I am not trying to cause division but I have wondered if smaller class size was the answer. WOuld it be better to have 30 kids in the class and have a full time assistant or would 20 kids with only a teacher and no assistant be better? I have been curious about this for a few years--I would think it would be more cost effective to have more assistants--that is of course if they were competent and helpful.
Though I dont doubt you, I think the reason smaller classes are more effient is because of how inefficient the structure is. College classes often have 100+ students there, and people learn just fine. But it is because all the students are on the same page. I say group the slower kids in one room and the sharper kids in one room and educate appropriately.
This. Because teaching to the lowest common denominator is going to work so well for advancing our country. :? Glad I am able to supplement my son's public education. And he goes to a "good" school.
The older you get the higher the student to teacher ratio is. In a daycare, this is dictated by law - so many babies to one adult, toddlers, pre-k, etc. By the time you get to college, you're supposed to be an adult. A young one, but an adult nonetheless. There are many different skillsets in college just like there are in a public classroom, the only difference is they if they aren't paying attention or getting it that's on them - not the instructor. Children have a right to a free education, that stops after 12th grade - this is why the teacher/school are held accountable. After that you pay for the education.
UN and Human Rights??? Talk about your oxymoron!!! As long as this group gives seats on it's "Human Rights" council to war lords who should be on trial instead of sitting in judgment, you can keep the UN and it's laughable "human rights".
Last checked by looking at my property tax bill, public education isn't free. Everyone pays. Students/parents should be accountable.
You know what I mean. Some parents can afford to educate their children, some can't. Some care to, some don't. In the end, society benefits - educated people are less likely to turn to a life of crime or welfare. Most folks with at least a HS Diploma become productive members of society. Think of it as an investment, and would you really want to deny a child the ability to read, write, add/subtract because it is not their parents' priority?
Honestly I would rather deny a person the right to reproduce who cannot put his child's future/well being as his number one priority.
Oh I am serious, that I would much prefer to not have a person who isn't going to care a bit about their kid, never have a kid. I am not talking about starting. massive sterilization/eugenics campaign. Public education would actually work if ALL parents took interest in their kids well being. It will never work with apathetic parents. The easiest solution would be for people with no interest in raising kids to simply not have them. No way to make that idea take hold or work though.
Nope, but with no parental support, an educator can only do so much. Our Prussian inspired education system works for what it is designed for, but only when the kid's parents can support the teacher/school, or the school has a real means to affect discipline measures. Not that I am a fan of the ol' imperial Prussians and their intent, but at least it can create a functional member of society.
Oh really? A thousand years ago the only people who were educated were the upper-class, the well to do, the one's with money. I don't think there was an overwhelming number of criminals or welfare queens (and kings) back then. I'm just sayin'...
Part of this is people attach a value to things they get. If something is free, alot of people do not realize or utilize the value, it is taken for granted. I would also add, the IDEA of public education is not a terrible one, it is that we give people the OPPORTUNITY to go as far as they want to being educated (Public schools, the chance to win state/federal scholarshios, etc) but what I see more and more is people let opportunity pass them by. We have several generations now where people have been raised by parents, who were, sad to say, losers. You can not learn how to make the most of opportunity or win from a loser. Public education operates best when EVERYONE is on board to want and push to get the best for their child. Bad parents make public education a waste of time to a large degree. Sooner or later (probably later this isnt a new issue) the way we do the education business will have to be addressed.
What has really changed? I dont mean with regards to education, but a tiny percentage of the population controls both resources and policy for the masses. Is this because the wealthy people engineer it this way, or because mediocrity is widely accepted as "ok" as a part of human nature and society? The Romans did have a very large welfare system, and a very large "federal" government, so 2000 years ago, things were not so different.....
What you're comparing now to an hour and a half ago??? No comparison! I'm just saying that more education does not mean less crime (or less education means more crime). The historical data just doesn't prove this out. Oh, wait, you don't believe in historical data because that would mean we'd have to look at the past and that means there can be no comparison.
