Education: Solution

[Cill Charthaigh]

Fix the school administration.

[Ravineworld]

3. Create a homework system that allows kids to not do their homework if they can prove they understand the material. (Homework is supposed to be about practice, and if the kid knows the material, then why force them to practice?)

This is very true, my formula for getting through high school was:
Do no homework + Ace tests, and classwork = passing "C" grade

Same here.

[Sidhae]

I think the problem isn't so much with the system as with the motivation of students and society in general.

Not so long ago, education was a privilege that many could only dream of. Being educated was a mark of great prestige. Parents would give anything to get at least one child of their family a good education, and children too quite quickly realized that education would be their only way out of a life of hard manual labour that otherwise awaited them. Kids, at least the ones from the countryside and small towns, were in fact happy to go to school, because they would otherwise have to work.

It's all gone now, all that motivated our ancestors to educate themselves. Education today is free. Worse, it's compulsory. It's something that is taken for granted, and worse, something that is in fact forced on people. There is virtually no way you can elude at least formal basic education, want it you or not. Children are now forbidden from full-time employment, they have no duties, no responsibilities, only rights that God forbid should anyone break. They can't even picture having to actually work a full-time job if they don't attend school. In fact, many can't even picture having to work at all.

I think the only real change that the system needs is to no longer make education compulsory, and abolish all welfare for the uneducated. Kids who prefer to slack off in classes will eventually realize their error as adults, when given a shovel or something and put to hard, back-breaking 16-hour work to earn a living without any hope of doing something better in life. And no welfare payments from the state that would give them any chance of slacking off as adults either. Welfare should be a privilege of the educated, one of the many benefits that education grants.

If such changes were implemented, I'm certain school attendance rates as well as study efficiency would begin to skyrocket a few years afterwards. And so what if that means literacy rates dropping - most of those that chose to remain illiterate wouldn't make much use of their literacy anyway.

[Desperate Measures]

I think the problem isn't so much with the system as with the motivation of students and society in general.

Not so long ago, education was a privilege that many could only dream of. Being educated was a mark of great prestige. Parents would give anything to get at least one child of their family a good education, and children too quite quickly realized that education would be their only way out of a life of hard manual labour that otherwise awaited them. Kids, at least the ones from the countryside and small towns, were in fact happy to go to school, because they would otherwise have to work.

It's all gone now, all that motivated our ancestors to educate themselves. Education today is free. Worse, it's compulsory. It's something that is taken for granted, and worse, something that is in fact forced on people. There is virtually no way you can elude at least formal basic education, want it you or not. Children are now forbidden from full-time employment, they have no duties, no responsibilities, only rights that God forbid should anyone break. They can't even picture having to actually work a full-time job if they don't attend school. In fact, many can't even picture having to work at all.

I think the only real change that the system needs is to no longer make education compulsory, and abolish all welfare for the uneducated. Kids who prefer to slack off in classes will eventually realize their error as adults, when given a shovel or something and put to hard, back-breaking 16-hour work to earn a living without any hope of doing something better in life. And no welfare payments from the state that would give them any chance of slacking off as adults either. Welfare should be a privilege of the educated, one of the many benefits that education grants.

If such changes were implemented, I'm certain school attendance rates as well as study efficiency would begin to skyrocket a few years afterwards. And so what if that means literacy rates dropping - most of those that chose to remain illiterate wouldn't make much use of their literacy anyway.

Yay! Are you real? My eyes are like saucer plates right now. I can't even fathom how wrong this is. I don't even know how to tell you what is wrong with child labor. Read Dickens? I don't know!

[The Pretend Pub]

I think the only real change that the system needs is to no longer make education compulsory, and abolish all welfare for the uneducated. Kids who prefer to slack off in classes will eventually realize their error as adults, when given a shovel or something and put to hard, back-breaking 16-hour work to earn a living without any hope of doing something better in life.

Would they then have the opportunity to return to school and try again? Because teenagers aren't exactly known for considering the long-term consequences of their decisions.

[Workers United (Ancient)]

Simple, implent more 'practical schooling' next to 'theoretical schooling'. Like how to work on an engine of a car, or which materials are needed for certain bridges. And more internship.

[Ragnarsdomr]

I think the only real change that the system needs is to no longer make education compulsory, and abolish all welfare for the uneducated. Kids who prefer to slack off in classes will eventually realize their error as adults, when given a shovel or something and put to hard, back-breaking 16-hour work to earn a living without any hope of doing something better in life.

Would they then have the opportunity to return to school and try again? Because teenagers aren't exactly known for considering the long-term consequences of their decisions.

Of course not. If you fail once, why would you ever considering yourself as deserving of a second chance? You're just a lazy parasite who wants to bring down America with your anti-patriotic immigrant schemes! So best be ready to get into the coal mines, anti-patriots!

[The Pretend Pub]

Simple, implent more 'practical schooling' next to 'theoretical schooling'. Like how to work on an engine of a car, or which materials are needed for certain bridges. And more internship.

Bad idea. Education isn't job training. The purpose of universal and higher education is to develop critical thinking skills and an appreciation for world-cultural achievements. Practical job skills can be learned afterwards with employers or through dedicated job-training institutions if one chooses.

[Workers United (Ancient)]

Simple, implent more 'practical schooling' next to 'theoretical schooling'. Like how to work on an engine of a car, or which materials are needed for certain bridges. And more internship.

Bad idea. Education isn't job training. The purpose of universal and higher education is to develop critical thinking skills and an appreciation for world-cultural achievements. Practical job skills can be learned afterwards with employers or through dedicated job-training institutions if one chooses.

The goal of an education is to learn for your future job. If a person already knows what he wants to do (either practical or theoretical) then why don't help him/her that way?

[The Pretend Pub]

Bad idea. Education isn't job training. The purpose of universal and higher education is to develop critical thinking skills and an appreciation for world-cultural achievements. Practical job skills can be learned afterwards with employers or through dedicated job-training institutions if one chooses.

The goal of an education is to learn for your future job.

No, it's not. That idea is a myth perpetuated by the 1%, because it's in their interest to have docile workers who don't think about broader issues beyond their immediate tasks at hand.

If a person already knows what he wants to do (either practical or theoretical) then why don't help him/her that way?

Oh, nothing wrong with helping him. Just somewhere other than school, because that's not what schools are for.

[Salandriagado]

Bad idea. Education isn't job training. The purpose of universal and higher education is to develop critical thinking skills and an appreciation for world-cultural achievements. Practical job skills can be learned afterwards with employers or through dedicated job-training institutions if one chooses.

The goal of an education is to learn for your future job. If a person already knows what he wants to do (either practical or theoretical) then why don't help him/her that way?

No, the purpose of education is to provide the necessary prerequisites for, nurture, and encourage, higher thinking and innovation that will advance the human race as a whole in as many people as possible and to allow the others to be as useful in helping that happen as possible. That's why it benefits the state to pay for it for everyone.

[Sidhae]

I think the only real change that the system needs is to no longer make education compulsory, and abolish all welfare for the uneducated. Kids who prefer to slack off in classes will eventually realize their error as adults, when given a shovel or something and put to hard, back-breaking 16-hour work to earn a living without any hope of doing something better in life.

Would they then have the opportunity to return to school and try again? Because teenagers aren't exactly known for considering the long-term consequences of their decisions.

If they can pay for their education, sure. Might sound tough, but hell, there's a price to pay for every mistake in life, and those who will have paid that price are unlikely to allow their own children to repeat their mistakes.

Besides, having a certain percentage of uneducated labourers doomed to a life of physical toil would also reduce necessity for foreign unskilled labour.

[The Pretend Pub]

Would they then have the opportunity to return to school and try again? Because teenagers aren't exactly known for considering the long-term consequences of their decisions.

If they can pay for their education, sure.[ Might sound tough, but hell, there's a price to pay for every mistake in life,

There doesn't have to be if we socially can take steps to avoid them. Society, at its core, is nothing more than creating ways to avoid the unpleasant consequences of individual mistakes. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Besides, having a certain percentage of uneducated labourers doomed to a life of physical toil would also reduce necessity for foreign unskilled labour.

Why is foreign unskilled labor somehow worse than domestic unskilled labor?

[Great Nepal]

- Lower teacher's salary but give a bonus based on best grade of their students on their subjects. It will give teachers an incentive.
- Cancel age based classes and replace them with merit ones. If you cant do basic maths, you deserve to be in year 3 not in year 11 whereas on other end of scale, if you are brilliant at GCSE level stuff - you shouldn't have to be in year 8. It will allow best students to move on forwards while ensuring people dont just move up cos you increased in age. Not to mention, people will perform well so as to avoid humiliation in front of their friends or for dick-waving purposes.
- Have a final exam in each year. If someone fails, they dont move up.
- Change grade system to percentage system. Its more accurate and encourages competitiveness.
- If you disrupt the class, you are out of school. No tolerance, one strike policy against disruption.
- Publish name, photo and percentage of top 20 and bottom 20 people in class. Those in to 20 gets £200 x (R/100); when R is equal to their percentage. It gives them three incentives:-

a. Get quite large sum of money.
b. Get dickwaving privileges.
c. Avoid being humiliated among classmates.

*based in UK system. If some of these are already in US, UK should learn something from its colonies...

[Forsher]

- Lower teacher's salary but give a bonus based on best grade of their students on their subjects. It will give teachers an incentive.
- Cancel age based classes and replace them with merit ones. If you cant do basic maths, you deserve to be in year 3 not in year 11 whereas on other end of scale, if you are brilliant at GCSE level stuff - you shouldn't have to be in year 8. It will allow best students to move on forwards while ensuring people dont just move up cos you increased in age. Not to mention, people will perform well so as to avoid humiliation in front of their friends or for dick-waving purposes.
- Have a final exam in each year. If someone fails, they dont move up.
- Change grade system to percentage system. Its more accurate and encourages competitiveness.
- If you disrupt the class, you are out of school. No tolerance, one strike policy against disruption.
- Publish name, photo and percentage of top 20 and bottom 20 people in class. Those in to 20 gets £200 x (R/100); when R is equal to their percentage. It gives them three incentives:-

a. Get quite large sum of money.
b. Get dickwaving privileges.
c. Avoid being humiliated among classmates.

*based in UK system. If some of these are already in US, UK should learn something from its colonies...

Yes, because Year Eights mixing with Year Thirteens is going to be useful for them. Stream the cohorts not the populations.

pay teachers the same regardless or which they teach, but divide the students into different classes based on grades, that way disruptive students aren't in the same classes as those that actually want to learn. and this would give each group a more targeted education, those who need it could get more attention and those that don't could be given more difficult information.

I like Ken Robinson's proposal on this (Summary/Full talk). Basically, the idea was to get rid of the whole concept of school years done primarily by age and do it purely on what they are capable of doing. If they're able to pass their A-levels at the age of 12, let them go to A-level lessons at the age of 12. If they're still struggling with the basics, put them in classes going over said basics. If they're interested in practical stuff rather than theoretical stuff, put them into some form of education that would be useful to them (with basic, practical maths etc.).

Same goes here. Streaming cohorts I agree with. Maybe even streaming two or three but not the whole population. There are all sorts of problems to be considered.

[Keronians]

- Lower teacher's salary but give a bonus based on best grade of their students on their subjects. It will give teachers an incentive.
- Cancel age based classes and replace them with merit ones. If you cant do basic maths, you deserve to be in year 3 not in year 11 whereas on other end of scale, if you are brilliant at GCSE level stuff - you shouldn't have to be in year 8. It will allow best students to move on forwards while ensuring people dont just move up cos you increased in age. Not to mention, people will perform well so as to avoid humiliation in front of their friends or for dick-waving purposes.
- Have a final exam in each year. If someone fails, they dont move up.
- Change grade system to percentage system. Its more accurate and encourages competitiveness.
- If you disrupt the class, you are out of school. No tolerance, one strike policy against disruption.
- Publish name, photo and percentage of top 20 and bottom 20 people in class. Those in to 20 gets £200 x (R/100); when R is equal to their percentage. It gives them three incentives:-

a. Get quite large sum of money.
b. Get dickwaving privileges.
c. Avoid being humiliated among classmates.

*based in UK system. If some of these are already in US, UK should learn something from its colonies...

Lower teacher's salary? Teachers are already paid poorly, considering that most have done rigorous education.

As for cancelling age-based classes, in principle I agree, but it just becomes too complicated. If one can truly not cope with Year 10 material when they're 14, then make them stay back in Year 9, but if not, meh.

Yeah, so everything is weighted on the exam? That seems unfair. Work throughout the year should count for something as well. I, for example, completely slacked off in Year 11 until around February. Then I worked like hell (doing 8 hours of studying in Easter holidays, for example) everyday, and walked away with A* and A in all my subjects. Another friend of mine worked his ass off the whole year, and did what I did as well post-February, but walked away with C in his subjects. Why? Because at the time of the exams, he was sick, but it wasn't sufficient to give him a special consideration.

No tolerance, one strike is dumb. It almost never, well, no, never, works.

Yeah, I quite think the opposite will happen if you publish their name, photo and percentage. Their name and percentage, perhaps, but their photo is guaranteed to get them laughed at. And the money may get them resented by the rest of their classmates.

[Forsher]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10788144

Money also matters. Remember school fees are "voluntary".

With regards to weighting towards exams. I had a 154 credits available last year. 80 were internal. 74 were external. In theory the only reason why I needed to bother with the externals was to go from merit to excellence and grab a few standards I needed for subjects in Year 12. Some of my friends only need the subjects (I must point out they had more available credits than me). In the end 84 were at excellence and all were at least achieved.

Sometimes the internals matter too much.

[Megapolitania]

There's a lot of myths and misinformation about US education. We haven't had the best public K-12 education system in the world since...probably before WWII, if ever. It was somewhere in the teens worldwide in the 60s, I know that. It is simply because of inequality in the country. If you live in a well-off area, you'll have a well-off school. If you don't, you're screwed. Charter schools are pretty much bullshit too.

It isn't some problem that's suddenly snowballed in the last few decades because of the favorite boogeymen of either the left or the right. It's been this way for a long time, and it is an inherent structural problem that won't be fixed until there's a fundamental change in the country as strong as a constitutional convention. The recent money crunch in states has allowed the Privatize Everything brigade to come in and try to dismantle everything and make unions and the Department of Education seem satanic.

[Forsher]

What passes for an education system in New Zealand has failed completely. As evidenced in the daily postings here, the majority of NZedders are only semi-literate and almost completely ill-informed about history and modern day to day affairs.

Bring back the old high standards of education. Teach our new generations to be well informed by the mistakes of the past and to keep open minds for the future. If we fail to educate, we are going to be passed by so many other countries, particularly from the East.

From One of the comment makers here.

This, I think, is the standard view. A view that will perpetuate until we give all Year Fives the tests taken by those leaving school in the past and now without any help.

[Anti-Obamaland]

- Lower teacher's salary but give a bonus based on best grade of their students on their subjects. It will give teachers an incentive.
- Cancel age based classes and replace them with merit ones. If you cant do basic maths, you deserve to be in year 3 not in year 11 whereas on other end of scale, if you are brilliant at GCSE level stuff - you shouldn't have to be in year 8. It will allow best students to move on forwards while ensuring people dont just move up cos you increased in age. Not to mention, people will perform well so as to avoid humiliation in front of their friends or for dick-waving purposes.
- Have a final exam in each year. If someone fails, they dont move up.
- Change grade system to percentage system. Its more accurate and encourages competitiveness.
- If you disrupt the class, you are out of school. No tolerance, one strike policy against disruption.
- Publish name, photo and percentage of top 20 and bottom 20 people in class. Those in to 20 gets £200 x (R/100); when R is equal to their percentage. It gives them three incentives:-

a. Get quite large sum of money.
b. Get dickwaving privileges.
c. Avoid being humiliated among classmates.

*based in UK system. If some of these are already in US, UK should learn something from its colonies...

1) What happens to teachers who get a classroom full of kids who don't actually give a shixxle?

2) What happens to teachers of kids who don't have the ability to make a year's worth of learning gains due to disability or mental handicap?

3) Gonna have to change much educational law in the US because students who disrupt have their own class setting.

4) Humiliating students ending long ago with parents who believe everyone is a winner and nobody is a loser. That's why all kids get trophies in community league sports now.

[New England and The Maritimes]

The best solution is going to be raising the curriculum standards and better compensating teachers. Anything else becomes too expensive and difficult to maintain.

[Forsher]

The best solution is going to be raising the curriculum standards and better compensating teachers. Anything else becomes too expensive and difficult to maintain.

Do they have school fees in the US? That is to say volutary donations.

[New England and The Maritimes]

The best solution is going to be raising the curriculum standards and better compensating teachers. Anything else becomes too expensive and difficult to maintain.

Do they have school fees in the US? That is to say volutary donations.

You can't put the onus on children and families. Those who need better education the most are those who can least afford to help out.

[Forsher]

Do they have school fees in the US? That is to say volutary donations.

You can't put the onus on children and families. Those who need better education the most are those who can least afford to help out.

Yes, which is why posh schools in posh areas have higher school fees.

[New England and The Maritimes]

You can't put the onus on children and families. Those who need better education the most are those who can least afford to help out.

Yes, which is why posh schools in posh areas have higher school fees.

They don't need the help. Areas like Orlando, Florida, which is characterized by extremely rich and extremely poor neighborhoods within the same district, are fairly rare.

What we need is better state funding schemes to help lower-funded regions.