Posted on 07/24/2009 6:25:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
I have received a number of e-mails over the years from disgruntled parents griping about the left-wing indoctrination their kids are forced to undergo at colleges and universities all over America. One minute, it seems the kids are sane, or at least as sane as one can expect of 18-year-olds, and the next thing you know they’re parroting the likes of Ward Churchill, William Ayers and Noam Chomsky, bad-mouthing America and yodeling the praises of such left-wing troglodytes as Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers and Barack Obama.
I feel their frustration. Even if the little nincompoops can’t do long division or write a coherent sentence, parents feel like child abusers if they don’t pony up the dough to send their kids off for what is laughingly referred to as higher education.
If I were running things, most high school grads would enter trade schools. America will always need nurses, plumbers, carpenters, glaziers and mechanics. What nobody needs is some 21-year-old schnook who’s wasted four years and most of his inheritance majoring in black, Hispanic or lesbian studies. And then, to make matters worse, because like the Scarecrow of Oz, they have a sheepskin, they’re actually convinced they’re smarter than their parents.
One of my readers, Penny Alfonso, of Glendale, California, shared a conversation she had with her daughter. “I told her I won’t pay the tuition for any classes that end in the word “studies”. I have also told her that while I have no right to tell her how to think, if she comes home hating America and spewing the lies of the leftists, I will tell her I love her, and that she has the right to believe whatever she wants to believe, but I don’t have to pay for it. In the 20 years of her life, if she’s learned nothing else, she has learned that I am completely serious about this.”
If more parents adopted this attitude, the state of education would improve in a hurry. The lefty professors want to mold young minds, but the administrators just want your money. So use your clout where it counts. Adopt Mrs. Alfonso’s declaration as a Bill of Parental Rights.
Of course, the other thing I would promote is an end to the tenure system. The original idea behind it was to protect professors from being fired because of their unpopular political beliefs, but in 2009, conservatives aren’t hired in the first place, so the only people whose jobs come with a lifetime guarantee are those addlebrained morons, safely ensconced in the Humanities, espousing liberal claptrap.
Somebody recently took me to task for referring to Michael Jackson as a pedophile. This yutz pointed out that Jackson had never been convicted in a court of law, as if that proved anything. The fact remains that the King of Pap had paid out millions of dollars in hush money to keep a case from going to trial. And, by his own admission, he admitted he enjoyed sleeping with young boys. Where I come from, if it waddles, swims and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Whenever people use that court of law argument to make a point, I know they’re desperate. Heck, O.J. Simpson and Al Capone were never convicted of murder, and Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Idi Amin and Kim Jong-il, have never even been convicted of jay-walking.
Something else I always find irksome is when Obama’s liberal groupies, along with a few conservative commentators, deny that the President is a left-wing ideologue. All of his schemes, from gobbling up car companies and banks to nationalizing health care and redistributing wealth, show his true colors. As I say, if it waddles, swims and quacks like a duck, feel free to pop it in the oven and serve it with string beans and sweet potatoes at Christmas.
Good article, especially where college is concerned. I’ve long thought that we need to revamp our education system from top to bottom, in a way that offers freedom of opportunity but recognizes freedom of outcome.
My ideal educational system would look like this:
No more Pre-K — it’s a waste of time.
K-8th grade (or homeschool equivalent) required of all children. School would be year round, with 2-3 week breaks between quarters.
At the end of the 8th grade, students take aptitude tests. The top 1/3rd continue to high school, taking a mix of academic and hands-on classes. A few mandatory classes in routine home maintenance, basic finance and investing, and most importantly, both theoretical and applied government.
The middle third would go to the trade school of their choice, to become plumbers, electricians, contractors, etc.
The bottom third would go directly to the work force, as they’ve shown utterly *no* interest in schoolwork.
The college admission process would remain essentially unchanged, except that the number of students would be necessarily much smaller.
At any point in life, one could attempt the next level of education, but on your own dime.
Just an idea, but it seems like a workable system that would eliminate quite a bit of wasted time and effort on students that don’t want to be there.
Good article, especially where college is concerned. I’ve long thought that we need to revamp our education system from top to bottom, in a way that offers freedom of opportunity but recognizes freedom of outcome.
My ideal educational system would look like this:
No more Pre-K — it’s a waste of time.
K-8th grade (or homeschool equivalent) required of all children. School would be year round, with 2-3 week breaks between quarters.
At the end of the 8th grade, students take aptitude tests. The top 1/3rd continue to high school, taking a mix of academic and hands-on classes. A few mandatory classes in routine home maintenance, basic finance and investing, and most importantly, both theoretical and applied government.
The middle third would go to the trade school of their choice, to become plumbers, electricians, contractors, etc.
The bottom third would go directly to the work force, as they’ve shown utterly *no* interest in schoolwork.
The college admission process would remain essentially unchanged, except that the number of students would be necessarily much smaller.
At any point in life, one could attempt the next level of education, but on your own dime.
Just an idea, but it seems like a workable system that would eliminate quite a bit of wasted time and effort on students that don’t want to be there.
The problem with your scenario is that we’d be turning 13/14 year olds out to the workforce. If they don’t want to do schoolwork, what makes you think they’ll want to work in the real world?
As far as the article, I agree with most assessments. However, as a college graduate and current graduate student, I can attest to the rampant liberalism inherent in my professors, but some of them actually try to be unbiased.
The other side of the coin is the child. If raised properly, any teenager will know right from wrong and be able to determine liberal claptrap from pertinent information.
I admit that I wrote most of my papers and answered most of my essay exams in a way that placated the professor. A little social interaction with an educator will quickly alert you to liberal tendencies, as they tend to be very vocal about them. Just because I catered to the liberal establishment to get my piece of paper doesn’t mean they indoctrinated me. I knew the hot air from the substance. It’s just a matter of not letting it get to you.
Why not also take the 13 & 14 year old girls and turn them into hookers...? </sarc>
Thanks for the article.
Nice strawman argument.
At that point in time of your photograph, children (regardless of age or academic ability) were being exploited as cheap labor. The kids in your picture look to be 10-12 years old.
In my system, the kids put out to the workforce would be 13-14 years old — about the same age most of us started getting our first, informal summer jobs. The existing laws on the length of the work week, work conditions, etc., and manual labor standards would still be in effect.
Do you favor clogging up the school system with kids who have no aptitude or desire to continue their education?
Wouldn’t it be better to remove the bottom third, or bottom quarter, of students to better serve the rest? The way it is now, teachers spend 80% of their time dealing with the worst of their students. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t teachers spend their time on the best in their class?
If the kid is truly lazy, it can't be cured -- but that's already the case. I knew tons of kids that had no interest in schoolwork, but would've loved to go to work in the local auto shop, or gladly worked outside -- they just weren't academically focused.
I admit that I wrote most of my papers and answered most of my essay exams in a way that placated the professor.
I did the same thing. You regurgitated what the professor wanted to hear to get the good grade.
Oh good lord.
Your ideas are excellent and should be considered and implemented
So the bottom third, regardless of how hard they’re trying, should be denied the chance to further their education?
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.” — Yogi Berra
What would they do in the workforce, with no skills, aptitudes, or interests?
While you have some good, general points, your "program" would seem to punish potential "late bloomers" (such as myself).
Still, with some refinements, I think you're going in the right direction. Not everyone is college material, and we shouldn't overlook other paths to a successful career, such as those in a vocational trade.
I would also inject the option of using the military as a launching ground for career options. Even if someone doesn't do a full 20 or more years in the military, the exposure to discipline and service to one's country could do wonders for future college or career.
Nationally, 14 - 18 year olds account for about 5% of the population. Let’s take a third of those and introduce them into the work force; that’s only four and a half million people you expect to compete in an already tight job market. If I’m an unscrupulous employer, why not hire a kid I can intimidate? Why hire an adult who comes with a bunch of baggage like family obligations, more reasonable expectations about fairness and safety, and the sense to know when they’re being taken advantage of? I’m all for modifying the educational system, but creating a permanent slave class of intellectual eunuchs isn’t the way to do it.
"Would you like fries with that?" "Welcome to Wal*Mart." "That'll be $27.63. Do you have your Winn-Dixie card?"
While you have some good, general points, your "program" would seem to punish potential "late bloomers" (such as myself). Not really. Anyone would have the ability to advance themselves later on if they wished, but they would still have to pass the aptitude tests. IOW, let's say you're in the bottom third. After a couple years of working, you realize that you really want to trade school to become a carpenter. So, you take the aptitude test and you pass -- you're off to trade school. Same thing at each level, all the way up.
I would also inject the option of using the military as a launching ground for career options.
Absolutely. The military would be an option for either trade school or high school graduates, with college still required for the officer corps.
Enlist them.
Let the Army or Marine Corps D.I.s “indoctrinate” them.
Let them meet their fellow Americans from every walk of life on an equal footing.
Let them do the “menial” labor that their parents saved them from doing; the stuff that is necessary to run a household and maintain a unit.
Let them sleep on the ground, wake up in the dark, and march long distances carrying a weapon and battle load on their back.
Let them learn what it takes to keep this country free.
Let them learn to “...handle the truth.”
THEN send them to college.
In my original post, I wrote: At any point in life, one could attempt the next level of education, but on your own dime. Alternately, just like now, if a student was trying hard but not *quite* succeeding, hold them back for a year and have them repeat that year.
Since you quoted Yogi Berra, I get to quote Yoda :) "There is no try. There is only do, or not do." In life, there is NO extra credit for effort, only success or failure based on results. If the student performs worse than 66%, or even, say, 75% or 90% of the students his age, there's no real reason for the taxpayers to waste further resources on him or her. It becomes counterproductive to society as a whole -- and it's one of the things that has led to the horrific public education system we have now. Every kid should start out with the same opportunity, but not every kid has the capacity to succeed at the same level. Some will do better than others, some worse.
As of now, we're "graduating" kids from high school that are unable, or barely able, to read or write. Why not simply send them on their way? Why not return to when a high school diploma meant something, instead of dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator so that even the densest and most unintelligent student can "pass?"
You have some excellent points. Please allow me to address them.
Let’s take a third of those and introduce them into the work force; that’s only four and a half million people you expect to compete in an already tight job market.
That's four and a half million jobs we can take away from illegal immigrants. That's a good thing.
If I’m an unscrupulous employer, why not hire a kid I can intimidate? Why hire an adult who comes with a bunch of baggage like family obligations, more reasonable expectations about fairness and safety, and the sense to know when they’re being taken advantage of?
Good point, but you can also look at it from the other direction - why hire a kid who isn't mature and obviously isn't that smart to begin with? There are plenty of jobs that don't require much in the way of smarts. Bag boy, anyone?
I’m all for modifying the educational system, but creating a permanent slave class of intellectual eunuchs isn’t the way to do it.
I'm not creating anything - simply accepting what already exists, and what has existed from the beginning of human history.
There’s a system like this already in place, it’s called Communist China.
Love it.
Good points, all.
I agree a “diploma mill” serves no purpose, but it’s the arbitrary cutoff point that I have the problem with.
They have the rest of their life to “do, or not do” and learn the realities of how the world works.
Worst case, let them leave high school without a diploma.
They can always get a GED on their own time if they so desire.
My first thought was that we would end up with an education based “caste system”.
I honestly don’t understand what you mean. First you say this: “I agree a “diploma mill” serves no purpose, but it’s the arbitrary cutoff point that I have the problem with.”
Then you say this: “Worst case, let them leave high school without a diploma.”
Then you say “They can always get a GED on their own time if they so desire.”
Not trying to pick a fight, but I honestly don’t understand what you mean. What’s the point of having them essentially audit grades 9-12? That’s just state-sponsored babysitting.
In my system, only the bottom third would have to leave school at the end of 8th grade. Maybe the bottom third is too high, maybe it should be the bottom 10% or 20%. Regardless, the point is to not clog the educational system with kids that don’t want to be there, and whose parents obviously don’t care if they’re there.
They already do that - witness the Bloods and the Crips. The point is to stop the sham of "educating" kids that don't want to be educated. Stop reinforcing failure, reinforce success!
Trying to keep the oil of socialism homogenized with the water of decentralization is the reason for the bloated, destructive institutions of our age.
We already have one. It's one of the basic tenets of a meritocracy, which the US is (or should be).
So what's your plan?
If they don’t want to be there, fine.
But those that do want to be there, and are trying, should be allowed to continue even if that means they finish school but leave without a diploma.
My issue is with the “have to leave school.”
I hope that makes more sense...(?)
"Plan," as relates social institutions, is a manifestly socialistic proposition.
I mean no antagonism, honestly -- you just happen to be expressing perfectly the muddled reasoning of our age.
Okay, I see your point now. My take on it would be that those kids that are honestly trying but not succeeding should be hold back a year and given more chances to succeed.
Like I said in a previous post, maybe the bottom 1/3 is too many. Maybe it should be the bottom 1/4, 1/5, or even 1/10. However, at some point, there are kids who aren't trying, and we shouldn't waste taxpayer dollars and teacher time on them.
Fair enough. The term "framework" might work better than "plan," as "plan" implies a "planner."
So, what would your ideal educational framework look like? What would the overall picture of American education be?
Agreed.
But that should be done at the local level, in the school itself, or at the district level where it would be regulated by the state.
I think abolishing the NEA would be a great first step.
demolish it. then see how people creatively solve the problem. maybe parents would spend more time with their kids in the formative years, inculcating a moral foundation of human purpose. then they'd grow up to educate themselves. some would probably create curricula that would be deemed attractive to other similarly formed student.
of course this is an ideal. the state has an obligation promote (not necessarily provide) the proper care of children in the occasional absence of parents doing so. how the state would do so is really the question you are asking, and all I can say is, demolish the system. Let communities respond.
I know many successful people that at one point may have had a spotty academic record. Let's say they were among the discards and they find some dead-end grind to put food on the table. At some point they realize their mistake and want to move up the ladder, but at this point they've got an equally poorly educated wife (also making dirt wages). These people now have obligations to each other that might prevent them from bootstrapping themselves out of squalor - they simply cannot afford to pursue intellectual betterment. So they keep grinding away, eventually have a couple of kids (equally handicapped, since the greatest predictor of academic achievement are the academic achievement of one’s parents), and the cycle continues.
And you want to separate the wheat from the chaff in the eight grade? Nonsense. Education is the greatest (some would argue only) democratizing force on Earth, and to withhold it based on an arbitrary quota or standard is nothing short of criminal.
A more important question is, "What have they already done in the schools?"
They've turned many inner city schools into gang havens where the administrations are powerless to do anything about discipline due to the ongoing belief that every minor has a right to be in school, unless he is in solitary confinement. You see kids who don't get to finish high school. I see kids who don't want to be there, cause problems when they are there, and make it difficult for the other children to learn.
Telling someone to get out of school and go get a job does not mean he is forced to toil twelve hours a day in a coal mine. Aside from the illegality of such a job, the child can also play video games at home or sell crack on a street corner if the parents wish to tolerate such. Evening classes for a G.E.D. are nothing new, neither are night classes for higher education. Some of the kids who find themselves in this position might realize that they need to improve themselves if they wish to rise above the poverty line.
>> My ideal educational system would look like this:
No more Pre-K — it’s a waste of time.
K-8th grade (or homeschool equivalent) required of all children. School would be year round, with 2-3 week breaks between quarters.
At the end of the 8th grade, students take aptitude tests. The top 1/3rd continue to high school, taking a mix of academic and hands-on classes. A few mandatory classes in routine home maintenance, basic finance and investing, and most importantly, both theoretical and applied government.
The middle third would go to the trade school of their choice, to become plumbers, electricians, contractors, etc.
The bottom third would go directly to the work force, as they’ve shown utterly *no* interest in schoolwork.
The college admission process would remain essentially unchanged, except that the number of students would be necessarily much smaller.
At any point in life, one could attempt the next level of education, but on your own dime.
Just an idea, but it seems like a workable system that would eliminate quite a bit of wasted time and effort on students that don’t want to be there. <<
That kinda sounds a lot like the system they got in Japan.
I would say have aptitude tests between each grade and if you don’t pass you don’t go tot he next grade and have a test every semester and if you excel you can move tot he next level. I think your age should not dictate which class you are in.
Dunno. But if its true, maybe they’re on to something. After all, the Nazis got the autobahn and the VW Beetle right...
Of course, the PRC doesn’t have to worry about their professors being total commies - that’s what they’re supposed to be!
In spite of that early setback, Leonardo Da Vinci was still able to make something out of his life ;-)
That is, indeed, where I got the basic idea. My framework would have more flexibility than the Japanese system, however. There'd be nothing to stop anyone from moving up the ladder later in life, unlike the Japanese system.
Alphas... Betas... Gammas.... and Deltas....
A Brave New World I'm sure.
Shall we include in the curriculum the conditioning that will keep the population so ordered?
Spare me the construction of yet another straw man. This is not Huxleyan 'bottling,' but instead a) a return to the time-tested methods of educating our children, used for hundreds of years over hundreds of cultures and b) an admission of how the world IS, not how we would wish it to be.
You do realize that the idea of mandatory education for all children, regardless of aptitude, for 13 years is a very NEW concept, historically, right?
They’re going into the work force now with no skills, aptitudes or intersts. Oh yeah, they’ve also got a high school degree, which commemorates the sole accomplishment of bring down the quality of education for those that really wanted one.
They've turned many inner city schools into gang havens where the administrations are powerless to do anything about discipline due to the ongoing belief that every minor has a right to be in school, unless he is in solitary confinement. You see kids who don't get to finish high school. I see kids who don't want to be there, cause problems when they are there, and make it difficult for the other children to learn.
Exactly. This isn't about removing opportunities for kids -- it's about improving opportunities for whoever wishes to take advantage of them. That inner city kid that *wants* to learn would be able to do so without distractions.
From The Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (a peer-reviewed scientific journal:
In this study, literature that indicates a need for systematic methods to identify students who are candidates for functional behavioral assessments and strength-based assessments is reviewed. These assessments will guide the development of individualized interventions to prevent violence, chronic discipline problems, and negative high school outcomes. Longitudinal research involving an archival review of a randomly selected sample of 526 students is reported. This research supports the use of school records of discipline referrals as a screening device. Referrals for violence involving fighting in Grade 6 predicted similar referrals in Grade 8. Frequency of discipline referrals in Grade 6 predicted chronic discipline problems in later middle school, which predicted frequency of suspensions in Grade 9. Three or more suspensions in ninth grade predicted school failure. Boys referred for fighting more than twice and girls referred even once for harassing, as sixth graders, were not likely to be on track for graduation when in high school.
Emphasis is mine.
Perhaps what would be additionally needed is removal of any obligation of parents to feed and house them if they didn't want to go to work?
With my kids, it's understood: you WILL do your schoolwork, you WILL learn something that you can support yourself will, and I WILL NOT indulge you if you don't feel like working.
Remember we're talking about the bottom third, the ones who will come out of 12th grade without much more in the way of "skills, aptitudes, or interests" than where they were in 8th grade.
Don't assume that a tour of duty in McDonalds won't do such people some good. They will learn some valuable life skills: showing up for work is good, showing up on time and not hung over is better, don't mouth off to the boss, etc.
At a later point, when they've gotten some maturity, they can learn what they should have learned in high school on their own. These days there are lots of distance learning places.
Of course, an experienced teacher will be able to identify the rotten ones from a mile away and pretty accurately predict their academic and social trajectory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.