Talk:Public education

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I wanted to put something in about international comparisons using Pisa comparison scores but the US doesn't seem to be mentioned. Which is a bit of a shame as that's what the majority of people would be interested in. Or have I missed something?--Bobbing up 07:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Scratch that. this is the US version. --Bobbing up 07:57, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
My word Finland does well. The UK could be generously called mediocre and the US abysmal. On the other hand I'm looking at one of the science questions:
  • Question 3: THE GRAND CANYON
  • There are many fossils of marine animals, such as clams, fish and corals, in the Limestone A layer of the Grand Canyon. What happened millions of years ago that explains why such fossils are found there?
  • A In ancient times, people brought seafood to the area from the ocean.
  • B Oceans were once much rougher and sea life washed inland on giant waves.
  • C An ocean covered this area at that time and then receded later.
  • D Some sea animals once lived on land before migrating to the sea.
I guess Andy's students would struggle with some of this. --Bobbing up 08:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
The BBC is doing a pop education thing - How smart are you? The first series of 20 questions are on English. Jollyfish.gifGenghismarauding 11:01, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Shit. 19, 'cause I read the question too fast.--Bobbing up 11:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Standards and Direction[edit]

Was the "educational standards" section meant to refer to the "standards-based" education standards that are common in America, are we going for a larger global definition, or something else entirely? And are we just focusing on American public education or not (considering a "public school" is defined very differently around the world)? I just wanted to get a feel for the "goal" of the article, I guess. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 21:12, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

o_o I didn't know that "standards-based" education was a mostly American thing. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:48, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't so much have a goal as a vision of what we're aiming for. Mostly, I wanted to debunk all the crap that gets tossed around by critics of public education (either the current system or its very existence). The intent of the "educational standards" section was intended to addrress the debate about standards-based education. With regards to terminology, I was very purposeful in naming the article "public education", as opposed to public schools (the latter being by its nature limited in scope, because it discusses the location of the education system, as opposed to the education itself). I assumed (probably erroneously) that "public education" was a fairly universal (or at least immediately understandable) term. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:48, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Compulsory Education[edit]

"Compulsory education laws exist in developed countries for a very, very good reason. I'd doubt Haitians would think that literacy would be a human rights violation."

A very, very good reason? How about "Students don't like school", which I explicitly mentioned? They don't hate educating themselves-at least not at first-as an innate curiosity and a desire to learn is vital for a species that is born with limited survival wisdom and a great deal of potential to acquire data. In fact, most children who claim to diislike learning probably don't have a clue about what they're actually saying. It should be correctly rephrased to, "I don't like being forced against my will to learn at school."

When considering education, you must take account the availability of knowledge and the amount of time one can allot for the purpose of gaining it. How many Haitans can obtain access to information in schools by searching it up, going to the library, finding an online source of education, or simply asking around? How many would set aside a portion of their day for that, as opposed to supporting their families? This is not usually a problem with developed countries; students usually do not need to take a direct role in their parents' work to survive, and there is an abundance of info that can be easily found. People can focus on jostling for a future position in a competitive business & career world and securing long-term benefits instead-a sort of Maslow's hierarchy, if you will.

Whether you like it or not, restricting freedom both in regards to attendance and issues within education that are labeled "disruptive to the learning process" is a violation of human rights. This is true regardless of whether they are compensated for it in some other way-if people got sent to prison for nothing and were supplied with an adequate amount of sustenance, this could hardly be called ideal in all but the most poverty-stricken of regions. You can argue that it is a justified violation, in the same sense that it is appropriate for people who commit crimes to have their human rights taken away. It is still a violation all the same.

-- (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased[edit]

Seriously, this article proudly pounces that public education is the greatest thing ever, even though there are so many things wrong with it and there are so many things that aren't mentioned here. For example, things such as herd mentality, zero tolerance policies, increasing standardized testing, the fact that middle school is actually such a bad idea that cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore have gotten rid of them, factory-model education (which is what public school follows), the idea that all children are stupid and don't want to learn, and the lack of attention to the fact that alternative education and homeschooling are on the rise. So many things wrong with this article, so biased. -- (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the schools in Philadelphia and Baltimore could benefit from studying the very fine public education systems in Canada, the EU, and Japan. Developed countries generally have first-rate public elementary and secondary education. If Americans would quit voting for every candidate who pushes through measures designed to cut public education off at the knees so they can have a few extra dollars to spend on big-screen TVs, McDonalds, and bad beer, maybe we wouldn't need this article in the first place. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's one of the more blatant self-fulfilling prophecies. Gut funding, whine when systems have to reciprocate with practices that the BoN doesn't like, then propose "alternative education and homeschooling" when they've never been effectively done on a nationwide scale. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a nice article for you to read: These are all reasons why the current public education is experiencing a (slow) death. Homeschooling may be growing slowly, but imagine that number, combined with the increasing dissatisfaction with the education system, in 20 years. And of course alternative education won't be encouraged on a large scale, schools get funding from student attendance! As an honest question, what do you remember from school? Also, the "alleged history" is extremely ignorant. Wait, so, during the late 1800s, people weren't looking to prepare children for the tough industrial life which lay ahead of them? This is blatantly ignoring the socioeconomic conditions at the time. Of course the education system is modeled after factories! That's what it was designed for: the prepare kids for factory life! Heck, I've even seen a teacher admit that education is modeled after factories, yet defend it by saying "at least you have different people talking to you!". Here's a Ken Robinson video about the whole thing: --Hansgrohe (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Academic studies, please. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a "blog post." Not an "article." My public education taught me how to tell the difference. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfounded point, don't want to start an edit war[edit]

"it's blatant that many students wouldn't even bother wanting to be educated"

Is there any reason to believe that those students do get educated when coerced? — Unsigned, by: / talk