Do you see programs like the ones on PBS as having no educational value as compared to their costs?
I'm not saying that PBS has no educational value. What I am saying is that PBS should be supported by the public through donations or advertisement and not dependent upon the government.
There are several networks that run on similar models as PBS. EWTN is one of them. EWTN survives on private donations alone without any support (that I know of) from the federal government. Why can't PBS do the same?
How do you propose we reform education in a way that saves money and ensures all children get a quality education that prepares them for success regardless of their families ability to pay.
I would simplify it. I am married to a teacher and have one kid in highschool (a senior) and another in middle school (7th grade), so I'm not saying this living in a bubble.
Here is what I would do: I would establish a core, i.e. language, math, science, & philosophy (particularly logic & ethics). Language, science and math are self explanatory, so I will explain why philosophy.
Teaching kids logic teaches them how to think. At this time in our schools we are not doing this, except possibly in math. We are trying to force as much information in their heads and we are thinking this is making them smarter and it isn't. Logic will make them smarter. It will give them the tools they need to evaluate information and establish a logical conclusion. I remember when I first started college I spent alot of time studying and craming, until I took just one class in logic. What I was taught clicked for me and after I applied the tools given to me in that class my study time went way down. I was able to pick things up alot quicker the first time. And I wasn't just passing the classes either. My GPA was over 3.9, and that was with having my first child one semester where I did get two C's because my first child didn't sleep and neither did I. So logic helped my significantly.
Ethics, well lets just be honest it isn't taught. Not in school and not at home. Most parents don't understand ethics enough themselves much less teach it to their children. And this doesn't have to be Christian ethics. It can be classical ethics so the secularist won't have a cow. Anyway ethics teaches people how to interact with their fellow man. And just from experience with my own children, their friends, and the youth I have coached in sports, this is probably the area that most kids have the most problem with and no body is helping them.
Ok, that is my 4 core subjects. How would I set this all up. Personally I would make a more gradual growth in subjects throughout the 13 years of education. And I would not teach anything that I would test kids on that would not be fairly commonly used as an adult. I would stop trying to teach kids stuff that they would never ever use unless they entered a very specific field. If classes were given on these type of subjects they would not be graded or tested. It would be an introductory class and nothing more.
Here is an example: I remember there was one year my son was taking Algebra II. Anyway the stuff he was bringing home was stuff he would never ever use in personal or work life unless he became a scientist or an engineer. I mean he was learning quadratic equations, matrices, high level statistics, etc. Tell me when an average person is going to use these skills? And if my son did become a scientist or an engineer, they would teach him all of this stuff again in college. And by the time he got to college he wouldn't remember what he learned in that class. In fact if you put a quadratic equation in front of him today, he probably couldn't do it. So why teach every single student stuff they will never ever use unless they go into very specific fields?
Another example is history classes. When I was a kid I remember the tests we had in history. What date did .... happen? That was our normal questions on our tests. What??? Really??? How many people who took world history in high school remember the exact date when X happened? Back then I absolutely hated history, hated it because they kept trying to force these dates into my brain instead of focussing on teaching me what happened. Today I love history it is one of my favorite subjects, but it took me a long time to get over my initial hatred for the subject.
Anyway back on the subject:
1) I would have four cores: language, math, science and philosophy.
2) These three cores will be taught more gradually to the students.
3) These cores will be the only thing I test them on.
4) I would not test kids on high level advanced stuff especially in math, science and philosophy. My goal would be that when a child graduated from high school, he would have a solid educational foundation that he can use throughout his life, whether he/she goes to college or straight into the workforce.
5) All other classes given would be electives and would not be tested. They would be introductory with the goal of inducing within the kids a desire to know more about these subjects and possible fields of study.
6) I would understand that every child grows at different rates and have it setup so that if a child is prgressing faster than the rest of his/her classmates, he/she can be moved up in grade level, but top this to no higher than two grade levels. For those falling behind, they can be moved back one grade level.
Anyway this is a summary of what I would do.
