SouthernDemocrat

Lets all look at the DSM criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
DSM Criteria A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance - Check
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique - Check
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative - Need more information
7. lacks empathy - Shows Signs.
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her - Shows Signs
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes - Check.

__________________
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."

-Romans 12:18

aegyptos

Please report this abusive post to the mods, you dip****.

Layla_Z

__________________
~Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
~I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
~If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
George Carlin

UtahBill

Trolls usually don't have sources......

__________________
The Age of Reason doesn't have to be a thing of the past.
Being judgemental is the prime directive of some evangelicals.
Love people and use things, not love things and use people.

SouthernDemocrat

Its called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Unfortunately, just like every other personality disorder, nothing can be done about it. If your a Narcissist, you are a Narcissist for life.

Mach

Education in what though? Crack, prositution, violence, religion, the family business?

How can you believe there is no evidence, historical or modern, in your own neighborhood, that some parents do not provide for the education of their children. Some parents murder their children. That alone refutes your claim.

The question is why we have public education. Only then are you able to compare and contrast what is better on average (if that's your goal).

We extend the protections of the constitution to children, including protection FROM their parents, be it neglience or ignorance.
I did not want my education left up to my parents alone.
Ethically I do not want every child's education left up to their parents.
By in large one can home-school in any case, are you forgetting this?

What? You mean the average citizen could readily be a nuclear physicists in the 1700's? Your argument is really out there. Then again, libertarian ideals typically are (sensless jab)

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

Bodhisattva

One of his daughters is a moron and the other is a genius.
C'mon now...

__________________

Fiddytree

I am no expert, but I'll give it a swing.

Teaching to the test does take the brilliance of education down a few notches, but at other levels, if our nations' demand is to somehow rescue the education system of the United States, it seems to be a necessary evil How far we take that evil is a matter of dispute-and I side with using standardized tests as conservatively as possible (whatever that is supposed to mean in the real world).

For parent involvement, there are perhaps two options: forcing them to take more responsibility, or hold the carrot out. Constructivists would have us believe that if the school system incorporates family involvement in the education process (with the school being the headmasters), many gains could be had. On the other hand, if we simply drop the public schools' responsibilities, it would force parents to become more involved in their child's lives. Which ever would work better small-scale or large-scale is also a matter of debate.

As for teacher respect, I have a few thoughts. My immediate thought is to doubt the notion that they have ever held that much respect in the first place. I hold the notion that while children should behave in the classroom, teachers can at times expect too much from the students by ways of "respect". Indeed, teachers have to earn at least some form of respect from their students. To me, that's part of the challenge of teaching in the first place.

Scapegoating is a big problem throughout education, as far as I can tell. Parents could blame teachers, their unions, or administration unfairly. Teachers could blame administrations, parents, or even students unfairly. Politicians may blame any of the above. We must not forget, however, that much of what the general public knows about education comes from the teachers and their unions, and the bias that stems from that can muddy the issue. No, it is not so black-and-white, and many times teachers do try their best with what they have.

I think the general attitude that should be preached is that of hopeful skepticism. Being in the college of education at my University as well as hearing from educators for many years, I do get the impression that they may overstress their ability to accomplish change (both individually and as a group). Social engineering is desirable, but immensely difficult, and often tainted by unintended results. No Child Left Behind, for all of its pitfalls, was an attempt to accomplish change. In some circles, there is indeed improvement (for instance, some families are noticing a more positive environment for communication between teacher/school and student/family). Instructors are required to have a degree in the subject they teach, and states can craft the standards of education NCLB sought to change.

In the words of Nathan Glazer, "Have I become a pessimist about the ability to change society? Yes, I think there is no way of getting around that. I am not against Government from keeping on trying, but just what those efforts should be, we are trying to find out. [...]I think you must keep on trying even if you have not had great success".

Solidus

Since aegyptos went crazy and belligerent, allow me to pick up the "school choice" torch. Forgive me if I rehash some of the arguments.

Layla Z;

"We've become to focused on test scores and are no longer teaching the children what they need to know to be successful in society. We're teaching the test."

This requires more explanation from the teaching professionals here. What is so awful about "teaching the test"? Is the test not an accurate assessment of what children should be learning? For example, for courses that have a cumulative final exam is not the entire course "teaching the test"?

" Critical thinking skills are not a priority when test scores drive funding. This is sad, but true and demonstrates one of the many problems with standarized testing."

Is it impossible to design a test that adequately captures 'critical thinking skills'? Is it possible to "teach the test" utilizing the pupil's 'critical thinking skills'?

"More and more parents see the schools as a glorified babysitting service. They don't want to be involved and could not care less what their kids do at school."

This seems to be the most significant issue by far. There is little incentive for parents to be involved in the current system. I see some form of vouchers as providing this incentive. Other ideas on how to provide incentive for parental involvement?

"Also, private schools have the luxury to reject students(this is why their scores can be higher). So if there were a voucher program you would have a failing public school with only the poorest and most troubled students left."

This assumes that there are no private schools that cater to poor / troubled children. A similar case is often raised when the issue is 'special needs' children. There are private schools and voucher programs that cater successfully to 'special needs' children more successfully than public schools. Why do you think this would not be the case or poor / troubled children?

------

Scucca;

"Choice exaggerates inequality of opportunity, exacerbating segregation but also impacting on general quality."

This is laughable considering that in every other situation choice has lead to the exact opposite. More opportunity, less segregation, and higher general quality.

"Education leads to numerous social benefits, not least higher economic growth. It is therefore just factual to remark that the private sector will lead to underinvestment."

This is hardly an argument for government monopoly of the education service industry. The private education service industry could be subsidized to account for the social benefits not already captured by the profit motive. A voucher system could include this.

"Public education is therefore vital, particularly in terms of minimising inequality of opportunity."

I can agree with you here. Education is vital to increasing opportunity amongst the population, and therefore government should prioritize it and assist the private sector. However, "public education" does not have to be a government monopoly. If the funding is provided to parents by the government (ie. vouchers) then the education can be provided by the private sector.

-----

UtahBill;

"What good does it do to have someone who really knows history try to teach it to children 12 years of age, or younger?"

Agreed. Requiring stringent qualification requirements reduces the pool of available teachers. I'm an engineer, I work with many technicians who's productivity I could not duplicate; specialization trumps higher education in some areas. Early primary education seems to be an area where 'technician teachers' would be more productive than 'engineer teachers'. This is how some religious schools keep costs down. A priest may not have a degree in child development, but is adequately trained to teach reading and writing (and probably a foreign language).

"Back in the 60's in east Texas, our school board banned 2 books that our best teacher was using in class, "The Scarlet Letter" and "To Kill a Mockingbird". He was without a doubt the best teacher I ever had, and the administration made life difficult for him because he taught English at a much higher level than required for the grade level."

Did your parents raise the issue with the school board? Were your parents objections heard or felt? Was there any incentive for the school board to consider the opinions of community parents? Do you think there would have been more incentive for the school board if your parents had the choice of taking their business elsewhere?

"There are no good private schools out there that the average american can afford."

This is simply not true. "The average cost of private elementary schools in the District is $4,500, the average secondary school cost $16,075. More than half of private elementary and secondary schools in the District cost less than $7,500 per year. Almost 70 percent (69.4 percent) of private elementary schools and 18.2 percent of private high schools in the District cost less than $7,500 per year." [1] Meanwhile for DC's public school expenditures, "Estimates range from $8,536 per student to $15,122, depending on who does the counting and what is counted." [1] It is simply not true that private schools are unaffordable by the 'average American' especially when vouchers are brought into play.

-----

SouthernDemocrat;

"The secret to those two districts success is simple: Parents that are highly involved in their kids education and well funded schools. Thats it, and vouchers nor any of the right wing schemes are a substitute for either of those. The problem in failing schools is almost universally the parents fault. Vouchers don't fix worthless parents. Thats a problem that has to be tackled at the society level. The poor performing districts their kids go to are a symptom of the problem, not the cause."

I agree that the current system is not "in shambles". However graduation rates have been declining, and this thread is about how to improve schools. I agree that highly involved parents are the largest contributor to a school's (and student's) success. I disagree that vouchers will not create an incentive for this involvement. If a parent motivated to be involved is in a district where they are the exception, wouldn't vouchers and school choice allow that parent to send their child to either of the schools you highlighted? Do you think that parents who send their children to private schools are more or less motivated on average than parents who send their children to public school?

------

A 'public education' does not need to be administered by a government monopoly. Increased competition amongst education providers will improve quality and cost effectiveness, just as it has for every other service providing industry. The most effective way to increase competition is to enable parents (the consumer) to have more choice in education providers. A voucher system (perhaps a regressive one where the voucher amount tapers off with family income) would place private schools on a level playing field with public schools, thereby increasing affordable choices for parents.

Parent involvement / motivation is the largest contributor to the success of children. What are some other ideas on how to increase parent involvement / motivation?

J

[1] http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp86.pdf

Scucca

Do you have evidence to support that view? For example, on a thread about vouchers I made the following use of published sources:

Prasch and Sheth (2000, What Is Wrong with Education Vouchers?, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 34, pp 509-516) conclude: "education vouchers are not the ‘magic bullet’ that will ‘empower’ parents while efficiently selecting out the lazy, corrupt, and unqualified among the nation's schools and teachers. On the other hand, there is compelling evidence that vouchers will result in less equality of opportunity, less social mobility, and the further exacerbation of social stratification along the lines of race and class."

Levin (1998, Educational Vouchers: Effectiveness, Choice, and Costs, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 17, pp 373-392) writes: “Most of the policy discussion on the effects of educational vouchers has been premised on theoretical or ideological positions rather than evidence. This article analyzes a substantial body of recent empirical evidence on achievement differences between public and private schools; on who chooses and its probable impact on educational equity; and on the comparative costs of public and private schools and an overall voucher system. The findings indicate that: (1) results among numerous studies suggest no difference or only a slight advantage for private schools over public schools in student achievement for a given student, but evidence of substantially higher rates of graduation, college attendance, and college graduation for Catholic high school students; (2) evidence is consistent that educational choice leads to greater socioeconomic (SES) and racial segregation of students; and (3) evidence does not support the contention that costs of private schools are considerably lower than those of public schools, but the costs of an overall voucher infrastructure appear to exceed those of the present system.”

How would you discount this evidence?

Given the evidence shows that vouchers encourage inequities, they will not fully capture the available social benefits (nor would more straight-forward subsidies). It is the visible hand of planning, rather than the invisible hand of the market, that will maximise the potential of the education system.

__________________