Who Should Run Schools?

[Forsher]

After reading a considerable (read: fallacious) argument as to why public schools indoctrinate children, the thought came to mind,

Who should run schools and other education systems, particularly in the United States?

The argument I read said something to the effect of "schools indoctrinate according to who runs them; Texas teaches creationism because that's what politicians like." To which the response came that this was an argument for the Federal government to take over education. I feel that, if anything, more control should be given to the administration of the school in concern of the curriculum and management. The majority of public school students and graduates, I imagine, have experienced at least some idiocy on behalf of a central administration.

*Ahem*NCLB is a bad word*Ahem*

It depends entirely what you mean by one. A Board of Trustees unique to the school should control the administrative front. The principal/s need to bridge the link between teachers and the Board. The teachers choose what exactly is taught (for example, what books to study, what periods of history, simultaneous equations versus conics etc.) but that needs to be done in respect to a more centralised national curriculum (which is, obviously, rather broad). This means that the Board chooses if a pupil is excluded or expelled but other disciplinary procedures are handled via the school. Qualifications also need to be controlled/monitored and definitely issued from a separate authority (such as NZQA).

What this means is that you can end up with a situation where political ideology does influence schools but it is, more or less, in a way that relates to how schools teach (for example, phonics) but can be what is taught (the relative lack of grammar)... rather than a set text (it should be fine for Teacher A to use Lord of the Flies and Teacher B The Book Thief, this was the case in two instances for year twelve English, but it can apply to say Teacher A choosing Socrates where Teacher B goes Alexander the Great... year thirteen classics in a nutshell)*.

*Very divided department this. In year twelve it was the same.

I think schools should be organised at the county/city government level, taxes and all.

Depends what you mean by organise. A distinction has to be made between administrative control and control over things directly relevant to what goes on in the classroom. And in the latter case potentially between what is taught exactly and why it is taught (the purpose).

[Conservative Idealism]

In which manner do you stand by that? Do you support legislation such as No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top? It is, after all, a means of calling for the standardization of American education, albeit one that is (surprise, surprise) not performing to the standards our legislators predicted.

The Race To The Top idea seems brilliant as the policy of giving funding based on performance seems to have very poor results.

Indeed, but this fatal flaw should have been addressed before the enactment of NCLB, not after.

But both NCLB and RTTT are designed to make state curricula more competitive, which leads to another problem: In order to get ahead, some will cheat. Many will cheat. Many have.

[Columbus and Port Haven]

They should be ran by the federal government, which seems to have some scientific knowledge compared to states such as Texas.

[Galter Gulcher]

Kids. The Kids should run the Schools. Hell, I say we get rid of mandatory schooling.

[Keventle]

they only have an enrollment of 240

It's called "The School for the Gifted and Talented". Of course it's good.

exactly

[Estado Paulista]

They should be ran on a state level.

[The New World Oceania]

aliens

I can't stand all these idiot fascists always damned suggesting the aliens run the schools.

They press administrators to employ alien-style approaches to recalcitrant staff: spacious incentives, ray gun improvement targets (in test scores or planet admissions), supervisory pressure, fire-and-hire. For their part, heads and administrators know that schools often respond badly to such measures, but struggle to explain how and why.

Consulting to a variety of aliens and to scores of schools has helped me to see that aliens, though they bring real commitment and the best intentions to their trusteeship, live by assumptions that are very different from educators'. They can govern more effectively -- and reduce their own frustration -- by understanding the features that distinguish schools and their implications for decision-making.

Schools are much more like families and religious institutions than like inter-solar empires and other galactic organizations -- so much so that alien models and assumptions rarely fit them well, especially with respect to four key facets of school life and culture: mission, operations, outcomes, and personnel.

Of all the special features of schooling, the most important is its people. Teachers differ from those who select alien lifestyles. Education attracts people with both a strong service ethic and a desire for job security, not aliens with a thirst for absolute annihilation of the human race. It is the only field that offers tenure (even if this is only implicit in independent schools), and it draws those who will trade salary for stability. Teachers tend to switch employers less frequently than other sapient species, to look for a school that is a good "home" and stay there. They are hardly insensitive to money, but it doesn't drive their careers as much as it does those of alien managers. Like the clergy, they don't expect to grow wealthy. Also like the clergy, teachers tend to be less worldly than alien masterminds. Trustees often find them naive about budgets and overly sensitive to criticism, however mild. But in schools, unlike alien, intergalactic, and solar settings, conflict avoidance is a way of life. Teachers are, after all, people who thrive in -- and often prefer -- the company of children and adolescents and who try to accentuate the positive. Would we want our children taught by people who didn't?

None of this means that board members must accept the status quo and not press for improvements. It does mean that approaches to governance and strategies for change must respect the realities of school life. This respect begins with key perspectives about motivation and innovation and calls for clarity, focus, and continuity in the leading of change.

[Conservative Idealism]

They should be ran by the federal government, which seems to have some scientific knowledge compared to states such as Texas.

But of what importance is this scientific knowledge? Is the failure to imprint empirical data on children's minds such a concern that it requires a bureaucratic agency to call all the shots?

[Keventle]

Well they seem to be on something, we are looking at school models not intelligence.

The fact that a good school resides in Texas is irrelevant. There are good school models in every state.
Texas on the whole is still, rather poor. You obviously included Arizona and Texas to assert some type of superiority inside the two (conservative) states. But in reality neither state is known for being the brightest crayon in the container.

Obviously private schools that choose who they let in are gonna be "better".
A better measure to find "Models" would be looking for the best public schools.

Schools should be privatized to a point. I like the models of those schools

[Geilinor]

It's called "The School for the Gifted and Talented". Of course it's good.

exactly

That says nothing about Texas as a whole. The school chooses to let in gifted and talented students, which is why they rank highly. What kind of education is everyone else getting?

[Estado Paulista]

The Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church should be charged with the education of children. From creationism to languages, the Church should control these matters.

Oh, please.

[Genivaria]

Propaganda about what? Obama? The government? That doesn't exist outside of made up libertarian pamphlets. Hell in my school we learned about propaganda and its effects on people. It's incredibly unfair to compare our modern school system to Germany under Hitler and China under Mao, two individuals who would kill your entire family for speaking out against them.

No we are talking about government controlling all education. Im saying it can lead to propaganda in schools, such as common core and the Union workers.

1. What the fuck is common core?
2. How the fuck are Unions 'propaganda' ?

[The Sotoan Union]

Propaganda about what? Obama? The government? That doesn't exist outside of made up libertarian pamphlets. Hell in my school we learned about propaganda and its effects on people. It's incredibly unfair to compare our modern school system to Germany under Hitler and China under Mao, two individuals who would kill your entire family for speaking out against them.

The implication is that history textbooks contain propaganda outweighing that of lessons to avoid propaganda. Such an assertion would be unthinkable to the average student (or citizen) regardless of whether or not it's true, simply because propaganda is not always obvious.

But to read what textbooks have to say between-the-lines regarding American involvement in wars, the state of the union at various points in modern history, and history so recent it is covered in the last chapter...while it isn't overtly patriotic, it does raise a few questions.

I don't think there's anything inherently biased in the textbooks. You'd be able to tell if a text book was MURICA if you actually read it, especially if you've been taught about propaganda an analyzing what you read. Teachers also have lessons outside the textbooks. If anything we just use those as a source.

[Geilinor]

They should be ran by the federal government, which seems to have some scientific knowledge compared to states such as Texas.

But of what importance is this scientific knowledge? Is the failure to imprint empirical data on children's minds such a concern that it requires a bureaucratic agency to call all the shots?

It isn't a failure to indoctrinate, it's a basic failure to educate.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I feel that, if anything, more control should be given to the administration of the school in concern of the curriculum and management. The majority of public school students and graduates, I imagine, have experienced at least some idiocy on behalf of a central administration.

Do you know the meaning of insanity? It's when you do something over and over again expecting a different result.

You're going to have to expound on that remark, since I see plenty of different results for private schools and local-controlled public ones relative to central-controlled public schools. None of those schools are uniformly good or bad; hell, there are good central-public schools, too.

[Keventle]

My point from USA today is the best schools are privatized.

[Immoren]

National Board of Education under Ministry of Education and Culture.

yea because the government can run the country's economy so well why not our schools!?

Seems to work here.

[Geilinor]

No we are talking about government controlling all education. Im saying it can lead to propaganda in schools, such as common core and the Union workers.

1. What the fuck is common core?

It's a state standards initiative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative I don't see how states willingly adopting a set of common standards is propaganda. It was also enormously successful in Kentucky. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/what-kentucky-can-teach-the-rest-of-the-us-about-the-common-core/280453/

[The Sotoan Union]

My point from USA today is the best schools are privatized.

Fair enough.

[Estado Paulista]

My point from USA today is the best schools are privatized.

Isn't this a fact everywhere?

[Conservative Idealism]

No we are talking about government controlling all education. Im saying it can lead to propaganda in schools, such as common core and the Union workers.

1. What the fuck is common core?
2. How the fuck are Unions 'propaganda' ?

As a government-controlled-schooling enthusiast, surely you have heard of the Common Core curriculum standards? They force schools to teach a variety of subjects in particular ways, and demand good results from standardized tests as a consequence. This sounds like something you might like, with some refinement.

Unions are an interesting story. On the one hand, history textbooks either love or hate these often-neutral constructions within the nation's economy. And on a different note, teacher unions are also inhibiting true learning by keeping bad teachers in and letting new (but potentially good) teachers go depending on how the school's budget is doing.

[Keventle]

The implication is that history textbooks contain propaganda outweighing that of lessons to avoid propaganda. Such an assertion would be unthinkable to the average student (or citizen) regardless of whether or not it's true, simply because propaganda is not always obvious.

But to read what textbooks have to say between-the-lines regarding American involvement in wars, the state of the union at various points in modern history, and history so recent it is covered in the last chapter...while it isn't overtly patriotic, it does raise a few questions.

I don't think there's anything inherently biased in the textbooks. You'd be able to tell if a text book was MURICA if you actually read it, especially if you've been taught about propaganda an analyzing what you read. Teachers also have lessons outside the textbooks. If anything we just use those as a source.

Teachers can use propaganda sources. Besides you cant tell if it is propaganda, other wise it ruins the point.

[Herrebrugh]

The children and teachers together, for the workers should own the means of production.

[Vettrera]

The fact that a good school resides in Texas is irrelevant. There are good school models in every state.
Texas on the whole is still, rather poor. You obviously included Arizona and Texas to assert some type of superiority inside the two (conservative) states. But in reality neither state is known for being the brightest crayon in the container.

Obviously private schools that choose who they let in are gonna be "better".
A better measure to find "Models" would be looking for the best public schools.

Schools should be privatized to a point. I like the models of those schools

The concept of gifted and talented is that the majority people aren't gifted and talented.
This model of schooling, is therefore, impossible as far as the general populus.
And the fact that the schools are located in Texas and Arizona don't mean shit.
It was just you trying to act like Texas/Arizona (controversial conservative states) had actually done something right for a change

[The Emerald Legion]

After reading a considerable (read: fallacious) argument as to why public schools indoctrinate children, the thought came to mind,

Who should run schools and other education systems, particularly in the United States?

The argument I read said something to the effect of "schools indoctrinate according to who runs them; Texas teaches creationism because that's what politicians like." To which the response came that this was an argument for the Federal government to take over education. I feel that, if anything, more control should be given to the administration of the school in concern of the curriculum and management. The majority of public school students and graduates, I imagine, have experienced at least some idiocy on behalf of a central administration.

*Ahem*NCLB is a bad word*Ahem*

Scholars.