mf - story #413 - The problem is with

posted by dennisn on November 3rd, 2007 at 7:36PM

The problem is with "public" education -- better termed, government-forced education; more specifically, the lack of marketplace competition among teachers -- students don't get to choose the best teachers, and thus weed out the incompetent ones. Over time, just by the nature of the system, bad teachers predominate.

Link | Parent

posted by Nylorac on November 4th, 2007 at 9:10AM

Although I firmly agree that the system errs, I think there isn't enough emphasis on the role of parents within the public educational system. Bad study habits can't entirely be the system's fault, can they?

Link

posted by dennisn on November 4th, 2007 at 10:43PM

I believe it has been statistically proven that parents don't matter much during the course of a child's formative years -- what does matter is genetics ("hereditary intelligence"); but good or bad parenting plays a relatively inconsequential role.

Link

posted by dsk on November 5th, 2007 at 9:39AM

>I believe it has been statistically proven that parents don't matter much during the course of a child's formative years

I think you got that screwed up. Here's a relevant quote from 'Freakonomics':

But this is not to say that parents don't matter. Plainly they matter a great deal. Here is the conundrum: by the time most people pick up a parenting book, it is far too late. Most of the things that matter were decided long ago--who you are, whom you married, what kind of life you lead. If you are smart, hardworking, well educated, well paid, and married to someone equally fortunate, then your children are more likely to succeed.

I'm sure genetics plays a role, but its not the whole story.

By the time the adopted children became adults, they had veered sharply from the destiny that IQ alone might have predicted. Compared to similar children who were not put up for adoption, the adoptees were far more likely to attend college, to have a well-paid job, and to wait until they were out of their teens before getting married. It was the influence of the adoptive parents, Sacerdote concluded, that made the difference.

Link

posted by dennisn on November 5th, 2007 at 10:51AM

I sortof agree -- insofar as anybody who comes into contact with a child is a potential teacher for the child, yes, we are all responsible for the nurturing of the children we meet. However, the older the child gets, the less likely this is the case; the student evolves into a teacher. So, although society be blamed for "affecting a parent's means to foster", as you say, (since that would imply that the adult/parent is blaming society for his nature), it can be blamed more directly for the influences it exerts on the child.

(P.S. -- "all stats aside" isn't a good way to start an argument ;] -- it suggests an unwillingness to accept objective measurements)

Link

Well, I meant to suggest an un by Nylorac on November 5th, 2007 at 3:09PM.

>(P.S. -- "all stats aside" is by dsk on November 5th, 2007 at 10:59AM.

posted by dennisn on November 5th, 2007 at 10:25AM

TouchÃ©.

Link

posted by Nylorac on November 5th, 2007 at 10:00AM

All stats aside, if we were to actually factor in the role of parents and parenting in the learning skills of children (because it is the ability to learn that is presently in question), then this would open up a floodgate of factors because we'd have to consider all those things that affect a parents' means to foster an environment for a child. We may as well blame ... collectively everyone in our society for the increasing level of stupidity. (or decreasing intelligence. It depends on how you want to see it.)

Link

posted by Nylorac on November 5th, 2007 at 8:34AM

Yeah, that sounds familiar. I think that in some former post.

Link

posted by rick on November 4th, 2007 at 1:54AM

Or teachers don't get paid very much, so the good ones go to research and other professions. (From what I've heard from people who know teachers.)

Link

asf
posted by dsk on November 4th, 2007 at 9:49AM

>Or teachers don't get paid very much, so the good ones go to research and other professions. (From what I've heard from people who know teachers.)

I agree to a certain point. If the entire problem was money, we'd have solve this a long time ago. Thing is, high salary incentives only work in conjunction with being able to weed out bad and mediocre teachers. As it stands in Ontario, you work for two years and you essentially get tenure - at the university level, a professor really needs to work his butt off for many years (or become a world-renowned expert in his field) in order to get that kind of job security. So a wage boost now would do nothing but further reinforce the broken system.

Looking at it another way - a higher salary, in addition to attracting higher caliber workers, would also attract much more mediocre workers - so its vital that competence should be a criteria for continuing employment.

I'm with Dennis - the free market is pretty much the only way to guarantee high caliber teachers in the education system. This is not feasible in the current climate, so we should foster competition within the public sphere (via a voucher system or charter schools). The effect would be three-fold:
1) As I said, it would foster competition amongst schools
2) Competition would then necessitate firing bad teachers
3) It would break the union stranglehold on education. As it stands, we've given the teachers' union a monopoly on education, which gives them huge bargaining power - which they have abused to boost their salaries and protect their membership. If a guy like Seleika(sp?) made it through an entire career without getting his ass fired for incompetence there is a problem.

Link