71–80 of 241 posts
I spent some time with a 6 year old, who was my girlfriend's nephew. I noticed that he spoke well and was very sharp, but wasn't able to read. I suggested that we should read some things and he should learn to read, but no - his mother said that he was going to learn to read in 1st grade, with the other kids. Starting him earlier than that, she said, would stunt his social performance because he would be so far ahead…
I'm a parent of two who does NOT plan on putting his kids in public school because I think they won't be served well there (plan on "home schooling"). My 5yo uses Khan Academy and it seems to be great. Finally, I basically hate most aspects of public school. That said, I get sick of everyone piling on public school whenever something like this comes up. Public school is set to the following task: "take everyone , eve…
"Sequoia, that's a great question, but it's a bit advanced and I've got 30 other students here. I can't spend a lot of time answering advanced questions when half the class is struggling with basic concepts."" Yep, that happened when I TA'd CS 1. I managed to coopt some of the brighter students into helping the others, but, well, it didn't do much for them inasmuch they wanted to learn CS (they just got some social p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
College is not working - by the time kids graduate most of what they 'learned' in the classroom is outdated. College if anything is just a good place to gain 'social experiences'.
You are misunderstanding what college is intended to accomplish. The goal is to teach students how to teach themselves. This knowledge doesn't become outdated, and ensures that students never have to allow their other knowledge to become outdated as well.
I'm a parent of two who does NOT plan on putting his kids in public school because I think they won't be served well there (plan on "home schooling"). My 5yo uses Khan Academy and it seems to be great. Finally, I basically hate most aspects of public school. That said, I get sick of everyone piling on public school whenever something like this comes up. Public school is set to the following task: "take everyone , eve…
Finally, I basically hate most aspects of public school.
I was ready to agree with this. But then I reflected. What I really hated were my rotten peers (and, to an extent, my rotten self) from around the start of junior high to the end of high school. They weren't horrible, mind you. Just middle-of-the-distribution-curve kids, with the inevitable psychopath or two. I don't think privatization is going to filter that out.
And I rather liked my public community colleges and universities.
Could also mean that some teachers don't want the headache of dealing with a class with even greater disparities in skill and knowledge. It's hard enough dealing with a couple students bored in class cause they already know it. It's even harder to deal with half the class bored cause they already know it. Or it could really mean anything. Removed from context and the teacher's deeper reasoning, these quotes are large…
It requires a rethinking of the way schools are designed I believe. Maybe have multiple teachers per class with each one specializing in a level to tutor. Classes would be bigger but you'd still have a similar teacher to student ratio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe he means the guidelines: "off-topic: most articles about politics". Anything from Cato is going to be politics.
How is any article about public schooling not going to be about politics? The public school system is inherently political by definition.
Could also mean that some teachers don't want the headache of dealing with a class with even greater disparities in skill and knowledge. It's hard enough dealing with a couple students bored in class cause they already know it. It's even harder to deal with half the class bored cause they already know it. Or it could really mean anything. Removed from context and the teacher's deeper reasoning, these quotes are large…
Indeed. All I see here, is an aptitude-driven advancement system (Kahn) coming into conflict with an age-based advancement system (public schools). Clearly, if we're to reap the benefits of an aptitude-driven advancement system, we need to erase the core assumptions of the public school curriculum. (age-based peer groups, pass/fail an entire grade at a time, etc) When students are permitted to progress in different s…
Great, I agree. Why do you think these assumptions are so hard to change? Who are the people holding the assumptions? Why haven't they changed their minds already?
I suppose it's a Cato blog post, but I was hoping for a more interesting discussion than just a random call for private education, with a market-will-solve it assertion. People learning at different paces and on their own is a fairly interesting problem highlighted here, but I think it's wishful thinking to claim that the perfect answer is already known. It's not entirely clear to me that private schools would cater…
Public schools are the ones who cater to the large percentage. And have no real revenue loss when they fail to deliver. Private schools do cater to a small percentage, not everybody in a neighborhood, but a small percentage to whom the school appeals. Just like any other kind of business. Mercedes doesn't say "screw those snobs. We want the masses." Nope, they cater specifically to a very small set of buyers. There's…
There could well be boutique schools that cater to people with specialized interests who are willing to pay a significant premium (the BMW rather than Civic), but that's also true today.
A major difference from communist Yugoslavia is that private education isn't actually illegal; anyone can buy any education they want. Perhaps more people would buy boutique education if the public school system were abolished along with the taxes that paid for it, since their overall disposable income would be higher. But I suspect most people wouldn't buy a significantly more expensive educational solution if a cheap and decent one were available--- not much more than they do today, even if the price gap were slightly smaller. Instead, my guess is that the vast majority would opt for a cost-effective, fairly standardized large education provider.
(This does depend on how exactly it's implemented. Many of the voucher schemes being proposed would in effect prevent low-end competition, by giving movable fixed-dollar-amount vouchers that aren't refundable, which would make the more expensive schools seem relatively more attractive. For example, if it's a $6k nonrefundable voucher, there's no incentive for a private education provider to improve efficiency to the point where they can provide education for only $4k, because why would you go to the $4k school when it's no cheaper than the $6k school? So that in effect would put a floor on prices and make boutique schools more competitive. That's not really a libertarian solution, though, but sort of a social-engineering-via-managed-market solution.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If public education is not a monopoly, what is it?
Strictly speaking, government-operated schooling is an oligopoly, and one very stringently protected against meaningful competition. As the other two replies at your reply level I see here pointed out, a private business having the same market position in the United States and the same preferences that government-operated schools have would probably be illegal.