top of his HS class needed a tutoring in college. Many and many of them do, and the ones who are successful at college, realize it and seek help, swalloing their pride. Those wo do not, sink and let thier dreams be derailed going to non-science, non-math intense majors. </p>
<p>I commented only on schools that I am familiar with because of my kids and grandkids.</p>
<p>Our kids take English every year, just like our kids take science/math every year. With English, they may focus on poetry, grammar, spelling, English literature, American literature…It´s no different than within science, our kids take physics, bio, chem…So no, I don´t see why our kids need to tak physics for 5+ years. It´s the same for math, many topics are covered each year, but no one topic (geometry) is covered for 5+ years.</p>
<p>I do not believe that a school must offer a 5-year curriculum in physics, beginning in 6th grade, in order to be stellar</p>
<p>Neither of my kids took physics every year in high school, older D took only theoretical physics in 9th grade, as that was when it was offered. Still several physicists of my acquaintance sent their children there, one was actually a grandfather- (but he won the Noble prize a few years ago so perhaps his opinion still counts?) </p>
<p>Many students do not have the level of math needed to really " get" physics from what I understand in middle/high school.</p>
<p>Grad school is the time to specialize, not in high school or even undergrad, IMO.</p>
<p>MiamiDAP, Our kids are not taught less science or math than those in countries you cited. We just don’t think doing well in physics and math is more important than social sciences. Education is more than training kids to careers. We want our kids to be responsible citizens, and that entails teaching our kids to reason with a strong background in civics and history.</p>
<p>
Who says that choosing a non-science, non-math-intense major is indicative of a derailed dream? We have a plethora of CC posters who enjoy asserting that only STEM majors count, but I’m not a believer. None of my kids have required tutoring in college, and their majors have included biology, classical languages (I count ancient Greek as a challenging subject, though you may not), and history (lots of reading required in that one, of course, as well as decent writing skills). They’ve handled their science and math classes quite well in college, thanks, and the humanities classes, too.</p>
<p>I doubt that many valedictorians from high-performing public high schools have required tutoring in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the issue is not one of preserving one school in a system. It is all about improving THE system. You cannot improve the system by constantly shoring up the inefficient and spendthrift. Spendling less on deadwood solves the problem and can result in spending less to obtain more. </p>
<p>Military spending, infrastructure spending, and entitlement spending are perfect examples of inefficient spending when left in the hands of a public system that relies on monopolistic forces. I am not certain why you want our public school system to contine to follow such horrendous models? Do we need 500 dollars toilet seats in a public school for the alarm to sound again? </p>
<p>Failing schools do deserve the time to make changes but do not deserve more funding, unless the funding is inadequate. Our country spends more on education per capita than all comparable nations. Our problem is not one of lack of funding but an excess of waste, ineffiency, and lack of controls and competitition.</p>
<p>Just as about every facet of our society, the US education system has been living well beyond its means and has created an entire class of entitled citizens who were rewarded for seniority over performance. </p>
<p>Our publc education system is a bloated affair with too many administrative fatcats who have made cronyism and corruption a perpetual goal. We do not need more people of the like of New York’s Syosset Superintendent, Carole Hankin … we need to bring some sanity and equality in the way we finance schools. </p>
<p>Having the money track the students would be a good start! And this not mean that every student should “receive” the same amount!</p>
<p>Personally I WOULD like to see much BETTER and possibly MORE Science and Math starting in MS, even before.
IMO entry into a selective college and the education at a selective college may not be cutting it globally anymore.
Hey- I have Humanities-oriented kids, for sure, so at a big disadvantage, but I think even a layman’s breadth of knowledge needs to be deeper and broader these days.
For instance, to be a writer, a TV journalist, a film-maker, a salesperson, a marketer, knowledge and exposure to technical and scientific fields seems much more crucial these days.</p>
<p>YMMV, but I think that is what the global challenge is all about: how do we retain or even enhance the creative, out of the box, free atmosphere in the US while adding deeper technical skill and experience???</p>
<p>
xiggi, a fair and thought-provoking post. I’m all for spending less money for better results. And I agree with you that there’s plenty of waste, misguided thinking, and sheer incompetence in the public school system, and the military, and every other area of government spending. But I don’t quite understand how taking money from educating our children will result in better-educated children, or even adequately-educated children.</p>
<p>I agree that the funds are hardly being spent effectively now, in most cases. I’d like to see the fatcat cronies out of there myself. In my area, though, and in the community where my d2 recently concluded her second year as a 1st-grade teacher, less money in the school budget immediately results in laid-off teachers and more students in each classroom. If that somehow improves the learning environment, I can’t see it. </p>
<p>You mention that our per-capita spending on education exceeds that of comparable nations. How many nations are really comparable in terms of the widely diverse needs the US education system is supposed to address? I still say that, to improve the future for ALL our children, we need to spend money - a lot of money. What is more important?</p>
<p>You also can’t learn physics well without calculus. A lot of time was spent playing with physics that could have been spent learning other things for those kids. We need good schools to educate our best and brightest- most gifted students won’t be receiving that private school education but will most likely outperform the typical private school kid in college and beyond.</p>
<p>Money does make a difference. I wish more rich parents would invest their money in their local schools instead of just on a private education- make the public schools as good as the private ones. I get tired of hearing how parents send their kids to private schools because the local school system isn’t as good. Well, why not? It takes effort to upgrade the public schools, but that pays off in a better educated local society. This means your grandchildren will be exposed to a richer (nonmonetary) environment everywhere they go on a daily basis.</p>
<p>Will the next generation be as well off? I doubt it with what I see happening in our society. It seems as though the people with the power are more interested in their personal wealth than the progress of the nation. Like having fish instead of fishing skills. Having it all now instead of looking to the future. Hopefully “the good old days” won’t really be those when we are elderly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humm, what do you think would happen when public schools would see an increase of 5 or 10 percent in enrollment? </p>
<p>Ever thought how devastating it would be if the Catholic schools decided to close shop and tell their parents to simply donate the money to them but send their kids to the great public school? Any idea how much “rich parents” who send their kids to this type of private school saves the system?</p>
<p>“Rich” parents DO invest their money in their local schools. They DO invest in their LOCAL PUBLIC schools, and this without choice. Their choice is to invest in both the public school by default AND spend their after-taxes dollars in a private education. </p>
<p>I added punctuation around “RICH” because many assume that private schools are mostly bastions of wealth and privilege. The reality is that the greatest number of private schools are operating with smaller budgets than the “wealthier” public school. The greatest number of private schools are faith-based and target the K-8 market. The vast majority of the students who attend such schools are not necessarily richer than the average public school students, especially in non-urban districts. </p>
<p>Fwiw, there are NO reason why we should not attempt to make the public schools as good as the private ones. The answer is to bring them on an equal footing by recognizing that all schools are public, as opposed to identify as run by the government or run by the private sector. </p>
<p>All K-12 education funding should be public! The problem is not created nor compounded by “rich” parents keeping their kids out of public schools. They help delay the inevitable funding cataclysm.</p>
<h1>149, #150:</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is only half truth in this. Foreign countries teach all subjects in all years. Student take language, literature, math, physics, chemistry, history, geography,… every year. But except for language, literature, and math, they don’t teach 5 hours for each subject per week. Maybe 2 hours of history/geography, 2 hours of physics and chemistry per week starting with 6th grade. 11th or 12th grades will have longer schedule (6-8 hours physics and chemistry per week for students with concentration on math and physical sciences). I had only 1 hour of math and 1 hour of physics and chemistry per week from 10th to 12th grade because my concentration was humanities.</p>