Half of Americans say Public K-12 Education is Going In The Wrong Direction(pewresearch.org)
pewresearch.org
Half of Americans say Public K-12 Education is Going In The Wrong Direction
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/04/about-half-of-americans-say-public-k-12-education-is-going-in-the-wrong-direction/
201 comments
I would like to know if the people citing, "Teachers bringing their personal political and social views into the classroom (54%)", as the reason why K-12 Education is going the wrong direction actually have any experience with this or know any examples, or are they just parroting the points of political leaders that are doing the bidding of donors trying to drive school vouchers?
A huge part is probably right wing personalities talking about "wokeness" in our schools. Personally, I do shake my head at some of the stuff my kid talks about. For instance, they were taught that the WW2 era American internment camps should be called American concentration camps.
That said I care very little about the social aspects of education unless they are taking away from math, science and making kids who are competent at independent thinking and problem solving.
That said I care very little about the social aspects of education unless they are taking away from math, science and making kids who are competent at independent thinking and problem solving.
They were concentration camps - that's the definition. Perhaps your conflating death camps with concentration camps.
The two terms are interchangeable. In the context of learning about WW2, swapping the wording seemed like an attempt to demonize the United States by linking the internment camps with the Nazi concentration camps.
Teaching exclusively the "good side of history" is literally indoctrination.
US most definitely doesn't deserve to be lauded for internment camps or the reasons why US entered WW2.
US most definitely doesn't deserve to be lauded for internment camps or the reasons why US entered WW2.
> In the context of learning about WW2, swapping the wording seemed like an attempt to demonize the United States by linking the internment camps with the Nazi concentration camps.
Even worse (though not intentional), this minimizes what the Nazis did. Let's hope no one comes out of that class with the idea that Hitler was no worse than FDR.
Even worse (though not intentional), this minimizes what the Nazis did. Let's hope no one comes out of that class with the idea that Hitler was no worse than FDR.
> Perhaps your conflating death camps with concentration camps.
I would wager most Americans would not even be aware of that distinction. In popular discussion, they're the same thing.
So if school kids are being taught "the WW2 era American internment camps should be called American concentration camps," they're actually being mislead. The lesson can't be oblivious to popular understandings or less precise popular usage.
It's also worth noting that strategic obliviousness to the difference between popular and technical definitions is a time-tested and effective way to lie and mislead, because it lends itself to a fallacious but effective motte and bailey defense, which also exploits embarrassment over not wanting to seem ignorant and prejudice against people who appear ignorant to silence challenges.
I would wager most Americans would not even be aware of that distinction. In popular discussion, they're the same thing.
So if school kids are being taught "the WW2 era American internment camps should be called American concentration camps," they're actually being mislead. The lesson can't be oblivious to popular understandings or less precise popular usage.
It's also worth noting that strategic obliviousness to the difference between popular and technical definitions is a time-tested and effective way to lie and mislead, because it lends itself to a fallacious but effective motte and bailey defense, which also exploits embarrassment over not wanting to seem ignorant and prejudice against people who appear ignorant to silence challenges.
>So if school kids are being taught "the WW2 era American internment camps should be called American concentration camps," they're actually being mislead.
Internment is for foreign nationals. The implication is there is a loyalty conflict (foreign citizenship) that requires them to be controlled. Concentration camps is the correct term.
If people are trying to gatekeep the term "concentration camp," a term that existed before WW2, they should stop.
>The lesson can't be oblivious to popular understandings or less precise popular usage.
No sane person equates the Japanese-American experience with the Holocaust so I'm not sure exactly who you think is actually trying to "lie and mislead." For decades, the vast majority of the community (led by the JACL) preferred to say nothing about it in the interest of integration.
The renaming is about stopping the use of anodyne terms ("relocation center" and "internment camp") that literally did, and do, nothing but make a few people feel better about the armed imprisonment of US citizens. Roosevelt, Truman, and several of their secretaries called them "concentration camps."
Internment is for foreign nationals. The implication is there is a loyalty conflict (foreign citizenship) that requires them to be controlled. Concentration camps is the correct term.
If people are trying to gatekeep the term "concentration camp," a term that existed before WW2, they should stop.
>The lesson can't be oblivious to popular understandings or less precise popular usage.
No sane person equates the Japanese-American experience with the Holocaust so I'm not sure exactly who you think is actually trying to "lie and mislead." For decades, the vast majority of the community (led by the JACL) preferred to say nothing about it in the interest of integration.
The renaming is about stopping the use of anodyne terms ("relocation center" and "internment camp") that literally did, and do, nothing but make a few people feel better about the armed imprisonment of US citizens. Roosevelt, Truman, and several of their secretaries called them "concentration camps."
Calling them internment camps is as misleading as equating them to Nazi death camps.
They are called Nazi concentration camps, if you google Nazi death camps the top results will all include the words "Concentration camps", that is what we have called them for years, whether technically accurate or not that is what they are called.
Your response should have been: "calling them internment camps is as misleading as equating them to Nazi 'Concentration camps'". But you didn't want to use the word concentration because you knew it would make your argument look silly.
Your response should have been: "calling them internment camps is as misleading as equating them to Nazi 'Concentration camps'". But you didn't want to use the word concentration because you knew it would make your argument look silly.
Calling them internment camps is as misleading as equating them to Nazi 'Concentration camps' - There. Now your baseless attack is baseless.
> Calling them internment camps is as misleading as equating them to Nazi death camps.
No, because people know what the term "internment camps" means in this context.
At least in the American colloquial context, "concentration camps" and "internment camps" are more names for specific historical instances not types.
No, because people know what the term "internment camps" means in this context.
At least in the American colloquial context, "concentration camps" and "internment camps" are more names for specific historical instances not types.
> No, because people know what the term "internment camps" means in this context.
I disagree, because the topic is very intentionally glossed over. Most people couldn't tell you what internment means and will not associate it with anything bad.
I disagree, because the topic is very intentionally glossed over. Most people couldn't tell you what internment means and will not associate it with anything bad.
In our area, the teachers union straight up released a pro-Hamas, anti-Israeli resolution despite no one asking them for their opinion. And we're in a fairly dense Jewish area.
FWIW, the poll is among adults, not adults with children. I'm willing to bet most respondents don't have kids currently in public K-12 schools or don't have experience with this.
It's real and I wish it wasn't. :/ Two things I've personally heard discussed.
1. Teaching "evolution" instead of "creationism"
2. "Oppressing" white students with "diversity".
I've personally experienced the second in the 1990s. A few teachers and professors are really into social justice and take it way too far. No matter how much I agree with them, I can not support berating and shaming white students in front of an entire class as if they were personally responsible for actions that occurred over century before their ancestors even reached the US. (My ancestors did not come from imperialist nations that murdered entire native tribes, thank you very much.)
For people who are already primed to think the worst of the entire education system, my experience is all the proof they need that the entire system is out to destroy them.
1. Teaching "evolution" instead of "creationism"
2. "Oppressing" white students with "diversity".
I've personally experienced the second in the 1990s. A few teachers and professors are really into social justice and take it way too far. No matter how much I agree with them, I can not support berating and shaming white students in front of an entire class as if they were personally responsible for actions that occurred over century before their ancestors even reached the US. (My ancestors did not come from imperialist nations that murdered entire native tribes, thank you very much.)
For people who are already primed to think the worst of the entire education system, my experience is all the proof they need that the entire system is out to destroy them.
This has nothing to do with "the bidding of donors trying to drive school vouchers" or whatever conspiracy that is. We just don't want teachers pushing their political views on children.
Not allowing people to criticize things without direct personal experience is a bizarrely high standard. I wonder if you hold others to this same standard on issues you agree with?
[deleted]
As a parent myself I see this happening daily.
Teacher public shaming my kids for having pretzel in his lunch saying it’s not healthy.
Then later the same day the school give all the kids crackers as snack :-)
Or teachers spending 2 hours telling kids which brand of soap or shampoo they should buy and which brand they should avoid.
Or teacher giving a 1 hour talk saying they should open a checking accounts at a particular credit union.
For some reason new teacher are not afraid to brainwash kids with their own personal agenda.
Teacher public shaming my kids for having pretzel in his lunch saying it’s not healthy.
Then later the same day the school give all the kids crackers as snack :-)
Or teachers spending 2 hours telling kids which brand of soap or shampoo they should buy and which brand they should avoid.
Or teacher giving a 1 hour talk saying they should open a checking accounts at a particular credit union.
For some reason new teacher are not afraid to brainwash kids with their own personal agenda.
Yes lots of experience with this. I think it depends on where you live. Highly progressive cities and states in the US tend to have staff and administration that are openly pushing their politics in schools. That can show up in terms of curriculum (like requiring ethnic studies and displacing other content), bans on gifted education for DEI reasons, or the more directly political / controversial issues showing up in classrooms and assignments (topics like Trump or gender identity or BLM or whatever).
There's a fringe political theory popular among those influential in education policy that smart students need to be artificially constrained for the good of society. This view is deeply unpopular with the general public both right AND left.
Is it any wonder people are losing trust in this system?
Is it any wonder people are losing trust in this system?
Right or wrong, these policies only affect the outliers, and so won't show up on broad statistics. For the large majority of people, quality of gifted education isn't their concern.
The extrapolation is that this policy drags everyone down instead of lifting anyone up. Gifted kids are just the canary in the coal mine
If, hypothetically, USA has an unequiratblemsociety that left half the county behind, then we'd expect half the country to say that moving toward equity is moving in the direction.
> unequiratblemsociety
Um... I presume that autocorrect got you, but I can't tell what you were trying to say here.
Also, "moving toward equity is moving in the direction"? What direction? The right one, or the wrong one?
Um... I presume that autocorrect got you, but I can't tell what you were trying to say here.
Also, "moving toward equity is moving in the direction"? What direction? The right one, or the wrong one?
It is. And how could it not? It's mostly a single payer babysitting program.
Teachers can't do anything about unruly children except call the police. A whole class has to slow down to accommodate the below average kids. We spend our first year in school playing around and singing the ABC song and drawing purple and green dinosaurs. Educational science has advanced far beyond the Prussian model, but we have to navigate a bureaucracy to change anything, there's no way to keep up. And their chant is "we can fix it for more money."
We live in a time now that you can access any and all information that is known to the public on a whim for free. This is very new for us, so people don't know what to do with it. You can, right now, with just a laptop, give your kids an education that even 2 generations ago most people didn't even know enough to be able to dream about, for free. You can educate yourself on any topic to any degree of depth that you like. Institutional education is obsolete. People will be competent from now on to the degree their parents care to teach them. That is with or without public schooling.
I'm putting together an education plan for my infant son, that I intend to release to the world once he has had a little go at it, for free. It uses FLOSS software and publicly available information, I'm going to rely heavily on Anki. I intend to teach him how to read starting at the age of 2, and I expect that by the time he is 5 he will have a handle on reading, a decent vocabulary, and basic arithmetic at least, I'm shooting for basic geometry as well. Writing and typing also. My goal is to have him educated at a high school level by the age of 12, with just 3 hours a day of "schooling." I'm pretty sure I can do it, the bar is very low.
Teachers can't do anything about unruly children except call the police. A whole class has to slow down to accommodate the below average kids. We spend our first year in school playing around and singing the ABC song and drawing purple and green dinosaurs. Educational science has advanced far beyond the Prussian model, but we have to navigate a bureaucracy to change anything, there's no way to keep up. And their chant is "we can fix it for more money."
We live in a time now that you can access any and all information that is known to the public on a whim for free. This is very new for us, so people don't know what to do with it. You can, right now, with just a laptop, give your kids an education that even 2 generations ago most people didn't even know enough to be able to dream about, for free. You can educate yourself on any topic to any degree of depth that you like. Institutional education is obsolete. People will be competent from now on to the degree their parents care to teach them. That is with or without public schooling.
I'm putting together an education plan for my infant son, that I intend to release to the world once he has had a little go at it, for free. It uses FLOSS software and publicly available information, I'm going to rely heavily on Anki. I intend to teach him how to read starting at the age of 2, and I expect that by the time he is 5 he will have a handle on reading, a decent vocabulary, and basic arithmetic at least, I'm shooting for basic geometry as well. Writing and typing also. My goal is to have him educated at a high school level by the age of 12, with just 3 hours a day of "schooling." I'm pretty sure I can do it, the bar is very low.
The only step in your plan that matters at all, is the hours per day of 1:1 tutoring.
Education?
Try parenting.
The average parent nowadays is a sycophant for their children. They expect teachers to do ALL of the education work, they don't want their kids to have any homework, and they don't expect educators to discipline unruly kids who have been raised by their cell phones and tablets in a Lord of the Flies online social setting.
People who didn't get anything and everything they wanted from their parents when they were growing up have decided to try to be friends with their kids instead of teaching them how to behave in public or sit down with them to teach them how to freaking read. IQs are going down because Millennials and Zoomers are collectively irresponsible as parents and will attack educators instead of taking responsibility for their childrens' educational welfare. They treat teachers like garbage and their kids follow suit.
And what can they POSSIBLY point to? New Math? Gay people exist and you shouldn't treat them with hatred? LOL, please.
Try parenting.
The average parent nowadays is a sycophant for their children. They expect teachers to do ALL of the education work, they don't want their kids to have any homework, and they don't expect educators to discipline unruly kids who have been raised by their cell phones and tablets in a Lord of the Flies online social setting.
People who didn't get anything and everything they wanted from their parents when they were growing up have decided to try to be friends with their kids instead of teaching them how to behave in public or sit down with them to teach them how to freaking read. IQs are going down because Millennials and Zoomers are collectively irresponsible as parents and will attack educators instead of taking responsibility for their childrens' educational welfare. They treat teachers like garbage and their kids follow suit.
And what can they POSSIBLY point to? New Math? Gay people exist and you shouldn't treat them with hatred? LOL, please.
When was it ever common for most middle class parents to teach their kids gradeschool-level math and science? If anything parents are now compelled to spend more time tutoring their kids owing to the education system falling short of expectations.
Uh... always?
Child goes home, does homework, doesn't understand something. Child asks parent. Parent helps child understand.
Even more with reading, most parents flat out don't read to their kids anymore, and don't help them with their reading assignments. So you end up with a worst case scenario where kids can't fucking read and can't spell either because they communicate with each other through slang while texting online.
An education system where parents are disengaged is an education system doomed to failure. Teachers do not have enough time in the day to adequately fill the gaps.
Child goes home, does homework, doesn't understand something. Child asks parent. Parent helps child understand.
Even more with reading, most parents flat out don't read to their kids anymore, and don't help them with their reading assignments. So you end up with a worst case scenario where kids can't fucking read and can't spell either because they communicate with each other through slang while texting online.
An education system where parents are disengaged is an education system doomed to failure. Teachers do not have enough time in the day to adequately fill the gaps.
> Uh... always?
Source?
Source?
Reality. Unless you have some sort of magical thinking where you actually believe that parents helping their children with homework and assignments is some sort of new expectation.
Notwithstanding that you're conflating "helping with homework" with teaching them from nearly the ground-up, there's no evidence that broadly middle-class parents have always helped kids with their homework.
My parent's generation was not well educated and did not help, nor do I know anyone else who's parents helped them. They often did not even graduate, so they could go work.
My parent's generation was not well educated and did not help, nor do I know anyone else who's parents helped them. They often did not even graduate, so they could go work.
To be blunt, I never conflated a fucking thing. Kids bring homework home. They don't understand something. They ask a parent for help. The parent explains it to them, and at the very least, shows the child how to solve the problem the way that they learned it. It's why there's so much consternation about common core and "new math," because parents feel helpless when it comes to solving problems with their children since they aren't taught to solve these equations the same way that the parents were.
When it comes to reading in particular, this is normally done at home and there is a direct correlation between how much time a parent spends with their child teaching them to read and providing them with additional reading materials and how well they end up being able to read when they're an adult. And given that all students interface with study materials by reading, then it follows that a child with an involved parent regarding homework in general and reading in particular will have better academic outcomes.
We've got 60 years of popular culture that has actively ridiculed parents who DON'T help their kids with their studies.
I really don't give a shit about how well educated your parents were. If anything, your anecdote shores up the point you think you're degrading.
When it comes to reading in particular, this is normally done at home and there is a direct correlation between how much time a parent spends with their child teaching them to read and providing them with additional reading materials and how well they end up being able to read when they're an adult. And given that all students interface with study materials by reading, then it follows that a child with an involved parent regarding homework in general and reading in particular will have better academic outcomes.
We've got 60 years of popular culture that has actively ridiculed parents who DON'T help their kids with their studies.
I really don't give a shit about how well educated your parents were. If anything, your anecdote shores up the point you think you're degrading.
Anger and snark with nothing to say, and seem to ignore that my anecdote is just a counter to yet another anecdote, not evidence.
> To be blunt, I never conflated a fucking thing.
Look up the comment tree to the original question you responded to. Teaching kids gradeschool-level math/science is not the same thing as helping with homework.
> It's why there's so much consternation about common core and "new math,"
There's far more consternation about "discovery-based learning" curriculums and disruption in classrooms.
> We've got 60 years of popular culture that has actively ridiculed parents who DON'T help their kids with their studies.
This was also pulled out of thin air.
> To be blunt, I never conflated a fucking thing.
Look up the comment tree to the original question you responded to. Teaching kids gradeschool-level math/science is not the same thing as helping with homework.
> It's why there's so much consternation about common core and "new math,"
There's far more consternation about "discovery-based learning" curriculums and disruption in classrooms.
> We've got 60 years of popular culture that has actively ridiculed parents who DON'T help their kids with their studies.
This was also pulled out of thin air.
> Look up the comment tree to the original question you responded to. Teaching kids gradeschool-level math/science is not the same thing as helping with homework
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your communication skills. Teaching them things they don't know to shore up what they learned in class is EXACTLY what helping them with their homework is about.
Child: "I don't understand X."
Parent: "Well, let's go over your materials to help you understand what X is."
This is NORMAL. It is also TEACHING.
> There's far more consternation about "discovery-based learning" curriculums and disruption in classrooms.
I can tell you've never been a parent or spoken to parents.
> This was also pulled out of thin air
LOL.
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your communication skills. Teaching them things they don't know to shore up what they learned in class is EXACTLY what helping them with their homework is about.
Child: "I don't understand X."
Parent: "Well, let's go over your materials to help you understand what X is."
This is NORMAL. It is also TEACHING.
> There's far more consternation about "discovery-based learning" curriculums and disruption in classrooms.
I can tell you've never been a parent or spoken to parents.
> This was also pulled out of thin air
LOL.
This is such an important point and one that pretty much everyone fails to understand.
I am in the process of writing a pretty long, detailed essay on this.
While, yes, institutional problems in public education do exist, so much of the "bad education" discourse is just plain bad parenting.
I am in the process of writing a pretty long, detailed essay on this.
While, yes, institutional problems in public education do exist, so much of the "bad education" discourse is just plain bad parenting.
I feel pretty sorry for the kids today what with the world they're going to inherit - if I had any, I'd probably just let them do whatever at this point.
They are going in the wrong direction - The simplesolution to this problem is create more charter schools and breaking up the teacher's unions.
Until those things happen, nothing will change.
Until those things happen, nothing will change.
I'm surprised funding isn't the number 1 issue across the spectrum. It's abundantly clear the schools near me are already underfunded and also have a 100 million a year budget hole. You can complain about admin and what not, but at the end of the day class sizes are big and schools are being closed. That's a massive funding issue.
Chicago Public Schools spends $30,000 per student per year on some of the worst outcomes in all of education. It's clearly not sufficient to just "fund" education.
Naperville's school district (USD 203) 45 min west of Chicago spends ~$20k/year per student on substantially better outcomes. Why? Because, broadly speaking, you can't fix student parents and home life in the classroom (Naperville median household income is $135,772).
https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/illinois/districts/nape...
Related: This is a teenager - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40053774 - April 2024 (811 comments)
https://pudding.cool/2024/03/teenagers/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKv1Mixv0Hk
https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/illinois/districts/nape...
Related: This is a teenager - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40053774 - April 2024 (811 comments)
https://pudding.cool/2024/03/teenagers/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKv1Mixv0Hk
OK, but if you can't fix student parents and home life in the classroom, even by spending 50% more per student, then why pay 50% more per student? Is it really buying you very much?
Honest question, because I don't really know. One could argue that it's throwing money into a hole, trying to fix unfixable problems. Or one could argue that it's not fixing things, but it's doing at least some to close the gap. Does anyone have actual evidence one way or the other? A controlled experiment, or something?
Honest question, because I don't really know. One could argue that it's throwing money into a hole, trying to fix unfixable problems. Or one could argue that it's not fixing things, but it's doing at least some to close the gap. Does anyone have actual evidence one way or the other? A controlled experiment, or something?
For whatever reason, spending money on schools seems to be more palatable to lawmakers than some other things that might have a better outcome. For example, something like school lunches, which have a huge benefit [0] is under fire from certain politicians [1], even though these programs have near universal appeal. It's a similar story for the child tax credit.
0 - https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/true-cost-of-fo...
1 - https://theintercept.com/2024/03/21/house-republicans-ban-un...
0 - https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/true-cost-of-fo...
1 - https://theintercept.com/2024/03/21/house-republicans-ban-un...
You're not wrong, at all. This is the hard conversation to have. What would it take to improve outcomes? How much spending would it take? To me, it appears we are not willing to fix the overarching system, by which I mean support systems for parents for children 0-18. We don't want to pay for pre-k. We don't want to pay for daycare. We don't want to pay for quality K-12 education (over 1000 US school districts have moved to a 4 day week in an attempt to retain teachers). In some states, we're even unwilling to pay for student lunches. Instead, society as a whole wants to spend as little as possible to get able bodied workers and taxpayers out of the pipeline, while treating early education as babysitting so parents can be productive workers. It also wants to outlaw reproductive healthcare that leads to these outcomes, but does not care about the outcomes.
If you want my hot take, the solution is to drive as much funding as possible into family planning. This is where the dollars are most effective. This quickly shrinks the funnel of unwanted children on a go forward basis, allowing for the focus of resources on the remaining pipeline of children to be nurtured and developed by, hopefully, welcoming and resourced parents. There will be second order effects of course (see rapid total fertility rate decline across the world), but I believe we can all agree that suffering reduction for all involved is a worthy cause to pursue.
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-u...
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/preventing-unplanned-preg... ("While the controversies persist, most people agree that empowering women to have only the children they want has positive benefits for everyone in the form of better pregnancy outcomes, improved child well-being, more opportunities for women and their partners, reductions in costs to governments, and lower abortion rates.")
If you want my hot take, the solution is to drive as much funding as possible into family planning. This is where the dollars are most effective. This quickly shrinks the funnel of unwanted children on a go forward basis, allowing for the focus of resources on the remaining pipeline of children to be nurtured and developed by, hopefully, welcoming and resourced parents. There will be second order effects of course (see rapid total fertility rate decline across the world), but I believe we can all agree that suffering reduction for all involved is a worthy cause to pursue.
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-u...
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/preventing-unplanned-preg... ("While the controversies persist, most people agree that empowering women to have only the children they want has positive benefits for everyone in the form of better pregnancy outcomes, improved child well-being, more opportunities for women and their partners, reductions in costs to governments, and lower abortion rates.")
I think the point is that $/student is not a great metric. You could spend $500K/student, have world-class teachers, and still not improve their home life or how much their parents value/support their kids' education. Without parental engagement, you're not going to move the needle on outcomes.
Agreed, but who is going to say "no amount of reasonable spending is going to materially improve outcomes because parents and systemic socioeconomic issues are the problem" though? Not a lot of appetite for that conversation. Easier to say "fund schools more" because that problem feels tractable.
Telling people that they should have fewer children because they've been oppressed too much already, is not cool.
If you want well resourced parents, give parents back the resources that were stolen from their families.
If you want well resourced parents, give parents back the resources that were stolen from their families.
Wealth and income inequality, as well as societal support for parents [1] [2], are important components in any fix of this situation when discussing "resourcing". My comment should not be read as "only the well off should have children." That was not the idea I intended to communicate, and I agree it is distasteful. I believe there is plenty of work to do already simply ensuring folks who don't want kids are empowered to not have them [3] [4] [5] [6], I leave the other problems mentioned in this comment to others to triage and action. Good luck to those folks, I don't envy that book of work; it's going to take decades to fix.
[1] https://ifstudies.org/blog/pro-natal-policies-work-but-they-...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/29/baby-boomtown-...
[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-s...
[4] https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2023/childfree-study-confirmed...
[5] https://www.axios.com/2024/04/16/young-adult-sterilization-i...
[6] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullartic...
[1] https://ifstudies.org/blog/pro-natal-policies-work-but-they-...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/29/baby-boomtown-...
[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-s...
[4] https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2023/childfree-study-confirmed...
[5] https://www.axios.com/2024/04/16/young-adult-sterilization-i...
[6] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullartic...
Three things about that stat (you'll get varying numbers for it, by the way, from different sources):
* First, obviously, it's an average (you get it by simply dividing the total budget by the total number of enrolled students) across the entirety of Chicago, which is a huge city with schools that have wildly different challenges.
* It's risen sharply in the last few years as CPS has attempted interventions of varying credibility --- for instance, by drastically expanding the number of school counselors. So it's not really accurate to say that CPS has tried the experiment of spending $30k/student and arrived at this outcome; the jury isn't yet out on it. More than $10k of the "per student cost" probably falls into that bucket.
* Something like 15% of this expense is pension. That's bad, but it's not really a policy lever CPS has to play with, either.
* First, obviously, it's an average (you get it by simply dividing the total budget by the total number of enrolled students) across the entirety of Chicago, which is a huge city with schools that have wildly different challenges.
* It's risen sharply in the last few years as CPS has attempted interventions of varying credibility --- for instance, by drastically expanding the number of school counselors. So it's not really accurate to say that CPS has tried the experiment of spending $30k/student and arrived at this outcome; the jury isn't yet out on it. More than $10k of the "per student cost" probably falls into that bucket.
* Something like 15% of this expense is pension. That's bad, but it's not really a policy lever CPS has to play with, either.
Would you care to support that with some hard data?
Everybody loves to hate on CPS, but there’s actually a lot of interesting signs of progress:
- https://educationrecoveryscorecard.org/states/illinois/
- https://chicago.suntimes.com/2017/11/2/18330871/cps-student-...
Everybody loves to hate on CPS, but there’s actually a lot of interesting signs of progress:
- https://educationrecoveryscorecard.org/states/illinois/
- https://chicago.suntimes.com/2017/11/2/18330871/cps-student-...
I went to CPS k-12. One important thing to note is that CPS is absolutely full of amazing schools, its just that its full of utterly garbage ones too. Now, as for that data, it exists because a lot of the kids cant read at all when they enter. To CPS's credit they do pretty decently taking all these kids who are far behind and brining them almost to grade level, but its just hard for me to say thats a huge accomplishment when tons of kids are still so far behind.
> Now, as for that data, it exists
No one ever wants to provide it, though.
> cant read at all when they enter.
That's a pretty important confounding factor, don't you think? Might that change the way one should interpret the data - knowing that kids weren't starting at a level playing field, but in fact playing catch-up from the beginning?
> To CPS's credit they do pretty decently taking all these kids who are far behind and brining them almost to grade level, but its just hard for me to say thats a huge accomplishment when tons of kids are still so far behind.
What precisely do you expect a school district to do? If kids are behind, it's going to take more time and effort to get them up to speed and there are only so many hours in a day; only so many days in a year; only so many years before the kids leave at 18. Sounds like you expect a miracle, and I don't think any other district could do what you're expecting either.
CPS does a pretty damn good job, even by your own account.
No one ever wants to provide it, though.
> cant read at all when they enter.
That's a pretty important confounding factor, don't you think? Might that change the way one should interpret the data - knowing that kids weren't starting at a level playing field, but in fact playing catch-up from the beginning?
> To CPS's credit they do pretty decently taking all these kids who are far behind and brining them almost to grade level, but its just hard for me to say thats a huge accomplishment when tons of kids are still so far behind.
What precisely do you expect a school district to do? If kids are behind, it's going to take more time and effort to get them up to speed and there are only so many hours in a day; only so many days in a year; only so many years before the kids leave at 18. Sounds like you expect a miracle, and I don't think any other district could do what you're expecting either.
CPS does a pretty damn good job, even by your own account.
My biggest problem with CPS is that a quarter of the highschoolers in the district opted out for charter schools, the vast majority of them poor. This happened because parents realized that many schools in CPS are incapable of proving their kid with a decent learning environment. Tbh I don t really think theres much CPS can do about that since I mostly blame parenting, but I think its a huge problem that a quarter of families here just noped the fuck out of the public school system.
The high schools are definitely where CPS has major issues I agree that the elementary schools are on the right track.
The high schools are definitely where CPS has major issues I agree that the elementary schools are on the right track.
Also the head of the teacher’s union sends her own kids to a private Catholic high school.
When the people who run the system won’t even send their own kids there, you know it’s terrible.
When the people who run the system won’t even send their own kids there, you know it’s terrible.
My mother was a teacher at my public high school and sent me to the public schools where I grew up. She knew the schools were bad -- they're ranked deep in the bottom half of Massachusetts -- and always would say something to the extent of "but how would it look for a public school teacher to send their kids to private school?". Well, I sort of wish she had? If the schools are a mess and you know it directly from experience, to do otherwise is pretty ridiculous. We have to be honest with reality.
I'm no fan of teachers unions, but this factoid doesn't actually tell us much. The head of CTU wouldn't even theoretically need to be a teacher in order to advocate effectively for their constituents.
It’s a pretty bad look when you are head of the teacher’s advocacy group and think the system is so terrible that your own kids deserve better.
I mean it’s not like I’m the only person who feels this way. It’s something of a scandal and she has taken public heat for this:
https://abc7chicago.com/amp/stacy-davis-gates-private-school...
https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2023/9/7/23863532/ctu...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stacy-davis-gates-chicago-teach...
I mean it’s not like I’m the only person who feels this way. It’s something of a scandal and she has taken public heat for this:
https://abc7chicago.com/amp/stacy-davis-gates-private-school...
https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2023/9/7/23863532/ctu...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stacy-davis-gates-chicago-teach...
In Chicago, sending your kids to Catholic school is hardly an indictment of the system. It's a very Catholic city. I went to Catholic primary school despite the local CPS K-8 probably being better (and despite my mom teaching there).
She's taking heat for it, obviously, but the heat is motivated: the CTU is intensely political, and has enemies. I'm not a fan. But my point stands: it doesn't really say anything about CPS policy that the head of CTU isn't a CPS customer.
She's taking heat for it, obviously, but the heat is motivated: the CTU is intensely political, and has enemies. I'm not a fan. But my point stands: it doesn't really say anything about CPS policy that the head of CTU isn't a CPS customer.
I think at least the head of the group that represents public school teachers could find a single public school worthy of her own children. But apparently not
I'm not sure what you mean. There are obviously CPS schools with exceptional outcomes. I don't think anyone seriously believes that you can't do better than diocesan schools anywhere in CPS. This reads more like a dunk than analysis.
Yes, and the teachers also want better schools. That doesn't mean schools were better in the past.
Yeah, that is particularly egregious but I have a friend who worked for years in the education bureaucracy and specifically moved to a particular neighborhood for the schools. It's slightly more subtle but the same indictment.
American schools are some of the best-funded per capita in the world. There are always budget "shortfalls" and demands for more money because you can always spend more money. That doesn't mean you're getting better results. Some of the best funded schools in the country are getting some of the worst outcomes (e.g., Baltimore.)
Most of the money is just wasted. The biggest factor is home life. It totally dominates. The second-biggest is classroom size and teacher salaries. That's mostly ignored as we engage in increasing technological interventions (hand every kid in iPad) and cripple teacher independence and authority via administrative policy.
Most of the money is just wasted. The biggest factor is home life. It totally dominates. The second-biggest is classroom size and teacher salaries. That's mostly ignored as we engage in increasing technological interventions (hand every kid in iPad) and cripple teacher independence and authority via administrative policy.
Because Finland learned the best way of teaching - getting parents involved a LOT more.
You can fund the schools $1bn per student, but since the child spends only about 40% of their annual awake time at school - you can only do so much.
The more parental involvement, the better the outcome. A single parent that works 2 jobs and doesn't look after their kid's education will result in poor outcome no matter what.
You can fund the schools $1bn per student, but since the child spends only about 40% of their annual awake time at school - you can only do so much.
The more parental involvement, the better the outcome. A single parent that works 2 jobs and doesn't look after their kid's education will result in poor outcome no matter what.
American schools are best funded because that ignores social funding outside of school that indirectly supports education.
The article says it depends on your party affiliation. democrats tend to think funding is the biggest issue. republicans are caught up in reactive culture war nonsense. basically all of American politics at the moment...
Being caught up in "reactive nonsense" is an oxymoron. By definition you're saying they're reacting to something else, so they're not the ones pushing it.
LOL on a tenth the funding my non-US school created way better outcomes. US education funding is hopelessly inflated. It's the students who suck and no matter how much you spend on the teachers, the students won't stop sucking.
Parents want to tell teachers how to teach. Kids have no respect for teachers. Teachers are not paid nearly enough.
Of course its going in the wrong direction.
Of course its going in the wrong direction.
Individual teachers should definitely not be deciding curriculum as they are not experts in the fields they teach.
Teachers should definitely have a say in what curriculum they teach. Teachers understand how their students learn and what their students will respond to.
Sure the school system should have a say in the decision as well. But a full top-down approach of a mandated curriculum is a setup for disengaged students and demoralized teachers.
Sure the school system should have a say in the decision as well. But a full top-down approach of a mandated curriculum is a setup for disengaged students and demoralized teachers.
Teachers in the US are extremely well paid once you consider their obscenely good retirement benefits, insurance, and time off each year. Most teachers don't have to pay into social security because they get their own separate plan. It is extremely expensive to hire a teacher in America and I don't think spending even more money is going to change that.
Even theoretically, what would paying them more accomplish? Would they be displaced by experts in the field who decide to retire? Would they work harder because they're over double the median per capita income in the US? Are we going to pay them the same amount but just hire more teachers?
Even theoretically, what would paying them more accomplish? Would they be displaced by experts in the field who decide to retire? Would they work harder because they're over double the median per capita income in the US? Are we going to pay them the same amount but just hire more teachers?
They aren't underpaid relative to other developed countries: https://data.oecd.org/teachers/teachers-salaries.htm
Teachers are often wrong about the best ways to teach. See the popularity of "whole language" learning over Phonics for a good example in teaching fads being detrimental to literacy across the board.
Teachers often have very little say in what they are required to teach or how they are required to go about teaching it. Often times the state or other administrators dictate what topics must be taught and how said topics must be taught. Deviating from the plan handed down to the teachers is quite frowned upon.
Good teachers DO try to morph their style and presentation to suit the students' needs, but there's only so much they can do given their resources and other required tasks assigned by administrators. The kids still need to pass the state mandated tests on the state mandated topics in order for the teacher to get a good performance review from the administration.
Good teachers DO try to morph their style and presentation to suit the students' needs, but there's only so much they can do given their resources and other required tasks assigned by administrators. The kids still need to pass the state mandated tests on the state mandated topics in order for the teacher to get a good performance review from the administration.
[deleted]
And regionally, parents are wildly wrong about what to teach. Evolution, religion and its role in government, carbon dioxide, fundamentals of medicine, basic civics, recent history, how to navigate a world where gay people exist...
That's an interesting assertation to make out of hand, but I don't think the data backs it up.[1][2]
[1]https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Info... [2]https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005657.pdf
[1]https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Info... [2]https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005657.pdf
That data doesn't actually counter-indicate what I'm saying, for a myriad reasons.
I'll name one obvious one: Homeschool parents are, at minimum, present in their child's education. Compare their numbers to public school parents who are also present in theirs.
Here's another obvious one: Most parents who are wildly deluded about those subjects don't homeschool, they just complain (and regionally, vote in representatives who will apply those delusions to the curriculum).
I'll name one obvious one: Homeschool parents are, at minimum, present in their child's education. Compare their numbers to public school parents who are also present in theirs.
Here's another obvious one: Most parents who are wildly deluded about those subjects don't homeschool, they just complain (and regionally, vote in representatives who will apply those delusions to the curriculum).
> We asked adults who say the public education system is going in the wrong direction why that might be. About half or more say the following are major reasons:
> Schools not spending enough time on core academic subjects, like reading, math, science and social studies (69%) > Teachers bringing their personal political and social views into the classroom (54%) > Schools not having the funding and resources they need (52%)
As someone who has lots of friends in conservative circles, these sentiments ring true. (I am surprised "health decisions / vaccine mandates" aren't in the list.)
A lot of my wife's friends are choosing to homeschool, and #2 on that list is their primary reason. They acknowledge its likely a minority of teachers engaging in that behavior, but their feeling is "it only takes one" to ruin the entire school experience for their kid, and create a ton of problems for them to deal with at home.
(Disclaimer: we homeschool for reason #1 and because my wife was homeschooled and it's a comfortable way for her to run our schedule and home.)
> Schools not spending enough time on core academic subjects, like reading, math, science and social studies (69%) > Teachers bringing their personal political and social views into the classroom (54%) > Schools not having the funding and resources they need (52%)
As someone who has lots of friends in conservative circles, these sentiments ring true. (I am surprised "health decisions / vaccine mandates" aren't in the list.)
A lot of my wife's friends are choosing to homeschool, and #2 on that list is their primary reason. They acknowledge its likely a minority of teachers engaging in that behavior, but their feeling is "it only takes one" to ruin the entire school experience for their kid, and create a ton of problems for them to deal with at home.
(Disclaimer: we homeschool for reason #1 and because my wife was homeschooled and it's a comfortable way for her to run our schedule and home.)
For many people, #1 and #2 are the same thing. They don't perceive certain topics (e.g. slavery, evolution, gender) as parts of the core academic subjects, but instead as teachers or schools bringing politics into the classroom.
I grew up in the religious south and the amount of stuff considered political is extremely disconcerting. The list includes:
- Climate science
- Evolution
- Geology
- History
- Sex ed.
Essentially they believe in banning anything contradictory to their narrow religious beliefs.
- Climate science
- Evolution
- Geology
- History
- Sex ed.
Essentially they believe in banning anything contradictory to their narrow religious beliefs.
And the question I have for conservatives is, then why doesn't that apply to cops?
Public sector job, unaccountable to the individual, has authority over people we care about, etc.
I have heard more conservatives complain about librarians (again, same deal, except they dont shoot anyone) than cops.
Public sector job, unaccountable to the individual, has authority over people we care about, etc.
I have heard more conservatives complain about librarians (again, same deal, except they dont shoot anyone) than cops.
It’s disconcerting that people who have no training on how to teach think they can do it well enough. Those same people generally seek out those with training to do things in other areas of their life. But when it comes to teaching they think they know better. Asimov’s famous quote on ignorance comes to mind.
EDIT: Do people generally use those without training to provide medical care, fix cars, cut hair, do electrical work, etc.? The answer is no. But when it comes to teaching science to k-12 students it’s ok to use someone with no training? It’s crazy.
EDIT: Do people generally use those without training to provide medical care, fix cars, cut hair, do electrical work, etc.? The answer is no. But when it comes to teaching science to k-12 students it’s ok to use someone with no training? It’s crazy.
All of those things you listed are totally normal for people to DIY. It's kind of bizarre to me that you think otherwise. It's like when Randy on South Park teaches his kids to call the handyman to fix the oven door. Or there's a handyman on youtube who's talked about being called and charging people like $500 to push the button on a GFCI outlet. It's hard to believe he's serious. He's also talked about being called by millennials to change smoke alarm batteries.
If you consider what constitutes this training, you'll realize it doesn't matter, what matters is understanding the core topics and communicating well. Parents aren't teaching a class of 30 students, they can engage on a 1-1 level with their kids.
> But when it comes to teaching science to k-12 students it’s ok to use someone with no training?
That "someone" is you. Do you have any memory of gradeschool at all? Teaching is not complicated, it's just work.
> But when it comes to teaching science to k-12 students it’s ok to use someone with no training?
That "someone" is you. Do you have any memory of gradeschool at all? Teaching is not complicated, it's just work.
How do you know this? What is the basis of your conclusion? I’ve taught mathematics for 30 years at the college level. I don’t know how a child should be taught an introduction to fractions. I could look it up and get the gist of it. But then I’d also have to look up how children learn and what cues to look for. How would I know if a kid needs special education? I could look that up too. At what rate should a person learn how to do arithmetic with fractions? I don’t know. I could look it up.
But I’d have to do this with every subject. It’s not feasible. My sister has 8 kids and homeschooled all of them through grade 12. The first 3 went to college but the remaining ones did not. They didn’t learn as much as they should have an all of them have nutty beliefs. They all believe the Union started the Civil War and that slaves were generally treated well.
There are enough knaves and fools. We don’t need to willfully create more of them. There’s a reason teaching requires training. It sounds to me like you’ve never really taught and don’t know what you are talking about.
But I’d have to do this with every subject. It’s not feasible. My sister has 8 kids and homeschooled all of them through grade 12. The first 3 went to college but the remaining ones did not. They didn’t learn as much as they should have an all of them have nutty beliefs. They all believe the Union started the Civil War and that slaves were generally treated well.
There are enough knaves and fools. We don’t need to willfully create more of them. There’s a reason teaching requires training. It sounds to me like you’ve never really taught and don’t know what you are talking about.
Observe the following curriculum and identify just how much of this would factor to homeschooling, and what it would entail: https://www.tc.columbia.edu/curriculum-and-teaching/curricul... .
Not only could core courses be summarized in brief, the bulk of it is relevant because, as I said, teachers have to reach many students at a time. That makes it redundant. Notwithstanding, tutoring gives kids a learning advantage that has been replicated time and time again. The distinguishing factor is focused attention and enhanced communication (two-way). If a parent understands the material and can function in everyday society, they can teach their kids, if they want to.
Most parents do not have 8 kids, they have 1 or 2. If a child is neurodivergent in any respect, then a parent could and should seek out help anyway, which would inform their teaching.
To reiterate, teachers college training does not ensure that your child has an education that focuses on fundamentals and yields effective learning outcomes, nor does it ensure that all teachers do well. Nor do I suggest that any and all parents try their hand at teaching. Those who can grasp basic core concepts in math, and demonstrate adult reading comprehension, ought to fare fine if they want. As for those who don't understand the basics, I don't think your argument would persuade them anyway.
Not only could core courses be summarized in brief, the bulk of it is relevant because, as I said, teachers have to reach many students at a time. That makes it redundant. Notwithstanding, tutoring gives kids a learning advantage that has been replicated time and time again. The distinguishing factor is focused attention and enhanced communication (two-way). If a parent understands the material and can function in everyday society, they can teach their kids, if they want to.
Most parents do not have 8 kids, they have 1 or 2. If a child is neurodivergent in any respect, then a parent could and should seek out help anyway, which would inform their teaching.
To reiterate, teachers college training does not ensure that your child has an education that focuses on fundamentals and yields effective learning outcomes, nor does it ensure that all teachers do well. Nor do I suggest that any and all parents try their hand at teaching. Those who can grasp basic core concepts in math, and demonstrate adult reading comprehension, ought to fare fine if they want. As for those who don't understand the basics, I don't think your argument would persuade them anyway.
To reiterate, teachers college training does not ensure that your child has an education that focuses on fundamentals and yields effective learning outcomes, nor does it ensure that all teachers do well.
This is obvious and no one is suggesting this. What I'm suggesting is that the average person can't adequately teach their kids k-12. On average they will do worse than an adequately funded school system and it's better for society not to let amateurs teach great numbers of kids.
This is obvious and no one is suggesting this. What I'm suggesting is that the average person can't adequately teach their kids k-12. On average they will do worse than an adequately funded school system and it's better for society not to let amateurs teach great numbers of kids.
I know that's what you're suggesting. I'm saying that's wrong and there's no reason to believe it.
Then why did you write:
To reiterate, teachers college training does not ensure that your child has an education that focuses on fundamentals and yields effective learning outcomes, nor does it ensure that all teachers do well.
if you knew what I was suggesting?
To reiterate, teachers college training does not ensure that your child has an education that focuses on fundamentals and yields effective learning outcomes, nor does it ensure that all teachers do well.
if you knew what I was suggesting?
If you understand that, then you understand that homeschooling is a reasonable option if you want to ensure your child has a proper education. It would become your responsibility instead of offloading it.
Being a doctor does not ensure that they will always diagnose your symptoms correctly. Therefore, using your logic, we should all just self diagnose and not use doctors at all.
That is not analogous, at all.
We can be reasonably confident that we can teach a simple curriculum at home, and know there will be no disruptions or bad compromises. These are not complicated, they're comprised of things every adult ought to know. By contrast, we cannot be reasonably confident that we make medical diagnoses without training.
We can be reasonably confident that we can teach a simple curriculum at home, and know there will be no disruptions or bad compromises. These are not complicated, they're comprised of things every adult ought to know. By contrast, we cannot be reasonably confident that we make medical diagnoses without training.
Can you be more specific than teaching math "at the college level"? In America, after 13 years of public education by professional teachers, they're lucky if they've even taken an introduction to calculus or trigonometry. Somehow I think I can do better than that.
Somehow I think I can do better than that.
Dunning-Kruger.
Dunning-Kruger.
Ad hominem. The system you're defending has set the bar so incredibly low that I just need to do "okay" and my children are infinitely more well off. Homeschooled kids consistently do far better than kids who attend public school, even by the standards and metrics public schools design. Your "average" is my failure state.
>I’ve taught mathematics for 30 years at the college level. I don’t know how a child should be taught an introduction to fractions.
Some of the best K-12 math teaching initiatives right now are run by college-level math profs who've observed deficiencies in incoming students in freshman level courses and have started volunteering their time at the K-12 level to help. See e.g., Anna Stokke's Archimedes Math program or the Navajo Math Circles program. It's not necessary to have an actual academic background in math education; some of the worst program designs come from that cohort, e.g., Lilijedahl's Building Thinking Classrooms and Boaler's YouCubed.
Some of the best K-12 math teaching initiatives right now are run by college-level math profs who've observed deficiencies in incoming students in freshman level courses and have started volunteering their time at the K-12 level to help. See e.g., Anna Stokke's Archimedes Math program or the Navajo Math Circles program. It's not necessary to have an actual academic background in math education; some of the worst program designs come from that cohort, e.g., Lilijedahl's Building Thinking Classrooms and Boaler's YouCubed.
Some of the best k-12 math initiatives are being run by people with experience teaching math and with training in mathematics. From this you extrapolate that anyone can teach all subjects and levels in K-12? You conclude that no training is necessary to teach kids. Note that Archimedes program uses people with training in math. They don’t hire just anyone.
Also worth noting: Acceptance into our program is at the discretion of the program supervisors.
One program is successful (largely by selecting participants) and from this you conclude that home schooling is OK?
Obviously you can find examples of people being a great teacher without training in teaching. This is not the basis of good public policy. We don’t conclude that medical degrees are unnecessary because there a few examples of someone “doctoring” well without one.
If you think the average parent qualifies to teach all k-12 topics then you don’t understand how stupid the average person is.
Also worth noting: Acceptance into our program is at the discretion of the program supervisors.
One program is successful (largely by selecting participants) and from this you conclude that home schooling is OK?
Obviously you can find examples of people being a great teacher without training in teaching. This is not the basis of good public policy. We don’t conclude that medical degrees are unnecessary because there a few examples of someone “doctoring” well without one.
If you think the average parent qualifies to teach all k-12 topics then you don’t understand how stupid the average person is.
I was just responding to that particular point in your post. I don't have any strong views either way on homeschooling.
However, that being said, for math in particular, some of the curricula available to homeschooling parents are truly excellent, especially Beast Academy, JUMP Math, and Singapore Math.
However, that being said, for math in particular, some of the curricula available to homeschooling parents are truly excellent, especially Beast Academy, JUMP Math, and Singapore Math.
I'll clarify. When I say one needs training to be a teacher I'm talking about statistics. I don't mean literally that no person can be good without training. I mean that statistically speaking it is unlikely that a person with no training in a subject is going to be better or as good as the average teacher of that subject.
> If you think the average parent qualifies to teach all k-12 topics then you don’t understand how stupid the average person is.
No different than the average teacher. edit: I cant reply to your post directly, so I will here: there is no evidence that teachers as a group are more intelligent than the average person.
No different than the average teacher. edit: I cant reply to your post directly, so I will here: there is no evidence that teachers as a group are more intelligent than the average person.
What is your evidence for this? If it is true that the average teacher of a given subject has no greater understanding/insight/knowledge/intelligence in that subject than the average person then I am wrong in my beliefs on this matter.
Did you go to college? If so you probably also learned from people with almost no training in teaching. Somehow every college professor in America teaches just fine without this supposedly crucial "training on how to teach."
I also hope you aren't learning online from people like Grant Sanderson (3Blue1Brown), Salman Khan (Khan Academy) who also have no formal training. Side note: I can't name a single popular online teacher that keeps from a typical teaching background.
I also hope you aren't learning online from people like Grant Sanderson (3Blue1Brown), Salman Khan (Khan Academy) who also have no formal training. Side note: I can't name a single popular online teacher that keeps from a typical teaching background.
College teaching is different than teaching kids. Intellectual maturity comes into play at a certain point. Khan’s explanations and videos have a lot of flaws and are poorly done. At least the math ones that I’ve seen.
Universities are famous for terrible teaching, so not a great examt.
I'm more surprised that half say it's going in the right direction.
They don't. There's a large "not sure" component.
[deleted]
> A far smaller share (16%) say it’s going in the right direction.
They're the ones who are opposed to having an education system.
Peruse r/teachers subreddit to get some of the vibe of teaching.
Here’s the second highest post of all time https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/s/FQCaxMsQrC
The major issues as I have observed are:
Can’t expel disruptive kids. Schools pass students regardless if they learn the material, and now a significant portion of high school students in America can barely read. Teachers are mostly doing daycare instead of teaching. Phones everywhere which distracts kids.
And most importantly: advanced kids are no longer removed from gen pop and put into their own smart kid bubble. Identifying gifted kids and giving them more difficult material is the single most important thing we need to do as a society for K12 education.
Here’s the second highest post of all time https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/s/FQCaxMsQrC
The major issues as I have observed are:
Can’t expel disruptive kids. Schools pass students regardless if they learn the material, and now a significant portion of high school students in America can barely read. Teachers are mostly doing daycare instead of teaching. Phones everywhere which distracts kids.
And most importantly: advanced kids are no longer removed from gen pop and put into their own smart kid bubble. Identifying gifted kids and giving them more difficult material is the single most important thing we need to do as a society for K12 education.
I agree with your point about tracking but I also see why it is a third rail. Some parents of average students will raise hell and accuse you of discrimination if you give anyone special treatment. Of course, the irony is I remember that when I was in fifth grade and given advanced math material with three other students that we actually got less teacher attention than the rest of the class. But it was far, far better for us than being stuck in the slow track.
Advanced classes was the way it worked for decades. Only recently do we pretend smart kids don’t exist.
As Jaime Escalante demonstrated, the real difference is between students who are motivated and students who are not. Teachers are incentivized to spend most of their time on the second group, leaving the first group to fend for themselves.
I have a new family member that's a teacher and she says she basically talks to a brick wall while every kid in class messes around on their phones. She's not allowed to do anything about it.
[deleted]
Trying to get my children into an advanced program has been taking years of effort, even at a very good public school. They are bored out of their minds because they already know everything being taught. We are sabotaging our brightest minds from an early age.
Half will always say it is going the wrong direction based on who is in the White House at the time.
The article is meh. Election year. Partisan politics. Repeats the same set of points 3 times. It can be safely skipped.
But I will note that we quite deliberately sent our kids to a well-regarded public school system in our state and it went from pretty nice to nearly a warzone in the last 10 years. When our daughter started Kindergarten there, the school had a big emphasis on positivity, accommodating kids with special needs, and a strong anti-bullying policy.
Since then, all of the classrooms have devolved from learning to daycare. From the outside, I see these as the main causes: 1) Incompetent management and leadership from the superintendent all the way down to the teachers. 2) Removal of separate classrooms and teachers equipment to handle students with special needs. Now all of the students with behavioral and emotional problems are placed in regular classrooms and whole days go by without any actual learning happening due to disruptions caused by the special needs kids. 4) Bullying, verbal abuse, and physical abuse is fully tolerated with no reprecussions at all. Teachers and staff have no power to punish or remove bullies from the school.
My son has been particularly impacted by this. He's a bright and friendly kid, but gullible, and you'd frankly be shocked how abusive and manipulative 8 to 10 years old with shitty parents can be.
We are actively moving our son from that school and into a STEM-centric school farther away, in the hopes that the educational and emotional damage he has suffered there won't leave too big a scar going forward.
But I will note that we quite deliberately sent our kids to a well-regarded public school system in our state and it went from pretty nice to nearly a warzone in the last 10 years. When our daughter started Kindergarten there, the school had a big emphasis on positivity, accommodating kids with special needs, and a strong anti-bullying policy.
Since then, all of the classrooms have devolved from learning to daycare. From the outside, I see these as the main causes: 1) Incompetent management and leadership from the superintendent all the way down to the teachers. 2) Removal of separate classrooms and teachers equipment to handle students with special needs. Now all of the students with behavioral and emotional problems are placed in regular classrooms and whole days go by without any actual learning happening due to disruptions caused by the special needs kids. 4) Bullying, verbal abuse, and physical abuse is fully tolerated with no reprecussions at all. Teachers and staff have no power to punish or remove bullies from the school.
My son has been particularly impacted by this. He's a bright and friendly kid, but gullible, and you'd frankly be shocked how abusive and manipulative 8 to 10 years old with shitty parents can be.
We are actively moving our son from that school and into a STEM-centric school farther away, in the hopes that the educational and emotional damage he has suffered there won't leave too big a scar going forward.
Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools? I feel like this has turned into an ideological battle of left versus right in the US. Consumer choice and competition benefit society in virtually all other areas, so why not here? Personally I think the one size fits all nature of public schooling, how they are funded, how curriculum are determined by state agencies, and how teachers politics (individually and through unions) influences education have all contributed to a decay in quality of education despite lots of funding. At least where I am, funding per student has gone up dramatically over the last 10 years but parents universally say schooling is worse than ever.
It’s also interesting seeing the gaps on certain questions:
> Teachers bringing their personal views into the classroom (76% vs. 23%)
If you are on the political side that is benefiting from teachers bringing their personal political views into the classroom, then you would not view it as a problem since it benefits your ideology. If you are on the other political side, then you would see it as a problem since it is a use of institutions to spread your political opponents influence.
It’s also interesting seeing the gaps on certain questions:
> Teachers bringing their personal views into the classroom (76% vs. 23%)
If you are on the political side that is benefiting from teachers bringing their personal political views into the classroom, then you would not view it as a problem since it benefits your ideology. If you are on the other political side, then you would see it as a problem since it is a use of institutions to spread your political opponents influence.
>Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools
Because public schools are infrastructure.
I pay for roads on the other side of town, even if I will never use them. I pay for kids that I will never meet to get a safe education, regardless of their behavior/economics/orientation/aptitude.
Private schools are allowed to discriminate on who they can take. That's directly against the mission of public schooling.
Charter schools are not offered consistently everywhere, so it steals money from already under-resourced rural public schools. Rural kids may not have any nearby, alternative offerings.
There has to be a baseline education with a consistent budget. A non-discriminatory offering where all kids are welcomed. A place where no one can be denied an education.
Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own.
Because public schools are infrastructure.
I pay for roads on the other side of town, even if I will never use them. I pay for kids that I will never meet to get a safe education, regardless of their behavior/economics/orientation/aptitude.
Private schools are allowed to discriminate on who they can take. That's directly against the mission of public schooling.
Charter schools are not offered consistently everywhere, so it steals money from already under-resourced rural public schools. Rural kids may not have any nearby, alternative offerings.
There has to be a baseline education with a consistent budget. A non-discriminatory offering where all kids are welcomed. A place where no one can be denied an education.
Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own.
I haven’t thought through the phrasing of “infrastructure” and what it implies. But I am not debating the existence of funding for education - so even if you are not using schools because you don’t have children, there would be funding. I’m just saying parents should have choice over where that money goes for their children. If $20K is spent per student per year, a parent should get to select whatever provider they want or use the same money for homeschooling or for parent-led shared groups or whatever else.
As for private schools being allowed to discriminate on who they can take - I think that can be solved separately. You could pass regulations to require accepting students or simply fund students by need (for example parents of special needs children or children scoring poorly can get vastly more funding to spend as they choose).
> Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own.
I see this sentiment a lot from those against parental choice, but I don’t understand it. Why must I fund it on my own? If tax money is collected from me and only made available to the public school system, then I am deprived of my money and then not given the option to just “fund it on my own” unless I am rich and have enough leftover money still. That is really unjust. There is a certain amount of money that would be spent on a child per year anyways - and I think parents should be able to attend any alternative and use that equivalent funding elsewhere. Why would the public option get to keep it when they are relieved of the cost of educating a child that is attending some other option?
As for private schools being allowed to discriminate on who they can take - I think that can be solved separately. You could pass regulations to require accepting students or simply fund students by need (for example parents of special needs children or children scoring poorly can get vastly more funding to spend as they choose).
> Any other alternative you're welcome to attend (if they'll take you), but you must fund it on your own.
I see this sentiment a lot from those against parental choice, but I don’t understand it. Why must I fund it on my own? If tax money is collected from me and only made available to the public school system, then I am deprived of my money and then not given the option to just “fund it on my own” unless I am rich and have enough leftover money still. That is really unjust. There is a certain amount of money that would be spent on a child per year anyways - and I think parents should be able to attend any alternative and use that equivalent funding elsewhere. Why would the public option get to keep it when they are relieved of the cost of educating a child that is attending some other option?
Force charter schools to take the worst students that the public system is stuck with, and you'll very quickly find that they will perform just as poorly as the public system.
Let the public system expel anyone it doesn't like (preferably into the charter system), and miraculously, all metrics will improve.
As a bonus, you'll also find that the political support for vouchers will evaporate overnight.
Let the public system expel anyone it doesn't like (preferably into the charter system), and miraculously, all metrics will improve.
As a bonus, you'll also find that the political support for vouchers will evaporate overnight.
> and you'll very quickly find that they will perform just as poorly as the public system
Has there even been enough time and experimentation to generate evidence for this? Do you have any sources you’re willing to share?
> As a bonus, you'll also find that the political support for vouchers will evaporate overnight
I find this to be really cynical, as if a better or more efficient alternative source of education cannot exist. Do you really think that a single public school system with no competition, the negatives of teachers unions, and a dismal track record has zero room to improve? To me these blanket attacks against private options are basically saying that no one can do better, which is not a view we would hold about most other things in our society. Choice and competition are inherently good.
Has there even been enough time and experimentation to generate evidence for this? Do you have any sources you’re willing to share?
> As a bonus, you'll also find that the political support for vouchers will evaporate overnight
I find this to be really cynical, as if a better or more efficient alternative source of education cannot exist. Do you really think that a single public school system with no competition, the negatives of teachers unions, and a dismal track record has zero room to improve? To me these blanket attacks against private options are basically saying that no one can do better, which is not a view we would hold about most other things in our society. Choice and competition are inherently good.
We have competition. Families move to regions where they see better school outcomes.
You can do almost the same thing by only allowing charter schools to accept vouchers if the vouchers cover the entirety of the education costs. The first thing that happens when you introduce vouchers at the cost of a charter schools' tuition is that they raise the price of education so that there is a nominal financial barrier to overcome that poor parents can't afford.
> Why is there so much focus on public education and aversion to private options like charter schools?
So that everyone has a chance at an education. If public schools go away, voucher money will dry up and then only the wealthy can get an education.
So that everyone has a chance at an education. If public schools go away, voucher money will dry up and then only the wealthy can get an education.
Can you explain why you think voucher money will dry up? I’m saying that parents should have the option to spend the amount of tax money currently set aside for their children wherever they want. I don’t think that funding is at any more risk under a private option than it is now.
We already have your idea at the college level, and it created the student loan crisis. Paying $400K to a professional sales organization based on a sales pitch that won't show results for a decade, is begging for disaster.
If you wanted a ruling class and a working class, what would you do?
[deleted]
As a parent of a 7 year old, I would also say the same. Our kid goes to a public school and overall they spend way less time on core subjects but a lot more on things related to race and so on which really do not have relevance to their level. The math is so far back that we had to put him into an additional math tutoring outside of school. Pretty much all parents in our area send their kids to something like Russian School of Math or so. Within people I directly know a couple have put their kids into private school and I am strongly considering it moving forward though it will be a huge financial strain.
A more problematic thing I see with schools not challenging kids is that all kinds of behavior problems arise because they do not have anything to learn. Our kid was a lot better when I gave him math stuff from grade 4 or higher to learn. Kids need challenge. There is a limit to how much you can occupy them with coloring numbers and iPads. And at least here it is definitely not a funding issue. In fact his school has a cap on spending because if they spent more it would increase disparities with neighboring schools.
A more problematic thing I see with schools not challenging kids is that all kinds of behavior problems arise because they do not have anything to learn. Our kid was a lot better when I gave him math stuff from grade 4 or higher to learn. Kids need challenge. There is a limit to how much you can occupy them with coloring numbers and iPads. And at least here it is definitely not a funding issue. In fact his school has a cap on spending because if they spent more it would increase disparities with neighboring schools.
Parent of a 10 year old in public school. I can't think of any race related subjects that they do at school. Sure they may cover a race/culture during a specific month (eg. February they learned about the underground railroad this year, they did a week on the Chinese New Year). He has a number of friends that go to private schools and its not too different amongst that peer group.
Sure there are differences overall. In talking with other parents, for instance, the privates around us have classes on ways to study methods (notetaking, how to approach tests, things like that). Our public school does not do this (nor does any of the public middle schools we looked at). The privates around us also seem to give a lot more homework (even during the summer break).
Our math programs seem average for what they are learning. We have been going to additional math tutoring outside to get our son ahead but it wasn't because of the program at his school (we started in Kindergarten).
There is a also lot of info around bullying and so on. I just figured this was all schools. This one I don't know about at the other schools around us.
Sure there are differences overall. In talking with other parents, for instance, the privates around us have classes on ways to study methods (notetaking, how to approach tests, things like that). Our public school does not do this (nor does any of the public middle schools we looked at). The privates around us also seem to give a lot more homework (even during the summer break).
Our math programs seem average for what they are learning. We have been going to additional math tutoring outside to get our son ahead but it wasn't because of the program at his school (we started in Kindergarten).
There is a also lot of info around bullying and so on. I just figured this was all schools. This one I don't know about at the other schools around us.
This is in MA, there's a significant race related stuff here. He had some class on ballet, the entire thing was about the girl who was the first black ballet dancer accepted into some prestigious academy. There was pretty much nothing about the dance itself at all.
As somebody who doesn't live in the US and only has the (likely very distorted) view of US schools we get from your series/movies, I would say doing things against bullying is a good thing. I always find revolting to watch how "normalized" seems to be the school bully form the football team. But again: this is what Hollywood is projecting... I hope to be very wrong on it.
>Our kid goes to a public school and overall they spend way less time on core subjects but a lot more on things related to race and so on which really do not have relevance to their level.
I'm curious about this. Could you explain more?
I'm curious about this. Could you explain more?
Not the same person, but we recently started touring schools in different districts. They all seemed to push diversity and anti-bullying programs as a main part of their pitch. There was very little focus on the academics. It was basically you get the normal classes unless you test into an IEP or G-IEP. Then they'd show off their facilities, how every kid gets a Chromebook, and after enough good stickers under the bully program they get a pizza party, etc.
The thing that spoke to me the most was looking in on the classes. Some of the schools seemed to just have the kids on screens in every class. Others had more of a mix. Behavior was also noticeable in one school, as was the aditude of the administration (both negative). On parent at that school told me you can't even tell the teacher about bullying and bad behavior. The kids are expected to fill out an incident report on their Chromebook.
The thing that spoke to me the most was looking in on the classes. Some of the schools seemed to just have the kids on screens in every class. Others had more of a mix. Behavior was also noticeable in one school, as was the aditude of the administration (both negative). On parent at that school told me you can't even tell the teacher about bullying and bad behavior. The kids are expected to fill out an incident report on their Chromebook.
the diversity and anti-bullying are selling to the parents, not the kids.
the bigger problem is the chromebooks.
also, if you're "touring different schools in different districts" you're playing a game that's way different from the average US kid. most schools are funded by local property taxes and in poor areas that means they get what they get.
the bigger problem is the chromebooks.
also, if you're "touring different schools in different districts" you're playing a game that's way different from the average US kid. most schools are funded by local property taxes and in poor areas that means they get what they get.
Local property taxes are a part of funding for most. However, most state and federal funds try to reduce the bias by providing more funding to the poorer schools. Some places might have large funding differences, but many are pretty close, including the ones we looked at.
It seems like the private school didn't really have the diversity or anti-bullying in their pitch. Probably since they had other things to pitch. I'm not sure the public schools had anything else to pitch (except one had a pool).
It seems like the private school didn't really have the diversity or anti-bullying in their pitch. Probably since they had other things to pitch. I'm not sure the public schools had anything else to pitch (except one had a pool).
>and after enough good stickers under the bully program they get a pizza party, etc.
That's terrible. You weren't evil? Get rewarded. What happens when they get sick of pizza?
That reminds me of people who call themselves a hero or people who boast of giving to charity. Doing what is right and normal doesn't need to be rewarded.
That's terrible. You weren't evil? Get rewarded. What happens when they get sick of pizza?
That reminds me of people who call themselves a hero or people who boast of giving to charity. Doing what is right and normal doesn't need to be rewarded.
"Doing what is right and normal doesn't need to be rewarded."
I might agree with you, but the schools don't see it that way. It's very much on the level of participation trophies. They don't even have winners and losers when playing games - it's winners and non-winners now. As if changing the name changes reality...
I might agree with you, but the schools don't see it that way. It's very much on the level of participation trophies. They don't even have winners and losers when playing games - it's winners and non-winners now. As if changing the name changes reality...
I have also been disappointed with the amount of focus they spend on such topics. Until our young child went to school, we had never singled out people as being different by race. She didn't really even have the words to call that out. Then in school they start putting emphasis on these differences, and in doing so are basically teaching them to separate people in that way.
I'd love to see concrete examples of this that are actually horrible.
Whenever people complain about this kind of stuff, it always seems to be in extremely vague terms, like OP's "things related to race and so on." OK, what specifically are those things, and why are they a problem? "Different races exist" is not political opinion--it's a statement of fact that any kid can observe. Same with "Gay people exist"--that's not a political statement.
One can argue that (for example) mixing these topics up with the math curriculum is probably not a productive use of instruction time, and I'd agree with that. But I think we need to be more specific and concrete instead of vaguely complaining about teachers talking about "differences".
Whenever people complain about this kind of stuff, it always seems to be in extremely vague terms, like OP's "things related to race and so on." OK, what specifically are those things, and why are they a problem? "Different races exist" is not political opinion--it's a statement of fact that any kid can observe. Same with "Gay people exist"--that's not a political statement.
One can argue that (for example) mixing these topics up with the math curriculum is probably not a productive use of instruction time, and I'd agree with that. But I think we need to be more specific and concrete instead of vaguely complaining about teachers talking about "differences".
> "Different races exist" is not political opinion--it's a statement of fact that any kid can observe
Race is a social construct and therefore a political opinion. The scientific fact is that race does not exist.
"Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning."
"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-...
Differences between people exist, of course, but they don't map neatly to any concept of race.
Race is a social construct and therefore a political opinion. The scientific fact is that race does not exist.
"Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning."
"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-...
Differences between people exist, of course, but they don't map neatly to any concept of race.
lupire(1)
40% of US households have children, so this means people without a clue are just spouting off haha. I could care less but I find these things amusing.
Hmm... both parties agree that it's going in the wrong direction, but differ on why. (Probably because they differ on what the wrong direction is.)
It seems to me that "parents trying to tell teachers what to teach" and "teachers bring their personal views into the classroom" are both kind of saying "teach the core content" - don't wander off into what the teacher wants, and don't wander off into what the parents want. (Yeah, I know, you can't entirely, especially with reading. They have to read something, and that something carries some content. Who gets to decide what it is?)
It seems to me that "parents trying to tell teachers what to teach" and "teachers bring their personal views into the classroom" are both kind of saying "teach the core content" - don't wander off into what the teacher wants, and don't wander off into what the parents want. (Yeah, I know, you can't entirely, especially with reading. They have to read something, and that something carries some content. Who gets to decide what it is?)
Of course it is. This is BY DESIGN. A certain political party wants public education to go away and have private education funded by your tax dollars. It's yet another money grab by the wealthy.
[deleted]
In blue states, people also think the schools are going in the wrong direction. You realize that your "certain political party" doesn't control the schools there, right?
As someone working in EdTech, I think the idea of schools being underfunded is very complicated.
School Districts horribly mismanage their budgets. One of the largest school districts in the country and one of my clients just didn't know how much money they had spent for two years. So, their solution was to not renew any contracts the following year. Didn't matter how important they were, you were only safe if you had a multi-year contract (which thankfully I did). The people who are making spending choices in districts are often clueless about how to spend money or think about ROI.
Some schools are likely underfunded. But they also just need financial literacy training.
School Districts horribly mismanage their budgets. One of the largest school districts in the country and one of my clients just didn't know how much money they had spent for two years. So, their solution was to not renew any contracts the following year. Didn't matter how important they were, you were only safe if you had a multi-year contract (which thankfully I did). The people who are making spending choices in districts are often clueless about how to spend money or think about ROI.
Some schools are likely underfunded. But they also just need financial literacy training.
I work in EdTech as well and I tend to agree, but there is also a very strong correlation between funding and rank of schools. 8 of the top 10 schools in terms of educational outcomes also are in the top 10 for spending.
Due to paying for education with property taxes, this of course carries on into the county level where many schools are incredibly over funded and have good education, where as others have poor funding and terrible education.
I do agree overall though, when you look at the numbers at a macro scale. Here in Florida, average class has around 20 kids, we pay around $10k per kid per year. How does that not fund the school, how do teachers make so little? Average pay is around $50k, you could put two teachers in each room and still have $100k left over for all the expenses of running the school.
I believe its a bit of you get what you pay for, the states paying more get better talent who use the money more effectively. The main factor that money can't fix are the parents. We have a Drop out Recovery program and well, the common factor is the parents and income.
Due to paying for education with property taxes, this of course carries on into the county level where many schools are incredibly over funded and have good education, where as others have poor funding and terrible education.
I do agree overall though, when you look at the numbers at a macro scale. Here in Florida, average class has around 20 kids, we pay around $10k per kid per year. How does that not fund the school, how do teachers make so little? Average pay is around $50k, you could put two teachers in each room and still have $100k left over for all the expenses of running the school.
I believe its a bit of you get what you pay for, the states paying more get better talent who use the money more effectively. The main factor that money can't fix are the parents. We have a Drop out Recovery program and well, the common factor is the parents and income.
EdTech is one the large classes of misspending.
[deleted]
Maybe a more constructive question is, do we agree on which countries are doing public education well? And what insights or practices can we learn from them?
In 2022, a town in my state, Croydon NH, voted to get rid of the school system and replace it with a cheap private online vendor.
They did a revote and reminded the town that voting is important, but, for a week that was the plan. A system as engrained as schooling not actually being so was startling to observe so close by.
They did a revote and reminded the town that voting is important, but, for a week that was the plan. A system as engrained as schooling not actually being so was startling to observe so close by.
Meanwhile, homeschooling my kids is going exactly the way I want. We have great curriculum, the kids work hard and we take our recess together. WFH + homeschool is amazing if your situation allows.
How do you socialize your kids? Imo the most important part of elementary school is giving kids the space to work out their differences with each other. Just doing play dates or whatever doesnt really match the experience you get at school. There has to be some amount of non supervised interaction between kids who would rather not interact.
Yes, it's amazing what doubling or tripling funding can do for quality of education. I'm shocked that public schools have tried this obvious solution.
If you think that homeschoolers pay double or triple what school districts pay per pupil, you are very much unaware of the reality of homeschooling.
You'd probably have admins and technology suck up most of the funding. At least in the US, funding and outcomes don't have that much of a correlation. DC area schools have among the highest levels of funding per student and the worst outcomes as well.
Some parents may do homeschooling well, but most don't. Most use homeschooling as a way to isolate their kids from outside world views and prevent them from questioning what the parents believe. It's a way to indoctrinate kids into a specific viewpoint. Kids should be exposed to many different cultures and viewpoints so that they have a chance to develop their own viewpoints, improve critical thinking skills, and become independent thinkers.
The stats I've seen show that homeschooled students do substantially better on tests than their public school counterparts. I'm open to the possibility that those stats are wrong but you should at least address that if you're going to take the "homeschooling produces only indoctrination" line.
If most homeschoolers are flat-earthers teaching their children that fossils aren't real and are STILL crushing public schools on science, math and reading tests– then that is an embarrassing indictment of public schools.
If most homeschoolers are flat-earthers teaching their children that fossils aren't real and are STILL crushing public schools on science, math and reading tests– then that is an embarrassing indictment of public schools.
Being able to pass a standardized test on a basic subject isn't the same thing as being able to think critically.
> being able to think critically.
That was strongly discouraged long ago when I was in school. Completely unheard of when my daughter was in school. Sounds like you're grasping at straws here; standardized test scores are pretty terrible but you're suggesting kids are able to think more critically now that they can't do arithmetic?
That was strongly discouraged long ago when I was in school. Completely unheard of when my daughter was in school. Sounds like you're grasping at straws here; standardized test scores are pretty terrible but you're suggesting kids are able to think more critically now that they can't do arithmetic?
Arithmetic doesn't require any sort of critical thinking at all, so the point is moot. Advanced maths do, but those aren't usually taught in K-12; however, not getting those critical thinking skills young can make it more difficult in college to apply what you've learned to more complex problems. I'm speaking here as someone with a math degree who tutored college level mathematics for 3 years.
As to the other point, you're right that many teachers don't encourage critical thinking or individualism. That's a fault of those teachers, and of our society that tends to frown on questioning authority.
All that said, kids who only socialize with their own family and maybe their neighbors don't develop the skills that come with having their views challenged and needing to defend them.
As to the other point, you're right that many teachers don't encourage critical thinking or individualism. That's a fault of those teachers, and of our society that tends to frown on questioning authority.
All that said, kids who only socialize with their own family and maybe their neighbors don't develop the skills that come with having their views challenged and needing to defend them.
>The stats I've seen show that homeschooled students do substantially better on tests than their public school counterparts.
Do those stats account for the fact that parents who choose to homeschool tend to care way more about their children compared to people who send their kids to public school?
Do those stats account for the fact that parents who choose to homeschool tend to care way more about their children compared to people who send their kids to public school?
If you take students of equivalent socioeconomic status, then no the homeschooled doesn't perform better on average. They tend to do better on social subjects and worse at STEM subjects, but on average the results are the same.
Shows that STEM education in school is the most important part of school since the rest you can learn better at home, so homeschooling is significantly worse at the most important part that the student wont just learn as an adult on their own later.
Shows that STEM education in school is the most important part of school since the rest you can learn better at home, so homeschooling is significantly worse at the most important part that the student wont just learn as an adult on their own later.
> If you take students of equivalent socioeconomic status, then no the homeschooled doesn't perform better on average.
Source? Documentation? Evidence?
Source? Documentation? Evidence?
There is plenty, just google and you find a lot. Why is this so hard to believe, it is fairly obvious that the moms that teach will teach better at subjects they like and worse at subjects they hate, and most moms hate math.
Here is an article writing by a homeschooling association where they noted this: https://responsiblehomeschooling.org/the-homeschool-math-gap...
Here is a result of home schooled kids being behind on science, they don't major in science in college nearly as much, the difference is a staggering 33% majoring in STEM for non homeschooled and just 13% for homeschooled: https://www.educacaodomiciliar.fe.unicamp.br/sites/www.educa...
So if you wish for your kids to have the best possible career potential don't homeschool, that greatly lowers their chances at a good STEM career.
Here is an article writing by a homeschooling association where they noted this: https://responsiblehomeschooling.org/the-homeschool-math-gap...
Here is a result of home schooled kids being behind on science, they don't major in science in college nearly as much, the difference is a staggering 33% majoring in STEM for non homeschooled and just 13% for homeschooled: https://www.educacaodomiciliar.fe.unicamp.br/sites/www.educa...
So if you wish for your kids to have the best possible career potential don't homeschool, that greatly lowers their chances at a good STEM career.
You would've been right like 15 years ago, but it's changed a lot since then. I live in a place with a pretty sizeable homeschooling community. I didn't come here for that, coincidentally I want to do that for my children as well, it just worked out. Most of the homeschooled young people around here are better mannered, more decent, cleaner, less prone to behavioral problems, and have a larger knowledge base. The days when homeschooling == creationism are coming to an end. There's still a bit of that, but not asuch as you'd expect.
You're right that kids have to be exposed to different people and they need to learn critical thinking and to think for themselves. School does not teach them that, school teaches them that when the drug dog comes into the classroom they have no choice but to comply. School teaches them that they need go go along with social expectations unless they want to get bullied or shunned. School teaches them that it's cool to fight in the bathroom and put the video on TikTok. People teaching their own kids, well that depends on the parents. I can give my kids way better critical thinking skills than school can. Someone that thinks the world is 6000 years old maybe can't, but it has always been that way, we were just pretending it could be different, and what is staring us in the face right now is the reality that that just isn't true. Always and forever, kids will learn to the degree that their parents care about their learning, no number of behemoth institutions will change that.
You're right that kids have to be exposed to different people and they need to learn critical thinking and to think for themselves. School does not teach them that, school teaches them that when the drug dog comes into the classroom they have no choice but to comply. School teaches them that they need go go along with social expectations unless they want to get bullied or shunned. School teaches them that it's cool to fight in the bathroom and put the video on TikTok. People teaching their own kids, well that depends on the parents. I can give my kids way better critical thinking skills than school can. Someone that thinks the world is 6000 years old maybe can't, but it has always been that way, we were just pretending it could be different, and what is staring us in the face right now is the reality that that just isn't true. Always and forever, kids will learn to the degree that their parents care about their learning, no number of behemoth institutions will change that.
I'm guessing this depends on the locality and the circles you run in. The homeschooling I know had solid curriculums, where involved in other social activities, and were more likely to think outside the box. Indoctrination happens at public schools too, so it's a situation by situation thing.
I totally agree. Whenever these homeschool threads start up, it's always HNers singing the praises of homeschooling because their exposure to it is always in the context of engaged parents wanting a higher quality education for them: the happy path case where homeschooling probably works well.
You're not going to hear a lot of HNers talk about the other side of homeschooling, which is when it's done for reasons of religious separatism (and lately, for political separatism reasons). You're not going to see those cases on HN because they are not going to be success stories.
I don't know which group is bigger, but they're different sides of the same "homeschooling" coin, and they both need to be talked about when you advocate for homeschooling.
You're not going to hear a lot of HNers talk about the other side of homeschooling, which is when it's done for reasons of religious separatism (and lately, for political separatism reasons). You're not going to see those cases on HN because they are not going to be success stories.
I don't know which group is bigger, but they're different sides of the same "homeschooling" coin, and they both need to be talked about when you advocate for homeschooling.
Homeschooling is rare. The 2 homeschooled children I know we're absolutely brilliant, incredibly successful adults, and also very religious. Outside of a small area of biology, Creationism vs Evolution just isn't important to lifelong success or eusocial behaviour.
Unsurprising, I don't know any religious separatists who live on their family compound locked away from the larger world.
Unsurprising, I don't know any religious separatists who live on their family compound locked away from the larger world.
I'm not sure exactly what degree you mean by separatism. Most of the examples I know of did have a religious component as a factor, but they weren't cults or extremists. They still taught science, technology, etc and associated with people of different backgrounds.
I'm sure there are bad homeschools, just as there are bad public schools.
I'm sure there are bad homeschools, just as there are bad public schools.
Public school does not teach kids to be independent thinkers.
How so? How is having your parents as the source of truth for all things making people think more independently?
It's been going the wrong direction since it was formed in 1979. It was a minor bureau before then. Americans were and would be better served by locally driven standards driven by teachers. You know, the actual experts in education.
If you axed 75% of admin and returned the DOE to a minor bureau and moved all that money to teachers salaries then I suspect learning outcomes would improve drastically. It's the same problem as Boeing. Put the money back into the fucking product.
If you axed 75% of admin and returned the DOE to a minor bureau and moved all that money to teachers salaries then I suspect learning outcomes would improve drastically. It's the same problem as Boeing. Put the money back into the fucking product.
> It's been going the wrong direction since it was formed in 1979. It was a minor bureau before then. Americans were and would be better served by locally driven standards driven by teachers. You know, the actual experts in education.
I thought the K-12 curriculum was set at the state level? What role does the DOE has to play in this?
I thought the K-12 curriculum was set at the state level? What role does the DOE has to play in this?
K-12 needs to absolutely DRILL reading comprehension and mathematics, much more than other subjects. This sets students up for pretty much any major in college. For example, Econ programs rely more on reading comprehension than one might think. The problem is reading comp probably takes years to tune, improve upon, etc. It's not a simple equation you just learn, it's something that comes with years of reading and application.
Even in K-12 reading is hugely important. Grades 2-3 are the transition point where students go from learning to read, to reading to learn. Every year past that point where a student is deficient in reading, causes them to fall behind their peers.
People without kids in public schools have a pretty warped view of what things are actually like. When you poll actual parents who enroll their kids in public education you see a different picture. I'm actually really shocked people genuinely believe schools aren't focusing on core academic subjects... if anything they're too narrowly focused on a subset of ELA and Math rather than taking a broader approach to these subjects.
As a parent with kids enrolled in public school tho, I'd probably be a "wrong direction" person but probably not for the reasons outlined. My biggest gripes are:
1) Teachers have limited autonomy to shape their curriculum and (at least at our school) teach a canned curriculum to ensure standardized test scores move in the correct direction. This also feeds into more advanced kids getting bored out of their minds.
2) Schools often have lopsided resourcing for various special education concerns. There's significant resources available for kids who struggle in math and reading but if a student's needs are social, speech, etc (eg: kids on the autism spectrum) the support isn't as widely available. If your child is well-behaved and academically strong but has support needs elsewhere they're not going to bend-over backwards despite whatever a state law may say.
But it's not all bad. I've also noticed: Bullying seems to be taken WAY more seriously these days. To the point where the kind of stuff that I'm not sure would've even gotten recognized as bullying when I was in school gets clamped down by schools. However, for schools that are more permissive with devices, as I've understood it, much of this bullying just gets pushed online.
I think allowing kids to have devices in school is probably the worst thing for education. And this is 100% on the parents for forcing schools to tolerate this. And I think any politician that tried to run on getting devices out of schools would probably get run out of town.
As a parent with kids enrolled in public school tho, I'd probably be a "wrong direction" person but probably not for the reasons outlined. My biggest gripes are:
1) Teachers have limited autonomy to shape their curriculum and (at least at our school) teach a canned curriculum to ensure standardized test scores move in the correct direction. This also feeds into more advanced kids getting bored out of their minds.
2) Schools often have lopsided resourcing for various special education concerns. There's significant resources available for kids who struggle in math and reading but if a student's needs are social, speech, etc (eg: kids on the autism spectrum) the support isn't as widely available. If your child is well-behaved and academically strong but has support needs elsewhere they're not going to bend-over backwards despite whatever a state law may say.
But it's not all bad. I've also noticed: Bullying seems to be taken WAY more seriously these days. To the point where the kind of stuff that I'm not sure would've even gotten recognized as bullying when I was in school gets clamped down by schools. However, for schools that are more permissive with devices, as I've understood it, much of this bullying just gets pushed online.
I think allowing kids to have devices in school is probably the worst thing for education. And this is 100% on the parents for forcing schools to tolerate this. And I think any politician that tried to run on getting devices out of schools would probably get run out of town.
this mirrors my experience.
the OMG DEI IS RUNING SCHOOOLS WAHHHHHH posts are either in San Francisco or are shills. Maybe NYC or greater DC; big city wankery.
In all of the cases I saw the diversity and such was limited mostly to the same "golden rule" stuff we got when I was a kid. a lot of the learning materials tended to have characters with different skin colors, but that's just in the "Jamal has 4 bananas, and decides to give 2 away, how many does he have left?" sense -- trivial stuff.
My main concern is the screen time and chromebooks, and plain ole student to teacher ratio.
the OMG DEI IS RUNING SCHOOOLS WAHHHHHH posts are either in San Francisco or are shills. Maybe NYC or greater DC; big city wankery.
In all of the cases I saw the diversity and such was limited mostly to the same "golden rule" stuff we got when I was a kid. a lot of the learning materials tended to have characters with different skin colors, but that's just in the "Jamal has 4 bananas, and decides to give 2 away, how many does he have left?" sense -- trivial stuff.
My main concern is the screen time and chromebooks, and plain ole student to teacher ratio.
Best decision I ever made was pulling my kids from k-8 and homeschooling them due to psychological bullying by peers.
By the time they made it into high school, they were well adjusted, studied, had great physical prowess, and somehow managed to become very popular.
I attribute this to avoiding the "socialization" aka bullying that goes on in elementary and middle school.
Subject wise my kids went faster too but that's just a consequence of the Prussian style schooling.
By the time they made it into high school, they were well adjusted, studied, had great physical prowess, and somehow managed to become very popular.
I attribute this to avoiding the "socialization" aka bullying that goes on in elementary and middle school.
Subject wise my kids went faster too but that's just a consequence of the Prussian style schooling.
Same. We pulled our four kids out in 2021 and they go to a local homeschooling group half the day. Class size is less than ten and they are excelling across the board. It seems to have taken a lot of social pressure off of them, they seem more "willing to be taught" than they ever were in public schools. My oldest is in 9th grade and she has opened up in so many positive ways.
The downside is that my wife works part time from home, so our income is a little less, but we won't go back. Public schools are just too dangerous.
The downside is that my wife works part time from home, so our income is a little less, but we won't go back. Public schools are just too dangerous.