4 ms·

I'm gonna go with "probably not". The article starts with a standard argument that schools suck, then launches into a libertarian utopia forecast. I'm not sure

I'm gonna go with "probably not". The article starts with a standard argument that schools suck, then launches into a libertarian utopia forecast. I'm not sure how you can have both a information economy AND people who can't put in the time at a school to learn. Schools aren't some evil conspiracy to teach conformance, they're the only way to teach basic info to lots of kids. And if kids can't sit through it long enough to learn, the majority won't self teach either, no matter how much you want them to. So what do those people do? There are other models for schooling, but covering classic reading/writing/math/history is still pretty important, and modern schools do a reasonable job of providing that the majority of kids.

oldgregg 17y ago
Nice try, blaming those dumb students for an education system that's failing them. The problem is they don't do a reasonable job of teaching the basics. That's why poor minorities in DC and other places are demanding school vouchers-- but as long as teacher unions care more about their jobs than students not shit is going to happen. Education has been going to hell for the past 30 years (or longer) so please don't delude yourself into thinking anything is going to magically change. The only change will be new legislation that restricts self-funded alternative education. (Maybe you've already noticed governments trying to shutdown food co-ops under the guise of "public health")
- Xichekolas 17y ago
  I think the truth is somewhere in between. Yes, there are a ton of failing school districts, but it's not as if kids are clamoring to learn all they can and being told no. Kids aren't really motivated to learn the stuff (not that they ever have been in the history of education), and those schools aren't doing any motivating. It requires both parties to try. I think the idea of fixing schools has, and will continue to be, examined to death. What no one seems to examine is the other half of it. How can we as a society stop perpetuating the "learning is uncool" myth? Maybe it's because a math competition will never be as exciting as a football game, maybe it's just part of human nature to be skeptical of intellectualism as a defense mechanism for the ego... I don't really know. But I don't think you can "solve education" without paying attention to that part as well.
  - oldgregg 17y ago
    But the cultural problem you're talking about is caused in large part by the structural problem. Students slack off because the system passes students along with impunity. Why bother studying math when you know you will get promoted anyway? The only way to fix that is to allows schools to kick poorly performing students out. There are plenty of students who want to do well but the system crushes them.
    - antauth 17y ago
      What do you propose they do with the kids they kick out?
      - artsrc 17y ago
        I don't know what the parent proposes, but generally people propose that kids who read at a 2nd grade level, stay in 2nd grade.
    - Xichekolas 17y ago
      While I would agree that students shouldn't be passed with impunity, I'm not sure the fix is kicking students out. The motivational factors that make sense to adults don't necessarily work on kids. Thinking back to when I was 13-14, being kicked out of school would have been a good thing to most of my peers. It would mean no more school, and school was a total hassle at that age. I think the answer lies partly in finding ways to motivate students to learn, and I think the root solution to that is going to lie somewhere with teachers that can sell what they are teaching. I had history teachers that were so into their material it was almost infectious. I had an Algebra teacher that taught everything as if it were the coolest thing in the world. It's hard to not care about something when someone else is visibly excited about it. And I think that has to be coupled with real expectations. People generally rise to the expectations that are set, and kids are no exception. The worst teachers I ever had were the ones that tried to pretend they were on the kid's side. The ones that would admit that what they were teaching was "pointless" but were "just trying to help us get through it because it is required". That is not inspiring. Not only is it uninspiring, but it creates a responsibility vacuum. If things are pointless, and everyone knows it, and there is no real responsibility to take it seriously, then why take it seriously? And finally, I think the biggest fix to the cultural problem has to come from our parents. Most parents are really just older kids, and deep down they have the same outlook on school as those teachers that admit it's "pointless". They talk a big game about education being important, but they don't back it up by actually considering it to be important. I don't think this has to come at the expense of other activities, but getting an A on a test should be at least as important and noteworthy to parents as winning a little league game or Prom night. So yeah, part of it is structural, but it's by no means all structural. The education of people does not occur entirely between 8am and 3pm. Much of what we learn is from our peers and our parents and really anyone else we are exposed to socially. And crucially, the attitude we learn to adopt towards school comes almost entirely from these people who are not part of the school system, and that attitude is crucial in determining how much we get out of that 8am to 3pm period.
- cschneid 17y ago
  Nice try blaming unions for an education system that's failing students! See how I turned that around on you? Simple answers are not to be found when talking about education. You are falling into the conspiracy theory side of an education discussion almost immediately. You blame unions, then the government ("new legislation that restricts...."). It's frustrating really. I've rewritten the last part of this comment half a dozen times now. It's not worth arguing.
  - natrius 17y ago
    Any entity that resists change to a broken system is at fault. Unions bear part of the blame for the current state of our education system because they resist reforms that most people think are likely to improve education, like merit pay. This is assuming those people are correct, however. Blaming the government also makes sense. The government runs most schools.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      Yeah but it's still simplistic. Let's just get the government and unions out of it.. then we'll have.. no schools and no teachers! The market will step in, somehow! Hand-waving!
- krschultz 17y ago
  It's not 30 years. Kierkegaard was saying that in the early 1800s. Every generation thinks they're the LAST WELL EDUCATED GENERATION AND ALL THESE KIDS ARE NOT NEARLY WELL EDUCATED ENOUGH SO WE'RE SCREWED! Has been happening for literally hundreds of years.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Poor minorities in DC didn't demand school vouchers -- the then-republican majority forced it through over the DC city council's objections. Those republicans were in fact in DC but none were poor and none were minorities. Also, your forecasts are way out of line, the current admin big thing is teacher merit pay which is opposed by the unions. I'll personally send you a bottle of the liquor of choice if this administration or any of the next 3 attempt to outlaw private education.
Perceval 17y ago
Reihan isn't a libertarian. He's a young conservative. I know him actually, he sat in on a course I took on the conservative movement in American politics. He was the "actual conservative" the professor was showing off to the university students (who presumably aren't exposed to actual conservatives within academe). Reihan's a cool guy and was generally fun to argue with. His author description mentions that he blogs at National Review and works for e21. I know one of the founding members of e21 actually, she used to be my buddy's neighbor. It's definitely not a "non-partisan" economics think tank, just a run-of-the-mill conservative outfit. I thought Reihan was at The New America Foundation, which actually is a non-partisan think tank known for being more sexy/interesting than your mainstream institutions. Maybe he's moved on. Anyway, I agree, it's an odd piece.
- madair 17y ago
  I was wondering if someone would call him on the libertarian thing. While the general alignment of the person may be conservative, aren't the ideas still considered libertarian? I've been considering a lot how to adjust use of words to make it clearer when I'm talking about ideas, since after all it's the ideas that matter if ideas are what we're discussing in the moment. Party alignments in non-election debate just muddy whatever the individual ideas are representing with preconceptions and even unrelated concepts, and it's harder to see where individuals cross-align, making negotiations and debates even harder than they already would be.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Conservatives and "young conservatives" in particular identify extremely strongly with the Republican party -- given that conservatism tends towards "identify with your own" far more than liberalism, this is significant. Libertarians, entirely different set of motives.
    - Perceval 17y ago
      I'm not sure that's correct. As far as I can tell, young conservatives identify more closely with 'conservatism' than with the party. Which is why young conservatives are drawn to things like the Tea Party rallies/movement. I think the ideology—more than the political structure of the party—is what motivates the youth. But that's not really any different from liberalism. Most youth on the left identify themselves as 'progressives' and part of the 'progressive movement' rather than identifying themselves with the Democratic party apparatus.

oldgregg 17y ago

Nice try, blaming those dumb students for an education system that's failing them. The problem is they don't do a reasonable job of teaching the basics. That's why poor minorities in DC and other places are demanding school vouchers-- but as long as teacher unions care more about their jobs than students not shit is going to happen. Education has been going to hell for the past 30 years (or longer) so please don't delude yourself into thinking anything is going to magically change. The only change will be new legislation that restricts self-funded alternative education. (Maybe you've already noticed governments trying to shutdown food co-ops under the guise of "public health")

Xichekolas 17y ago
I think the truth is somewhere in between. Yes, there are a ton of failing school districts, but it's not as if kids are clamoring to learn all they can and being told no. Kids aren't really motivated to learn the stuff (not that they ever have been in the history of education), and those schools aren't doing any motivating. It requires both parties to try. I think the idea of fixing schools has, and will continue to be, examined to death. What no one seems to examine is the other half of it. How can we as a society stop perpetuating the "learning is uncool" myth? Maybe it's because a math competition will never be as exciting as a football game, maybe it's just part of human nature to be skeptical of intellectualism as a defense mechanism for the ego... I don't really know. But I don't think you can "solve education" without paying attention to that part as well.
- oldgregg 17y ago
  But the cultural problem you're talking about is caused in large part by the structural problem. Students slack off because the system passes students along with impunity. Why bother studying math when you know you will get promoted anyway? The only way to fix that is to allows schools to kick poorly performing students out. There are plenty of students who want to do well but the system crushes them.
  - antauth 17y ago
    What do you propose they do with the kids they kick out?
    - artsrc 17y ago
      I don't know what the parent proposes, but generally people propose that kids who read at a 2nd grade level, stay in 2nd grade.
  - Xichekolas 17y ago
    While I would agree that students shouldn't be passed with impunity, I'm not sure the fix is kicking students out. The motivational factors that make sense to adults don't necessarily work on kids. Thinking back to when I was 13-14, being kicked out of school would have been a good thing to most of my peers. It would mean no more school, and school was a total hassle at that age. I think the answer lies partly in finding ways to motivate students to learn, and I think the root solution to that is going to lie somewhere with teachers that can sell what they are teaching. I had history teachers that were so into their material it was almost infectious. I had an Algebra teacher that taught everything as if it were the coolest thing in the world. It's hard to not care about something when someone else is visibly excited about it. And I think that has to be coupled with real expectations. People generally rise to the expectations that are set, and kids are no exception. The worst teachers I ever had were the ones that tried to pretend they were on the kid's side. The ones that would admit that what they were teaching was "pointless" but were "just trying to help us get through it because it is required". That is not inspiring. Not only is it uninspiring, but it creates a responsibility vacuum. If things are pointless, and everyone knows it, and there is no real responsibility to take it seriously, then why take it seriously? And finally, I think the biggest fix to the cultural problem has to come from our parents. Most parents are really just older kids, and deep down they have the same outlook on school as those teachers that admit it's "pointless". They talk a big game about education being important, but they don't back it up by actually considering it to be important. I don't think this has to come at the expense of other activities, but getting an A on a test should be at least as important and noteworthy to parents as winning a little league game or Prom night. So yeah, part of it is structural, but it's by no means all structural. The education of people does not occur entirely between 8am and 3pm. Much of what we learn is from our peers and our parents and really anyone else we are exposed to socially. And crucially, the attitude we learn to adopt towards school comes almost entirely from these people who are not part of the school system, and that attitude is crucial in determining how much we get out of that 8am to 3pm period.
cschneid 17y ago
Nice try blaming unions for an education system that's failing students! See how I turned that around on you? Simple answers are not to be found when talking about education. You are falling into the conspiracy theory side of an education discussion almost immediately. You blame unions, then the government ("new legislation that restricts...."). It's frustrating really. I've rewritten the last part of this comment half a dozen times now. It's not worth arguing.
- natrius 17y ago
  Any entity that resists change to a broken system is at fault. Unions bear part of the blame for the current state of our education system because they resist reforms that most people think are likely to improve education, like merit pay. This is assuming those people are correct, however. Blaming the government also makes sense. The government runs most schools.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Yeah but it's still simplistic. Let's just get the government and unions out of it.. then we'll have.. no schools and no teachers! The market will step in, somehow! Hand-waving!
krschultz 17y ago
It's not 30 years. Kierkegaard was saying that in the early 1800s. Every generation thinks they're the LAST WELL EDUCATED GENERATION AND ALL THESE KIDS ARE NOT NEARLY WELL EDUCATED ENOUGH SO WE'RE SCREWED! Has been happening for literally hundreds of years.
jbooth 17y ago
Poor minorities in DC didn't demand school vouchers -- the then-republican majority forced it through over the DC city council's objections. Those republicans were in fact in DC but none were poor and none were minorities. Also, your forecasts are way out of line, the current admin big thing is teacher merit pay which is opposed by the unions. I'll personally send you a bottle of the liquor of choice if this administration or any of the next 3 attempt to outlaw private education.

Perceval 17y ago

Reihan isn't a libertarian. He's a young conservative. I know him actually, he sat in on a course I took on the conservative movement in American politics. He was the "actual conservative" the professor was showing off to the university students (who presumably aren't exposed to actual conservatives within academe). Reihan's a cool guy and was generally fun to argue with. His author description mentions that he blogs at National Review and works for e21. I know one of the founding members of e21 actually, she used to be my buddy's neighbor. It's definitely not a "non-partisan" economics think tank, just a run-of-the-mill conservative outfit. I thought Reihan was at The New America Foundation, which actually is a non-partisan think tank known for being more sexy/interesting than your mainstream institutions. Maybe he's moved on. Anyway, I agree, it's an odd piece.

madair 17y ago
I was wondering if someone would call him on the libertarian thing. While the general alignment of the person may be conservative, aren't the ideas still considered libertarian? I've been considering a lot how to adjust use of words to make it clearer when I'm talking about ideas, since after all it's the ideas that matter if ideas are what we're discussing in the moment. Party alignments in non-election debate just muddy whatever the individual ideas are representing with preconceptions and even unrelated concepts, and it's harder to see where individuals cross-align, making negotiations and debates even harder than they already would be.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Conservatives and "young conservatives" in particular identify extremely strongly with the Republican party -- given that conservatism tends towards "identify with your own" far more than liberalism, this is significant. Libertarians, entirely different set of motives.
  - Perceval 17y ago
    I'm not sure that's correct. As far as I can tell, young conservatives identify more closely with 'conservatism' than with the party. Which is why young conservatives are drawn to things like the Tea Party rallies/movement. I think the ideology—more than the political structure of the party—is what motivates the youth. But that's not really any different from liberalism. Most youth on the left identify themselves as 'progressives' and part of the 'progressive movement' rather than identifying themselves with the Democratic party apparatus.