Manditory school cost effectiveness

**terry1156** · 01-30-2005, 06:52 PM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

This is an interesting question. I feel that madatory schooling is important because some parents don't know the value of schooling and I don't think it is fair to punish their kids for this. While not perfect, I see that it does have value.

Could there be a better way to do it? I'm sure there is. I think that the US really lacks with apprentice type programs where kids could learn a trade by working at it. I think this could be a very valuable tool for kids that really doesn't exist well in the US

**PrincessPerky** · 01-31-2005, 05:38 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

Making school voluntary would punish NO ONE! There have always been people who do not value education, and there always will, punishing me and my family for this is not the answer. (also many such people create an unteachable child which is just a waste of a ps teachers time. 30 to 1 or 2 is not enought to 'fix' the poor kid, though the kid does need help, he does not need to be locked away for hours on end)

The families who do not educate on their own are growing BECAUSE of the ps system we have. There is an assumption that the 'govt will take care of it'. creating more and more parents who do not educate their children in anyway, financially, emotionally, scholastically or socially, or whatever.

I used to teach K-5 and I regularly got kids who had never been introduced to the alphabet, now I will not say that all 5 year olds should know the alphabet, I'm just saying I looked for what they were learning instead, for all children are programed to learn, guess what I found? Pokemon, or the equivalent fad of the day. Somehow the parents got the impressiont hey needed to name all 50billion of the pokemon dudes, buyt tat school would teach reading. I find that backwards, and I find the manditory age based ps system to be the cause.

The ps sytem leaves parents with the misconception that they have no responsibility to teach untill 5 or so. this doesn't mean the children are not learning, it means they are learning what they are exposed to, and they are exposed more and more to the TV. (which TV use to help a child escape from such a hard day at school is another topic all together)

If we offer free classes, but not manditory ones, there would stil be a huge number of children in schools, and there would be the some children slipping thru the cracks at first, but instead of punishing ALL children for the lack of education in some families, we should provide an environment for ythe most possible learning, the greatest investment, a love of reading and a love of learning.

Learning is NOT supposed to be work! ps manditory schools create the attidude of work, drugery and such. A voluntary system would by nature not be able to do that.

Instead of saying 'the schools aught to teach that' maybe we should be saying' how can I teach that' .

**akaivyleaf** · 01-31-2005, 06:53 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

School is voluntary. Even public school. Nobody is required to put their children in school. People are required to educate their children, and public school is one vehicle to do this. Private school, home schooling are also viable and totally appropriate means of educating ones offspring. Education doesn't come in books either. Books are just a tool to learning.
Learning is done in a myriad of ways as well. Everybody learns by their environment. Acquiring habits is a form of learning Etc.

I think that our first teacher has always been our first caregiver, and because I used to teach school, I have mixed reaction to sending kids away from the home to learn. On the one hand, some children need to learn things that their parents may or may not be equiped to teach and would do better by third party intervention or some parents just aren't interested in teaching anything- including something so precious and rudimentary as the alphabet. The younger the person, the more a sponge the mind is, thus making it most efficient to teach at a young age. I've seen children who couldn't be reached in the public or private school environment. They benefited best from intricate, highly specialized one on one learning. Then I've seen the opposite, children who needed interaction and the thought process of their peers to excel. I've seen parents who couldn't read/write but knew a lot, who could share their knowledge with their children and in turn these children could teach their parents how to read and write.

As far as our tax dollars being expensed on this learning process- have mixed feelings about this too. I believe everybody should have equal opportunity to an education so if I want to educate my child at home, then I should get the same amount the school system gets to educate my child. The money can be divided to extract an exact dollar amount per year. If I choose to take that money to a private institution, fine. Pay my neighbor who is a "teacher", fine or keep it myself and do the task myself, sobeit.

Bottom line, do what you want with your children as far as sending them to a school, but education should be a primary goal. They are learning, regardless of how they are being taught.

**PrincessPerky** · 02-02-2005, 06:29 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

I apologize for the delay in reply, I felt that my answer needed more than the 5 minutes at a time I was able to steal over the last few days. You did bring up a few more points I would like to address, but I still don�t have the time. ( I am not that good at this, so it takes me a long time)

School is voluntary.

If I do not send my son to school in a couple of years a nice person will come to my door wanting to know how I could be so remiss, that nice person will soon be followed by police with guns, that they WILL use to get me to send my son to school or PROVE that he is adequately educated. Adequately in the law. They will want him to take a test, which testing as a means of proving knowledge is a whole �nother debate. What exactly a 7 year old should know is also another debate, (short version, reading is not always learned at the same age, plenty of intelligent people did not read at 2, 5 or even 7.) I think no matter how you put it, the compulsory laws in the US equal mandatory schooling. I have to at the very least make certain my son can fill in proper little circles on a sheet of paper. Something I haven�t bothered to do yet.

I will also be required to keep attendance records, for what? My child is always learning, everyday. So is every other child on the planet! Children are programmed to learn, we cannot prevent it, and we can only direct it. (Or kill the program; I�ll get to that). I live BTW in one of the easiest states to home school in; I �only� have to do those two things, the testing and the attendance. I will receive no tax breaks for it, no advice, and no portion of the 8,000 plus they would spend on my son if he were to go to the local school.

I used to be a teacher too, and I do feel that there are many ways of learning, but right now the way the US treats education it is all about large groups, send the kid off to join 20 pr 30 (or more) peers and let him sink or swim, if he sinks we might have an alternative. (That is a big might)

I totally agree that the younger a mind the more of a sponge! Which is why I am so against the ps system we have! Younger meaning 1,2, and 3! Yes children learn wonderfully at 5, 6 and 7, but by age 12 the body and brain have shifted, shifted to working on biological changes. Yet in our system we supposedly ask the most of children in high school! But no one would advocate sending a 1 year old off to school! Because that isn�t the way one year olds learn, and it isn�t possible for even the US to afford one on one instruction for all 1 year olds! Instead we pick the average age that a child can handle mass instructions and we tell parents �here we will teach you just keep �em safe till 5�. WHICH IS SO WRONG!!!!!!! A parent is left with the impression that school will teach everything, in fact right here on this board there is a huge number of posters in support of more financial education in schools. For some �Because of course parents and family wouldn�t teach these things, that is what the school is for! �

Well it is creating a cycle, the more the govt is supposed to do for parents, the less responsibility a parent takes on themselves! Which is very good for business, and very bad for children.

I think that our first teacher has always been our first caregiver,.

Shouldn�t mom and dad be the first care giver? Shouldn�t we be asking parents to take responsibility for their own children, instead of offering to do it for them all the time?

BTW I do not mind some local tax money spent on education, I mind MY out of pocket expense in addition to the $8,000 supposedly spent on my kid. If the govt spends 8 grand plus my out of pocket, and I still need to have my kid in an institution for 16 years, before he can maybe, possibly, get a well paying job, then somehow I feel the gov't isn't doing a very good job.

I spent 4 years in the institution (as a student) I find that the skills I lerned there are the most useless in my chosen proffesion (mother, but if I were to get paid I would be a teacher) A rather large waste of my parents money, and of my time.

However the time I spent being home schooled I learned a lot of useful skills, and some useless. But hardly any time was spent on that, though I do recall some weird geometry stuff, that was only usefull when taking geometry in ps. For the most part my time being home schooled, was spent learning to do what I enjoyed doing, which is teaching. With the occasional intro into something that might intrest me (never know till you try) and the occasional time spent on something my mother felt the ps school would insist on, gotta pass those tests.

From my personall experience, Home schooling me was the best investment my mother could have made, her only failings were housework and money

. BUt then those didn't intrest me, and weren't on the ps tests either. Now that they intrest me, I am getting quite good at it

. (though housework is way easier than money!)

**akaivyleaf** · 02-02-2005, 09:23 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

I beg to differ on one points... Nobody will show up at your door if you fail to register your school aged child. That is what homeschooling is, you said you were homeschooled so you know nobody hunted your mom and dad down. Depends on the state whether you have to fill out a attendance form, most no longer require this. Again depending on the state, you don't have to test your children either. Which is what makes homeschooling a double edged sword.

As far as caregivers (I say caregivers, because some children aren't raised by their bio mom and dad) being the first teachers.... Take me for example if left to my parents devices, I would probably be blind crippled and crazy by now. At 13 when they had me, their only goal was to procreate on the regular. Thus I'm the oldest of 10 children. Their concern has never been for my welfare or that of my siblings, they were truly into each other. For me, they didn't even provide shelter, but after enough of the family had taken in enough of my mother's children she did keep a few. Those she and my father kept she wasn't kind to, and they learned to imitate her ways. You can tell the disparency of our upbringings by my siblings. Who was raised where, by the way we conduct ourselves.

I said all that to say, that some parents aren't fit to educate or instruct their young and for that reason there will be a educational system in place. It just needs a complete overhaul.

**PrincessPerky** · 02-02-2005, 09:44 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

Oh my, they certainly WILL! I must register my child in a privat school with the testing and attendance I mentioned or they WILL show up. And there are documented cases of police showing up for 'truant kids' which is what a kid is if he isn't attending school. Some of those cases are homeschoolers. I am so sorely tempted to wait a couple years then get my camera ready, but I don't feel that would be a good experience for my kids

.

No one hunted my mother down cause she went thru all hoops neccessary to keep them out. It is a case of presumed guilty, If she had not done the neccessary tests and such they would have assumed she was guilty. Somehow that whole innocent till proven guilty doesn't apply when it comes to children. With no other evidence thatn a child not at school, a parent is assumed to be guilty of failing to educate.

I am very sorry your parents were not fit parents, but people like that are encouraged to continue in their lifestyle, there is a school for their kids at age 5, there is lots of welfare to help keep them in the lifestyle they want. There will always be unfit parents, but I should not be punished for that. And the cycle of unfit parenting will continue as long as we continue to encourage it instead of offer help to be better parents.

BTW 10 kids is not the problem, the way you were raised is, my mother is one of only 5 all very well educated (out of my grandmothers pocket, the ps system failed all of them) My father was one of 7 live children, again very well educated, and again out of my grandparents pocket. No one was rich, (ok some aunts and uncles made it there) but grandma ( on both sides) was not. Nor am I. The ps system did not educate any of my family very well. Almost all of them were in at one time or another, the experiences ranged from teachers praising fate for giving them a kid that already knew what was needed for the test so they could concentrate on the kids in desperate need, to lieing to them to prevent 'difficult questions' (like 5 minus 7 equals zero in ps first grade)

Now I have heard of great ps teachers, they are ther dispite the system, not because of it.

I am also again not advocating zero welfare, there will always be some down on their luck and some who parent children with no means of raising them. I do not feel poor children should suffer, however, I do not feel my children should for the sins of the few. AND again, the cycle will continue in the current 'let the govt do it all system'

I misunderstood the caregiver as teacher point you made. I took it that the first caregiver is the teacher, not that the first person to care for a child is then the first teacher, I am having troubel now! Anyway YEs the first person to interact with a child is the first teacher, and every person to interact after that point becomes a teacher. Children are ALWAYS learning, but what are they learning in the ps system? (always up untill you kill the program)

One of the most awful things to me that they are learning is that when they are parents they will not be capable of teaching their own children.

**akaivyleaf** · 02-02-2005, 10:00 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

As per North Carolina law: http://www.doa.state.nc.us/dnpe/hhh108.htm
you do have to test your children, but there is no other requirement for homeschooling. And even in the testing... its doesn't say what type of test you have to do, and test is another subjective word. There is no attendance requirement or reporting necessary to declare you're homeschooling. In otherwords, in NC, no big brother is watching.

Part 3. Home Schools.

115C-563. Definitions.

As used in this Part or Parts 1 and 2 of this section [Article]:
(a) "Home school" means a nonpublic school in which one or more children of not more than two families or households receive academic instruction from parents or legal guardians, or a member of either household.
(b) "Duly authorized representative of the State" means the Director, Division of Nonpublic Education, or his staff. (1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 891.)

115C-564. Qualifications and requirements.

A home school shall make the election to operate under the qualifications of either Part 1 or Part 2 of this Article and shall meet the requirements of the Part elected, except that any requirement related to safety and sanitation inspections shall be waived if the school operates in a private residence and except that testing requirements in G.S. 115C-549 and G.S. 115C-557 shall be on an annual basis. The persons providing academic instruction in a home school shall hold at least a high school diploma or its equivalent. (1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 891.)

115C-565. Requirements exclusive.

No school which complies with this Part shall be subject to any other provision of law relating to education except requirements of law respecting immunization. The Division of Nonpublic Education, Department of Administration, shall provide to home schools information about meningococcal meningitis and influenza and their vaccines. This information may be provided electronically or on the Division's Web page. The information shall include the causes, symptoms, and how meningococcal meningitis and influenza are spread and the places where parents and guardians may obtain additional information and vaccinations for their children. (1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 891; 2004.)

**amomof4** · 02-02-2005, 06:02 PM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

I think it depends on which state you live in. In Idaho, they require children to be educated in either the home or the school system, but they don't have any inforcing agency. In California, they have a big inforcing system with a goal to get rid of the homeschool.

I'm against mandatory school. It wouldn't be so bad if schools stuck to the basics. Unfortunately, the go into a lot of other garbage that are against the morals of a lot of parents such as evolution, condoms, homosexuals, abortion, etc. I would never want my children indoctrinated in the propaganda of public schools.

**DivaJen** · 02-02-2005, 08:43 PM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

Originally posted by amomof4

It wouldn't be so bad if schools stuck to the basics. Unfortunately, the go into a lot of other garbage that are against the morals of a lot of parents such as evolution, condoms, homosexuals, abortion, etc. I would never want my children indoctrinated in the propaganda of public schools.

Tell me this isn't the direction conversation on this site is going to go. Reading this gets tiresome.

**akaivyleaf** · 02-03-2005, 03:59 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

Originally posted by amomof4

I think it depends on which state you live in. In Idaho, they require children to be educated in either the home or the school system, but they don't have any inforcing agency. In California, they have a big inforcing system with a goal to get rid of the homeschool.

This has been my point all along. Depends on where you are.

**PrincessPerky** · 02-03-2005, 10:55 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

Thank you for the excerpt from NC law, so far I havn't done more than check with a friend or two, my kid is a few years out from having to worry about it. BUT REGARDLESS It still states that I must jump thru hoops to PROVE my innocence. Schooling IS manditory in the US. While many states have different hoops, some like NC are relativly easy, some like PA are rather hard. (I suppose it will make my DH rather happy, he likes living here. one more reason to stay, it is easier to stay out of jail for not sending my kids to school

.)

You seem like a nice, busy person, would you want one more thing on your schedule, just to prove to the govt that you are a nice person? I certainly don't. No matter how comparativly easy the 'hoops' are, they are still asking me to perform extra duties to ensure that I am not guilty of failing to school my child.

aMomof4, It is IMPOSSIBLE to require that someone educate a child. they only require that you spend X amount of time trying. the time they specify is prollly never going to get met in teacher directed activities at my house, yet my son will continue on his path of knowledge.

It WOULD be so BAD even if they stuck to 'the basics', I am much more worried about them teaching people that they do not have the ability to educate themselves or their own children, than who sleeps with whom. Also the teaching that people must spend 12 years sitting at desks before learning important job related skills. Or teaching people that 7 year olds must all be able to read at the same level, and labeling them if they cannot. Or worse teachng them that it doesn't matter how well they read! Of course it matters! IT matters to them!

The US system teaches people that the ps so frequently fails, then rich parents go out and spend enourmous amounts of money on tutors and early education schools, when what children need to grow is space, love and opportunities. Not workbooks, busy work, and punishment for being thirsty at the wrong time. All things very neccessary in the mass school setting.

By making schooling manditory and by making homeschooling or any form of alterrnative schooling difficult, the US makes parents feel that they are doing the right thing by sending children as young as 2 or 3 into mass school settings. Meanwhile almost all educators agree that children learn better in small mixed age and ability groupings, like those found in a family.

When a child is given the oportunity to see new things, whether someone doing fancy math to build a bridge or reading a thick book, a child might want to learn to do that too. But when you place a child in a homogenous group where everyone is aproximatly the same age, and ability, the only reason to learn is when the teacher brings it to you. Somehow I doubt even the most dedicated teacher could find what all 30 (or more) of their students is likly to be interested in, but I bet almost any caring parent would find it easy to see what their child is interested in if they are home with them. And since it changes frequently over the life of a child, a teacher might finally make it thru all 30 only to find numbers 1-20 have changed their minds. but mom can only have a few kids at a time, and if she is there all day, she prolly has a lot more chances to see what her child is interested in, and might even know the trigger for change. Not that all moms can teach all topics, just that a mom is much more likely to know that this little girl wants to surf. Meaning mom will be trying to figure out the best course of action to help. finding movies fom the library about the topic, finding places to let her kid swim, preferably free

, searching out adults who know how to surf for her little one to talk to, and a miriad of other things that a typical ps teacher wouldn't even consider. after all swimming and surfing are not on the test.

Divajen, I hope we can stick to topics other than who sleeps with whom in the ps system. I personally have much more important concerns.

I do feel that there will always be people in need of assistance, but I do not feel that my child should be punished for that, nor do I feel that the average parent should be made to feel inadequate to educate.

**terry1156** · 02-05-2005, 03:40 PM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

I understand your frustration. How would you set up the system to ensure that the parents who aren't looking out for the best interests of their children comply (since unfortunately, there are a large number of these parents)?

**PrincessPerky** · 02-08-2005, 11:14 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

Well you couldn't go from what we have to what I want overnight, but I roughed out 7 steps to make the system fully voluntary, and fully independent. That means trusting that parents are out for the best interest of their children and will act accordingly. Which 7 steps and the need for gradual changes means the savings in tax money wouldn't exist for a very long time. But hey if the politicians can talk America into overnight switching we could all save 10% of our income overnight. I am all for it!

BTW there are more and more parents assuming the govt knows best everyday, the longer we assume parents can't do the job, the more they... well ... can't.

Best example I can give is parents, we often assume our children are not capable of something, then they have to do it, weather grandma thinks they can and asks, or they are alone for a moment and try, or some other reason, all of the sudden wham, they prove themselves capable of reaching a counter, putting on shoes, reading a big book, whatever. The older a child gets the less they tend to surprise parents with new abilities, why? Because we have assumed for longer and longer that they can�t. Now some parents are rather good at letting their kids try new things, not that they make them, just that they let them try, some are downright certain that their kid can�t and find themselves with a child who wont, even when by all accounts they should be able to. Most fall in-between.

Our government is closer to the extreme of assuming that parents can�t or wont do anything right. Somehow it seems odd to me that there is a check to see if you have taught your kid anything at age 5 or so (depending on the state) but there is never a mandatory check to see if your kid is healthy? So we are only concerned about live children if they are learned? Dunno about you, but it seems a bit backwards, though I hesitate to mention, for fear there will be a yearly checkup added to my to do list (beyond the healthy kid one for the dr that I do go to, kind of like the yearly knowledge test, beyond the learning we already do). I think I would rather live in a country of nosy er friendly enough people to notice abuse, whether intellectual or mental or physical, but open minded enough not to complain if a child doesn�t read, is a bit quiet, and an accident-prone kid is always scratched up.

Ok so the rough steps.

Step one; remove the compulsory part of education completely. Yes there will be illiterate children staying home, but it wont cost us a dime to get them that way, right now we are paying an awful lot of money to create illiterate, non-learners. And most parents who don�t care would be using the free daycare that school offers, rather than having to deal with their kids.

Step two, introduce commercials about learning, like PBS type only, NOT school commercials, learning ones, about libraries, museums, tech stuff, whatever. Get the businesses into it, IBM wants good computer people, advertise computers as cool, anything, tired of everyone wanting to be the weather guy, or anchorwoman, what on earth else is there in a newsroom? How about instead of just ads for sports, and actors, more ads for behind the scenes stuff? Showing kids why they want to learn anything other than acting, singing or sports. And many more, but I am already a bit longwinded here.

Step three, encourage people to take their kids to work, dunno about you but both my job and everyone else I knows job, except my DFIL, could have a kid from 5 up with them at any time. My DFIL works in a steel plant, I would think a kid would have to be a bit more responsible than 5 for that! Anyway, taking your kid to work does two things, one they learn what grownups do all day, two you help them learn how to behave in public, without the crowd control tactics that mass teachers have to do. Yes this is a forgotten art.

Step four; offer classes, free for anyone, at any age on:
1. How to read,
2. How to do enough math to figure out your taxes without a calculator, something most high school graduates can�t do.
3. Parenting, stress reduction, and teaching, you can teach and do teach so much without ever cracking a book or worksheet. Your kid didn't need walking lessons did they? Or lessons on how to watch TV, they picked that up from you, right down to the swagger or channel surfing (or lack there of).

Step 5; cancel upper grades. Your local library already offers classes, as does the local community college that are not really being fully utilized, because by the time you have the free time to take one, you are already indoctrinated into what you will be doing all day. Sure a 40 year old can learn (must have or else they would still be at work to much to take a class) but a 4 year old has so much more brain power waiting and trying to learn, remove the sit down and shut up classes, remove the fill in the circle classes and instead replace them with fun real life learning. How about a 14 year old who wants to be a computer tech? Why on earth does he need 4 more years of history, covering the exact same thing he covered the last 8 years! (Which why on earth it takes 8 years to get kids to remember a half a sheet of facts � the average take home knowledge of a high school grad, is quite beyond me! Anybody remember more than one guy who hit America before Columbus? A list with dates is on most high school tests, in one year or another, yet most adults barely know he wasn�t the first. And only the history professions or amateur history buffs care.)

Step 6; cancel all lower grades. Yeah really, cancel them completely. You already have the subliminal message to read, learn and take kids to work from the ad campaign, now you have the time to do it, if you were smart you took advantage earlier, if not, you will now.
I know, �what about the parents who don't care?� Well most of them are on wic or the equivalent, (unless you make welfare the soup kitchen /dormitory I want it to be) so the social worker will mention the free classes, is already checking on health, and will start asking the kids if they want to go to a class or two. Since there is no more free-daycare, a lot of welfare moms will suddenly find themselves with choices on their hands, what do you want for your kids? Some will hunt up the best options; some will find the nearest daycare they can; some will keep the kids home, some learning useful stuff, some learning the names of the daytime soap starts. There will be some more schools opening up with the same mass education, same age based stuff that our current ps system has, but hopefully by putting the ad campaign first we will get more and more parents to think about their children�s education, and consider alternatives, and look into learning as a way of life rather than a scheduled thing.

Step 7; enjoy the extra tax money you have at home, because the federal government is no longer trying to take over a state job. And use it to save up to move to your favorite state, with classes� geared toward your family�s interests. Or if you like having your kids gone for 6 hours (or more a day) move to someplace that still has a school like that.

----------------------------------
In the short term, there will be many complaints, in the long term I see:

More community involvement, with kids around you can play group games, right now a kid is only really able to play in the structured settings. (Gym from 12:30-12:52, today is dodge ball weather you like it or not) With parents having to look into what there kid is doing rather than trusting the teacher will do it, they will prolly be talking more, heading to some of those classes with the kids. The ones that wont, well they aren�t right now anyway, so no loss there. The PTA moms will need somewhere to channel all that energy! They will find a new outlet in community classes, or mommy groups, or community games and parties, or getting the non-interested parents into the game

.

Yes there will still be parents of children who wont do any leaning with them, but since the kid isn�t going to be locked up anymore, when they decide they don�t like the way mom is educating them they can search out the classes themselves. They can go hunt up anyone doing a job they are interested in and ask about it. Right now we lock children up for hours each school day, and they have NO choice in the matter, some have great teachers and they mesh, some have parents who hunt up teachers that will mesh learning style to teaching style, some have no alternatives.

People who love to teach will still be teaching, maybe just their own, maybe at the community college, maybe anyone in the neighborhood who stops by. I for one love to teach, and would love to teach more kids than just my own, but I do not want to have to lock a kid up with me for 6 hours!!

More people who have to take care of their own kids will be looking into working for themselves, offering their kids chances to do real world work. Balancing books, keeping records, schmoozing clients

. Whatever. It will all be more useful than most any class I took in high school.

More children, who finally have choices, will be looking into jobs, and career options. Some will still float in the teenage drift, not knowing what to do, especially the first few years. Since kids are not used to choices, we have them from no choice to a billion choices in practically no time. But as children realize they have choices, they will drift toward what is interesting and what they WANT to learn. Some kids will choose to learn a little of everything, some will still rely on their sports skills in hopes of the multi million dollar dream. Some will try the acting thing, but they already are, and they already show up in Hollywood with little more than the dream. If they are allowed to choose leaning from day one, well from day 1825 (365 *5years) since that is when the choice is typically taken from them, they will be learning something while they wait for the chance to head to Hollywood. Some kids will decide that they really do care who sailed the ocean blue before Columbus, and really get into all that stuff, wont take them the whole 12 years though, why relearn what you already know?

If you don�t believe me, look at the average college. Kids in college have a huge number of choices, as the college life goes they make more and more of them for themselves, and they start acting like adults. In today�s world it takes an average person 10 or more years out of high school to start fully acting like an adult, taking responsibility for money matters, education choices, and such. Not because only 28 year olds can handle the adult world, but because we don�t let people try any earlier than college, so they have a bit of a learning time. I think we should start younger (give your kids chores, and let them make choices), and start offering ideas on how to be adult sooner, money management classes for teens, course that means we would need to trust teens with money, but would you rather your kid screwed up money in their teens or in their career? If we start sooner on the whole adult thing, then by the time a kid gets to be 18 they are already acting like, or almost like, an adult, (not that responsible adults don�t still make mistakes.

.)

If you absolutely must have a test for kids to take, make it voluntary and enjoy the higher tests scores. Then you can have something to hold up and compare with other countries. If you must make a mandatory check on kid�s educational progress, make it as easy as the yearly Dr check up. Drs don�t complain if your 1 year old doesn�t walk, (age of worry is I think 18 months, but I am not a Dr), schools shouldn�t complain if your 7 year old doesn�t read. Not sure when they would care, but I am guessing 10 would be a good worry point, I am sure more educated research has been done, the only number I know is the average age of 8, regardless of method used and when you start.

**raven007** · 05-22-2005, 10:04 AM

Re: Manditory school cost effectiveness

nice post

Manditory school cost effectiveness