Skip to comments.It's Official: Public Schools are Obsolete
Posted on 06/20/2011 9:40:15 AM PDT by RobRoy
click here to read article
You may want to seek another source for this topic.
Public education does seem to be a Soviet era relic.
Expensive, aging facilities, unresponsive bureaucracies, lack of results, low morale. They’re just missing a picture of Breszhnev on the walls.
Thanks for the post!
Not in the least surprising, especially when you consider this little gem from (where else) the commie manifesto:"Free education for all children in government schools".
“My son went through the public school system and he was in the top 1% across the nation.”
Congrats to your son.
He accomplished that in spite of the “union idiots” that “eddicated” him.
If you are in the top 1% across the nation, how MUCH more better can you do? lol
>>You may want to seek another source for this topic.<<
I thought that part was excellent, actually. It’s definitely high level. For a person (adult or child) who was ignorant on the subject but had a love of history, this might be the beginning of in depth study via books and internet.
I think he was pretty fair about describing communism. He did a good job with the graph, I felt, as well. I also agree with where he put the four nations (well, russia and USSR as two of them). He did demonstrate how the communist nations have pulled back on the economic part, while remaining totalitarian in other ways.
It is also useful for private schools
Feds would set the requirements for federal recognition and acceptance of Associate, Bacholers, Masters and PHD degrees for hiring into the Federal government.
Uh, no. That is the worst idea I have seen on this site in ten years. What is so wrong with competing sets of credentials? Do your Federal bureaucrats guarantee competency?
I thought not.
I'll repeat a prior post here for benefit of discussion:
Any human then could use any means imaginable to acquire the necessary knowledge to pass We Test tests. Any school would do, no accreditation required. The Internet is loaded with coursework and curricula, libraries and lab-simulators. Any human with the drive and intelligence to learn on their own could then qualify for a job. No saving for decades, no brainwashing, completely transferable work, at any pace one can withstand. Any employer could then simply select from a menu of We Test specifications instead of a diploma, at any level. We Test tests.
One would think that this should have happened a long time ago, but in fact there is one thing standing in the way that makes the realization of this seeming inevitability a matter of now or never.
State licensing requires degreed credentials obtainable only at said profligate, bureaucratic and unaccountable institutions charging outrageous fees and demanding excessive time as only a State monopoly could command. Why not just amend the legislation specifying education for state licensure by adding the simple words, "or equivalent"?
As an example of how little it would take, consider my wife. She just passed her board certification exam as a Clinical Nurse Specialist in the Newborn Intensive Care Unit. She walked into H&R Block, sat at a computer, took a three-hour exam harder than anything she'd endured in her Masters' Program at Cal State San Francisco, and within five minutes after completion had her passing grade. If the private system can handle a test that specialized, why can't it test arithmetic, algebra, US history, or college chemistry? Instead of bricks and mortar, it would be e-books in quarters. Why not?
Well, that sounds like his predicament. He should have graduated, but didn't and had to do summer school. When I looked at his computer and the progress chart, I saw that he was over a year behind in a couple of his classes, and a several quarters behind in others. I don't know if he ever graduated.
The Federal government is already doing this, this is nothing new.
That makes me happy!
>>If you are in the top 1% across the nation, how MUCH more better can you do? lol<<
I’m thinking of the five nines concept here.
Perhaps you are not aware that the Federal government ALREADY does this. The OPM (office of personel management) already sets the standards for recognition of degress for hiring purposes.
Please read the sentance again. I am NOT saying that the Feds would set standards for anyone other than the Feds and how they hire.
This outfit has well over 2,000 youtube videos and they are linked up with youtube advertising (making some serious bucks)
Yes, I knew. So what? It's illegal. There is no Constitutional authority for such an enterprise. None. It constitutes Federal mind control: a counterproductive usurpation of power and an abomination to liberty.
Sounds like he wasn’t challenged to live up to his potential.
This guy leans left
Check out his video on ‘Estate Tax’
While he gave both pro and con viewpoints of the estate tax he leaned heavily ‘pro-estate-tax’ and topped it off with a Churchill quote to verify his stance.
Hmm, wonder if he has one on global warming *snicker*
Nice resource for the basics though - I bookmarked it.
>>What about the little matter of all the killing of enemies of the state, the wall around E. Berlin and the enslavement of eastern Europe.<<
That is not about the concept of communism, which the video is referring to. It is using three nations as examples to clarify what is meant by “communism”. The detail you are looking for would be in the history of the particular nation that did the things you refer to.
We need to pay for the education majors to go back to school (or get online training) to learn a new skill. Sort of a post-educational GI bill.
We? Whom would be this royal "we"??? You want to reach into my pocket to fund the re-education of what is likely a unionized Marxist Democrat goon? To what end?
OK, I'll put in my $0.02 and you can fund the rest.
Why doesn't the government have the right to say as part of our hiring process, we will only count degrees that come from regionally accredited universities? The intent of such rules by the OPM is to prevent someone who has a mail order degree from representing themselves for a position that they are not qualified.
Secondly, how is the Federal government's establishment of hiring criteria set out in Code of Federal Regulations (5 CFR) illegal? Please read Article II section 2 with particular attention to “...and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers...” Further, Article I vests the legislature with the power to make laws and the OPM was established by law in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
So I am not getting where you say that the OPM is illegal nor where you say that there is not a constitutional authority to do so.
Meh, make it tax deductible. It will take something drastic to move these people out of the educational gravy train. I think a carrot would be better than a stick, and we need to dismantle the education monolith whatever way we can. The savings we get from disbanding the schools would more than pay for the retraining.
$195 total....free shipping....this, from the Website...
Seems like a good thread to ask where good & free curriculum guides are located (k-12 and beyond). Thanks RobRoy for the posting.
Sure they do, but changing the point is not going to save you.
The Federal government has no power to decide what constitutes a degree.
Hence your list of rhetorical questions is bogus in this case.
Why doesn't the government have the right to say as part of our hiring process, we will only count degrees that come from regionally accredited universities?
First of all, the Federal government does not have rights, people do. The Federal government only has those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Specifying the content of educational standards is not among them. Second, as your example of MIT proves, do they need an accreditation from anybody? Everybody to whom the question matters at all understands that distinction.
Secondly, how is the Federal government's establishment of hiring criteria set out in Code of Federal Regulations (5 CFR) illegal?
Appointing officers has NOTHING to do with specifying what constitutes an acceptable education. That does not mean that the Feds cannot assess the education of a particular candidate. The Federal government has no power to interfere in the education marketplace. Hence, it must accept State standards and assess the educational capability of the individual as a matter of equal treatment under the law. I promise you, Albert Einstein did not need the blessing of a university, and in fact, would have met many of the criteria you prefer to impose. The strength of his ideas backed by experimental validation was all that was necessary. Thus, if that particular State specifies that private credentials are acceptable as long as specific standards of accountability are met, then the Federal government must accept them as valid. If an individual can prove that he or she possesses the skills to perform a task, it is not the business of the Federal government to assure that said applicant had paid off a claque of overpaid Marxists and useless bureaucrats to bless his ticket.
Once upon a time, hiring managers were held accountable for assessing the capability of their employees. As technology became more specialized, it became impossible for hiring managers to assess those individual capabilities. Enter Credentialing. The problem is that the lawyers of this world hold that credentials are equivalent to competence or even expertise. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a result, one MUST hold that MIT engineer as superior to an individual from Montreal International Technical College, even if he is incompetent in practical terms while the latter is in fact more competent (and don't get me started on examples of exactly such).
An example of private credentialing is board certification, which in fact is PREFERRED by many employers in the private marketplace compared to university degrees. Another example of the antithesis to your thinking is home education. Care to argue that the credentialed public product is inherently superior?
Thus, technology has progressed to the point where one can acquire expert knowledge without "benefit" of this 19th Century hierarchical institutional structure with which you are so infatuated. Moreover, that structure has become so ossified in protecting its internal interests that it has become a barrier to learning. There is no longer any justification for people to save hundreds of thousands of post-tax dollars to pay a bunch of Marxists to decide if your child is properly brainwashed. The key is testing, because testing really can separate the competent from the credentialed. That's why the left hates it.
Having several friends who have lost their children to
“The New Atheism”, I’m happy to know there is a way to
educate without indoctrination. God’s Word tells us that
bad company corrupts good morals. I’m all for socialization,
but on my terms, not the government’s terms. Government
long ago lost their right to make moral decisions. Rather
than encouraging a healthy exchange of ideas, government
schools place way too much pressure on children to conform
to secular status quo (group think). A part of education is
the ability to discover truth through reasoning and facts
through research. Being rewarded for knowing the answer the
teacher expects isn’t necessarily fact or truth but it is
useful to undermine social order and Judeo-Christian values.
Ah ... I see what has gone wrong here. You are assuming that I said that the Federal government would determine what constitutes a degree. I said no such thing. Here is the acutal sentance that I said from my post:
“Feds would set the requirements for federal recognition and acceptance of Associate, Bacholers, Masters and PHD degrees for hiring into the Federal government”
In other words, the Feds would set Fed policy about what the Federal government considers acceptable evidence for a degree - their only lever being the Federal hiring policy.
Please do not read anything more into that sentance. I never said that the federal government would decide for others what constitutes a degree. I did not say that the Federal government would specify eduacation standards. Only that the Federal government has the right (as in adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority) to set what is acceptable to them for hiring policy. But since you seem to be caught up on the word “right”, how about we us the term “legal authority”. To which I now reword the same previous question.
Does the federal government have the legal authority to determine for itself what is an acceptable proof of education?
I would also point out that according to Article 1 section 8 Congress has the authority to “..To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”. Determining the rules for hiring is clearly making rules for the government.
And further, should we adopt private credentialing or board certification, how is that any different from accepting a diploma? It is a sheet of paper from someone else. In the most hyperbolic argument, how can you trust the certifying the board or the private credentials.
“....would more than pay for the retraining.”
Why should the taxpayers be billed for “re-educating” the lowest ten percent of the graduating class?
Why does possession of a degree in education guarantee said degree holder a job?
The following is the sum and substance of this thread. And the solution, too - if I may so say.
“Thus, technology has progressed to the point where one can acquire expert knowledge without “benefit” of this 19th Century hierarchical institutional structure with which you are so infatuated. Moreover, that structure has become so ossified in protecting its internal interests that it has become a barrier to learning. There is no longer any justification for people to save hundreds of thousands of post-tax dollars to pay a bunch of Marxists to decide if your child is properly brainwashed. The key is testing, because testing really can separate the competent from the credentialed. That’s why the left hates it.
Really, the last two lines say it all.
For any still harboring lingering fondness for the bricks & mortar citadels of the academented, remember that they came into being when books were rare and costly. Institutes of learning continued to grow after publishing became able to provide books at less cost than scribes because books needed to be in libraries where students could read then without prohibitive travel impediment.
The Internet makes available to nearly all a library far greater than most universities. And, soon we can enjoy the entire Library of Congress online.
“Stand and Recite” is sooo last century.The new paradigm is “Learn and be tested.”
Frankly, that points out an idea I had not contemplated, that the only borderline legitimate justification for public universities even in the 20th century was for purposes of pooling capital by which to subsidize military-industrial R&D. Now that the Internet has crashed the price of books, does putting the LOC online in fact socialize all copyright royalties?
Given that this nation is near the bottom of the industrialized world in educational quality, a lot.
Paper based books can never approach the availability or low cost of Internet books.
While I like the low cost of old books brought about partly by Dewey’s ‘Dumbing Down”, I look forward to the day when I can download the original first edition of Churchill’s The River War, along with the commentaries of later minds who also examined his book and were moved toshare their perspectives.
A world wide “Invisible College” beats any bricks & mortar based (should I say ‘limited’) college on many parameters. Not the least of which is the ability to avoid the academented.
How do you figure?
If I recall correctly, they have some preliminary test in their junior year but its really just practice and doesn't amount to much. Most educational duds don't even bother taking the SAT/ACT test that really matters.
“a future where children can be effectively educated at their own pace, by their own parents, completely separate from the indoctrination of public schools, teachers unions, and other leaders with an agenda”
Not so fast. These K-12 schools, as they are called in Ohio, are not free from indoctrination, teacher’s unions and other leaders with an “agenda”. Students are merely using the same curriculum and the same agenda driven by the same unions in their homes.
This is not home schooling. It is public schooling at home.
Thank you dear.
Heres my modest proposal for education reform.
We have been discussing ways to fast track kids through high school to avoid the liberal agenda and other idiocies:
Proposal for the Free Republic High School Diploma.
Is anyone familiar with k12.com and CAVA (CA Virtual Academy)? IF so, what’s the story on it?
"Evidence for a degree" offloads the responsibility for determining competence to a third party, but interestingly, that is NOT what is historically typical for the Federal government. Back in the days before this policy, they used tests, that is, until communist lawyers at the ACLU sued for discriminatory tests. Now we have a system where, as long as the school is accredited, your MIT engineer is equivalent to that from ITT Tech.
Under the communist system, the government is enabling an extortionist monopoly based upon the legal assumption that the claque of leftists constituting the various university accreditation bodies produce an 'equal' degree. The problem is, that system does not allow for a person to acquire knowledge on their own. One cannot become a lawyer, doctor, psychologist, or teacher without paying up and putting in time in the institution of higher brainwashing.
Does the federal government have the legal authority to determine for itself what is an acceptable proof of education?
They have the authority to set functional qualifications; they do not have the authority to exclude people who are physically and mentally qualified to perform those tasks on the basis of an artificial extortion racket imposed by a third party agent of the political left.
What you are assuming is only right is effectively State-sanctioned monopoly, restraint of trade, and extortion. I know plenty of machinists and electricians who are far more qualified to do machine and system design work or even microwave signal processing than most degreed engineers. Unfortunately, they don't have the $200,000 and four years of more to pay off the educrats. Instead they have 10-20 years work experience. I know many a retired engineer who is far more qualified to teach math and science than are credentialed teachers. That the system you advocate systematically excludes these qualified people as a political paean to a government controlled (and if you think private colleges an exception, I have news for you) educational system on behalf of its usually unionized and indentured constituency.
And further, should we adopt private credentialing or board certification, how is that any different from accepting a diploma? It is a sheet of paper from someone else.
The Declaration of Independence is a "sheet of paper" too, which shows how shallow that argument is. A board certification is not a product of a State sanctioned monopoly accreditation body. It is sanctioned by the professionals in that field itself. For the most part, customers choose to use them or not at their preference.
In the most hyperbolic argument, how can you trust the certifying the board or the private credentials.
How do you trust your light bulbs? UL. Does UL back the bulbs? No, only the testing. The insurer backs the bulbs because they accept UL's TESTING. How do you trust your plumbing fixtures? UPC. The way one trusts in the free market is with third party verification (not a monopoly) and insured guarantees.
Does any university have any accountability that their credentials guarantee a qualified applicant? Mayhap you should get your head out of its apparently habitual 19th Century progressivism. It is socialist in origin, practice, and purpose.
Any time you’re at the top of “something”, that “something” wasn’t big enough to challenge you to climb higher.
“Public education” is goverment education and provides jobs and positions of status for the affirmative action folks.
If you doubt me, visit a post office, a IRS office, social security office and the DHHR system and look around.
There is no other work for these people, the private sector will not hire fakes.
uh huh, right *rolling eyes*