honestly, most High school teachers could be eliminated if we just stopped letting students be pieces of shit.
I could easily teach a classroom of 50 highschool boys if you let me slap the shit out of the fuckups. OR we just don’t make high school mandatory and lower the age of entering the workforce to 14 and then kick out the fuck ups.
I went to a British high school for four years. We had 45 students in our classes. This was over 40 years ago but we largely behaved because we didn’t want detention, to have board erasers thrown at us, sent to the headmaster, or to be cuffed.
As I recall, USA doesn't do PISA sampling properly. It's a few states only. Looks like the US blacks are an elite sample in PISA (mean IQ equivalent about 93). I haven't looked into the details.
What are you implying by stupid teachers? I had stupid teachers back in my day and they were a joy to talk with and learn from, I believe they improve your social skills
No, it’s fine. There are very few occasions where it actually aids clarity to say “fewer” instead of “less”(plus there is no equivalent countable / uncountable distinction in the positive direction - “less” is to “fewer” as “more” is to “more”, and most of us don’t even notice the inconsistency). See RobWords’ rant about this for a bit of fun: https://youtu.be/BccyQaNKXz8&t=17m12s
Interesting piece. But the data we have indicate that education, done right, makes a big difference in the very early years and not much later one. The AAUP did a study of college and concluded that the net learning in the first two years was basically nil.
Murray and Herrnstein covered some of the material in "The Bell Curve." Adequate nutrition and vitamin supplements for little kids might make the biggest difference at the lowest cost.
Another pernicious trend in education is excess administrators. In 1950, they were about 2% of K-12 staffing by FTE, by 2000 they'd doubled to 4%, and now they're about 5%.
College is even worse (8%-26%).
My favorite idea on the education front is transferrable vouchers that you can also use for home schooling - you shouldn't have to pay for child prisons that don't teach anything if you're opting out for your own kids.
I agree with many of your conclusions, but have some nits to pick. First, the nits:
1. Part of the explosion in elementary school education spending is due to the fact that competent women have more job options. Women who now can be administrators or physician's assistants would be school teachers back in the days of true sexism.
2. Another part of the explosion in elementary education spending is due to special ed. Children who would have been institutionalized in the bad ole days are now cared for in the public schools. This is humane to the extent that it keeps families together. On the other hand, when egalitarians insist on mainstreaming the mentally defective, this disrupts things bigly for those who are trying to learn.
3. And finally, east Asian countries put their initial public education efforts into primary schooling. India put its efforts into college for the elite. While India has boatloads of doctors, computer programmers and lawyers, I dare say that East Asia got a higher ROI. Literacy and basic numeracy for as many as possible has a huge impact. The smart can self-study. Look at early American history. Lots of leaders who would be classified as high school dropouts today.
---
Now, the part I utterly agree with you on: kids don't need that many hours per day of instruction in order to learn. Nor do you need nearly as many teachers' aids as is now standard. When I was in elementary school, the class sizes exceeded 30 children per classroom, and there was one teacher's aid for the entire school. We had two or three recess periods per day (depending on the year), along with a fair amount of time watching movies and film strips. Homework was minimal. Attempts to learn in mixed IQ homeroom were laughable. Basically all the real teaching happened
when we changed classes for math and English.
And that was enough. 2-3 hours of real classwork was enough to be literate, able to spell, and do arithmetic in multiple number bases.
So yes, we could spend less on elementary school. But I'd keep the quality up on the teachers, but spend less on aids.
However, the workable school I described did have something modern schools do not have: paddles. Every teacher had one and threatened to use it frequently. And the assistant principal was a former Marine drill sergeant. He was absolutely terrifying when he wanted to be -- but also a swell guy otherwise. Discipline was thus lax for minor naughtiness but real for real infractions. The administration was thus more terrifying than the bullies. THAT is important.
Once students have the basics under their belts, the amount of teaching required is not that much. Just coach the students in what they are interested in. 80+% of our education system goes to forcing people to learn stuff they are not interested in.
“In a liberal democracy, public education could have a stabilizing effect on political partisanship, and help forge a collective sense of national identity.”
Have we not had this for over a 100 years (in terms of public education combined with liberal democracy)? Has it worked? And if so, how would we know? Also, as the libertarian David McDonagh once said: “Policy…policy…policy…shit…shit…shit.” In other words, stop trying to design an efficient hybrid state-market and let liberty and the market flourish. But still…fun to read.
Religion works. And secular religion works too. Sorry I don't have a society without any religion or government to prove my point in an empirical way -- maybe that should tell you something.
If a significant value for education is creating national myths and allegiance to the state, then Trump going after USAID is a big deal. USAID contains a great deal of political projects for coercing or forcing loyalty to the state mythology.
I would also expect there to be a lot of hidden programs tangled up in the DOE. But what Trump thinks should replace the previous progressive myth remains to be seen.
honestly, most High school teachers could be eliminated if we just stopped letting students be pieces of shit.
I could easily teach a classroom of 50 highschool boys if you let me slap the shit out of the fuckups. OR we just don’t make high school mandatory and lower the age of entering the workforce to 14 and then kick out the fuck ups.
Either way would get things done better.
I went to a British high school for four years. We had 45 students in our classes. This was over 40 years ago but we largely behaved because we didn’t want detention, to have board erasers thrown at us, sent to the headmaster, or to be cuffed.
As I recall, USA doesn't do PISA sampling properly. It's a few states only. Looks like the US blacks are an elite sample in PISA (mean IQ equivalent about 93). I haven't looked into the details.
If you provide corrected PISA I will issue a correction!
What are you implying by stupid teachers? I had stupid teachers back in my day and they were a joy to talk with and learn from, I believe they improve your social skills
“We need less teachers, stupider teachers, and poorer teachers.”
I know you don’t edit but “fewer”, not “less”.
No, it’s fine. There are very few occasions where it actually aids clarity to say “fewer” instead of “less”(plus there is no equivalent countable / uncountable distinction in the positive direction - “less” is to “fewer” as “more” is to “more”, and most of us don’t even notice the inconsistency). See RobWords’ rant about this for a bit of fun: https://youtu.be/BccyQaNKXz8&t=17m12s
I meant to say smaller, sorry, I skipped k-12
Interesting piece. But the data we have indicate that education, done right, makes a big difference in the very early years and not much later one. The AAUP did a study of college and concluded that the net learning in the first two years was basically nil.
Murray and Herrnstein covered some of the material in "The Bell Curve." Adequate nutrition and vitamin supplements for little kids might make the biggest difference at the lowest cost.
It's the opposite -- education has no effect prior to 10, only has effect after 14. Provide data?
You'd have to read their book or the rather large amount of research on the effects of very early intervention.
But if you really think that teaching children to read has "no effect," then I have nothing to say to you.
I never said "don't read to kids," I said "don't spend money on school."
Another pernicious trend in education is excess administrators. In 1950, they were about 2% of K-12 staffing by FTE, by 2000 they'd doubled to 4%, and now they're about 5%.
College is even worse (8%-26%).
My favorite idea on the education front is transferrable vouchers that you can also use for home schooling - you shouldn't have to pay for child prisons that don't teach anything if you're opting out for your own kids.
??? But USAID is part of America First, shredding the culture, ways of doing business.
I agree with many of your conclusions, but have some nits to pick. First, the nits:
1. Part of the explosion in elementary school education spending is due to the fact that competent women have more job options. Women who now can be administrators or physician's assistants would be school teachers back in the days of true sexism.
2. Another part of the explosion in elementary education spending is due to special ed. Children who would have been institutionalized in the bad ole days are now cared for in the public schools. This is humane to the extent that it keeps families together. On the other hand, when egalitarians insist on mainstreaming the mentally defective, this disrupts things bigly for those who are trying to learn.
3. And finally, east Asian countries put their initial public education efforts into primary schooling. India put its efforts into college for the elite. While India has boatloads of doctors, computer programmers and lawyers, I dare say that East Asia got a higher ROI. Literacy and basic numeracy for as many as possible has a huge impact. The smart can self-study. Look at early American history. Lots of leaders who would be classified as high school dropouts today.
---
Now, the part I utterly agree with you on: kids don't need that many hours per day of instruction in order to learn. Nor do you need nearly as many teachers' aids as is now standard. When I was in elementary school, the class sizes exceeded 30 children per classroom, and there was one teacher's aid for the entire school. We had two or three recess periods per day (depending on the year), along with a fair amount of time watching movies and film strips. Homework was minimal. Attempts to learn in mixed IQ homeroom were laughable. Basically all the real teaching happened
when we changed classes for math and English.
And that was enough. 2-3 hours of real classwork was enough to be literate, able to spell, and do arithmetic in multiple number bases.
So yes, we could spend less on elementary school. But I'd keep the quality up on the teachers, but spend less on aids.
However, the workable school I described did have something modern schools do not have: paddles. Every teacher had one and threatened to use it frequently. And the assistant principal was a former Marine drill sergeant. He was absolutely terrifying when he wanted to be -- but also a swell guy otherwise. Discipline was thus lax for minor naughtiness but real for real infractions. The administration was thus more terrifying than the bullies. THAT is important.
Once students have the basics under their belts, the amount of teaching required is not that much. Just coach the students in what they are interested in. 80+% of our education system goes to forcing people to learn stuff they are not interested in.
I would prefer no immigrants at all. Even if that's worse economically. We have enough people here.
Hard disagree. Population decline (which is what will happen without immigrants)) would be horrible fiscally, militarily, and culturally.
That trick will work for precisely one more generation. Then what?
If you don’t mind the immigrants why does the decline of the military matter?
“In a liberal democracy, public education could have a stabilizing effect on political partisanship, and help forge a collective sense of national identity.”
Have we not had this for over a 100 years (in terms of public education combined with liberal democracy)? Has it worked? And if so, how would we know? Also, as the libertarian David McDonagh once said: “Policy…policy…policy…shit…shit…shit.” In other words, stop trying to design an efficient hybrid state-market and let liberty and the market flourish. But still…fun to read.
Religion works. And secular religion works too. Sorry I don't have a society without any religion or government to prove my point in an empirical way -- maybe that should tell you something.
“Immigrants tend to use welfare more than native born Americans (smart move, if you ask me).”
Yes, “smart” if you have no compunction about robbing your fellow man.
If a significant value for education is creating national myths and allegiance to the state, then Trump going after USAID is a big deal. USAID contains a great deal of political projects for coercing or forcing loyalty to the state mythology.
I would also expect there to be a lot of hidden programs tangled up in the DOE. But what Trump thinks should replace the previous progressive myth remains to be seen.