I grew up in a small school that lacked funds for anything but the most basic classes. It sucks, but in hard times, some things need to be sacrificed. And if the kid is passionate about music, he/she can always find other ways to get educated, ie. private music classes, friends, youtube, other free or subscription sites, family, ect. Or perhaps yall could start organizing after school music classes, either requiring fees to keep it running or doing cookie sells/ concerts/ whatever yall are comfortable with.
If you don't have the money for nice things, you must cut the nice things out. Simple supply and demand.
Music is an art... Art's don't pay up in most cases.
Most students aren't going to become an artist, school must prepare you for the real world, not what you want. Bringing home the bacon requires the fundamentals, again, when you can't pay for both the fundamentals and nice things... you have only the option to cut the nice things.
Ah, but guess what? You have a better chance of entering college with the football scholarship than being a member of the ban.
More people pay more money for football, which means there is more money in it. This fulfills the end goal of making money, which is the end goal of all Americans who prosper economically.
It maybe without a logic or rational based purely upon what betters society... But humans are not rational beings... As my sister who has studied phycology keeps reminding me, rational thinking cant be used as a defense... You have no basic frame work to base what is rational thinking besides the average human mind which changes both with time and place.
How many of the Classical composers had any type of formal education in music? Most were self taught, or apprenticed under an already recognized composer. That is the method that used to be used.
I'm not saying that we should just ignore all arts in school. But instead of the continuing method of trying to get students that have not artistic talent in any medium to try and express themselves, it needs to begin to shift to art history classes. I think I learned more about art history and the things people were trying to express in my Intro to Architecture class last semester than I did in any high school art class. Due to this, I have a much bigger appreciation of the masterpieces than I had before. I can also start to understand some of what is trying to be said in the shape of a building.
Where as math is one of those skills that can only ever help anybody. I'm not suggesting that all high school graduates should know calculus at a college level, but they should at least have been exposed to Algebra II. It is sad that I, as a college freshman in my mid thirties, knew more algebra than many that are just out of high school. I took a remedial class because I had not done any type of advanced math for 16 years. Yet these graduates are coming to school and having to take the remedial class simply because they couldn't place into a higher class on the placement exams. Something is very wrong there.
So while art classes should never be entirely removed, they shouldn't focus on just expression. Those that have the student creating things, (drawings, pottery, photographs), should also teach the students how to present their art and make portfolios. How many skilled artists from high school have no idea how to present their art to try and get a job?
The best way to control a population is to keep it dumb. When people get educated, they start making inconvenient demands, like freedom of expression, accountability in politics, privacy, civil rights and so on. It's harder for the elite to justify the huge power and wealth differentials to an educated population.
This is 100% true. It is not in the interest of the elite to truly educate the common man. It was actually admitted by the Carnegie foundation [link] in this Norman Dodd interview that they have paid money to educators keep the masses dumb and subservient for 60+ years.
Well, I was educated well-enough in the "capitalist system" to know that "disparate" doesn't mean what you think it means. And we had three levels of Calculus and Music Theory, with no chance of dropping any of them from the program.
In fact, private schools in the US consistently outperform public schools at all levels.
I know it's been over a week and it's poor form to bring it up, but...
There are reasons private schools have higher test scores, and it's not that the free market molds them into a fierce fighting force. Well... it does, but their competition (public schools) are hamstrung by a of discrimination problem, i.e. they are not allowed to.
Public schools cannot turn away children with severe social, mental, or emotional disorders. They cannot say "Admitting this child would throw off our harmoniously balanced teacher-student ratio and cheapen our results, take him somewhere else." They cannot choose to turn anyone away without a lengthy process designed to keep kids in the system. Public schools are a threshing machine charged with making something useful out of the chaff, as it were.
If we didn't have public schools, there would be cheap, low-prestige private schools that would step in to do that same job at a lower cost, with better results. And the more meritorious kids wouldn't need to suffer through the components of the system designed for "the chaff," because they'd all be in higher-end private schools.
See, I don't know how readily I believe that. High-needs kids are high-cost and yield low returns unless they have wealthy parents. Many behavioral problems stem from neglectful or outright abusive parents and it's a fight just to get them to show up.
See, and I'm thinking of private nursing homes and places like that, and a lot of those places are squalid shitholes. The cheapest dumps, barely above abusive in many ways.
I gather you're the "are there no prisons?" type, then?
Right, of course I wasn't speaking of bratty little kids. I was talking about serious disabilities: developmental deficiencies, autism, severe emotional/behavioral disorders, severe physical impairments, including but not limited to blindness, deafness, severe cerebral palsy.
And of course, not every parent is able or willing to pay for these services. You might say "Not willing? Well, neither am I!" Of course, many of these problems, especially the severe emotional problems, will lead to criminal behavior in adult life.
For many of these kids, it's in your best interest to provide them some kind of education, because the education their parents will provide for them is nominal at best. I've seen it.
I went to both public and private schools growing up, they're essentially the same --the private school was more expensive, had a better student/teacher ratio and the teachers had no rights. Halliburton charges $10,000 for the same hammer I got for $10 up the road...it doesn't make it a better hammer or me a great carpenter.
That's not true. Competition drives people to do what is necessary to succeed--this doesn't always mean positive things or succeeding by merit. People can succeed by lying and cheating, too. Especially if they don't have real merit and their lives depend on success.
That's part of the point- Private school systems give passionate, hard-working students the tools they need to achieve their goals in life, while keeping away the students who just aren't serious about it. Public school systems group the worst of the worst with the best of the best, dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Private school systems give passionate, hard-working students the tools they need to achieve their goals in life
Actually, they just allow families with money to buy an expensive name and networking for their kids.
Public school systems group the worst of the worst with the best of the best, dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Despite the slackers in my school, I graduated in the top 10% of my class. I used that to graduate with an engineering degree from a socialist public university which is highly regarded for its college of engineering. I am now on track to getting a PhD.
I don't doubt private schools outperform public schools, but then again I don't doubt a Rolls-Royce is a much better car than a Chevy. Private schools in the US are meant to be prestigious -- otherwise nobody would bother with them -- but that education obviously doesn't come cheap, and I'm fairly sure the classrooms of the average private school aren't filled with the children of working class families.
But if education went full-privatized, what do you think will happen to poor districts, rural districts, central urban districts? Districts where the average household income is less than the average tuition of those current private schools? Do you think they'll get the same quality of education you achieved?
No. In fact, I'd wager it would be worse than it is now. Families who can afford it will choose some schools, families who can't will be stuck with others. Not to mention direct payment will shift the burden fully on the enrolling household, further increasing costs. the stratification of funding will produce an even less uniform standard of education, and I shouldn't need to tell you what that will do to economic mobility.
I'm sure philanthropy would help mitigate this somewhat, but how many philanthropists do you think will throw money into a shitty school in the ghettos over one producing future leaders? People avoid investing in things they won't see returns on -- I'm sure I don't need to tell you that. And that's not even touching on those who would capitalize on churning out poorly-educated future wage-slaves (or prison inmates).
So, again, congratulations on your achievement, but bragging won't give the millions of underprivileged children a quality education.
Provided your family is wealthy enough to afford them, or you are lucky enough to qualify for a scholarship.
Currently, Finland has the best education system in the world. There are no private schools in Finland. Everyone, rich or poor, receives the same high quality education. [link]
If we put education in to the market, it won't change anything--actually, there's a chance it may make it even worse. Rich people and lucky people will still get the best educations, while poor people will receive either a shitty, "basic" education or none at all.
You need to have all of those things AND be lucky. Not everyone who works hard and is smart gets chosen for a scholarship. I didn't. I would have not received any education at all in a system like you are suggesting, because my parents could have never afforded it, and I am not lucky.
I don't think education should be a competition. The problem with that is that many people get left out. People who get discouraged early on fall behind and many can not recover. This is not a plan that will successfully educate a whole nation. All it will do is let those who are successful feel superior because they got special treatment. It will leave a lot of people in the dust.
Also, children are not born in to this world knowing how the world works. It is up to school and their parents to teach them. If someone is born in to a family who does not believe in education, what chance does the child have at a future if the parents do not push the child to succeed?
I know many intelligent people who didn't realize how important school was until it was too late, simply because no one taught them how important it was. Only when they got out in to the real world did they realize it, and now it is too late for them. They will be struggling their whole lives, all because no one pushed them in school as children.
We can't expect children to comprehend how important something like that is when they have no experience in adult life situations. The burden is not on the child, but on the parents.
You also completely ignored how successful Finland's education system is and the article I posted.
Most non-core subjects have hidden benefits that are very beneficial in the work place.
Drama= public speaking, confidence, ability to project voice, ability to 'think on your toes', ability to be both a leader and a follower Music and art = ability to appreciate things that are different to yourself/what you are usually like, ability to think outside of the box, dedication, working as a team creativity etc etc. history = ability to write more formally, better research skills, etc
Which is more important? Maths? or the ability to speak in public, to work as a group, ability to solve problems, etc etc etc?
I understand what you're worrying about--I argued the same thing to the hilt for quite a while--but there's only so much funding for schools and odds are a firm grounding in Calculus is going to be more useful to more people than one in Music Theory. I still think the arts are important, but skilled self-trained artists are way more common than skilled self-trained mathematicians.
I mean, according to Education Week Kentucky's quality of education has jumped 20 slots in the last year. You guys have had some of the worst public education in the US, and it looks like since 2009 you've been improving.