The Perfect "Public" School System

[Sky]

I researched ‘public education’ on the LDS.org website, and I could not find anything which indicated that the Church opposes public education. Rather, I came to the opposite conclusion. And none of the articles that discuss ‘public education’ were recent.

If the current leaders of the Church are so opposed to public education, you’d think they would say so, wouldn’t you? Why haven’t any of the General Authorities directly addressed this topic in any recent General Conference talk? Or did I just miss it?

So for Lehi to suggest that the Brethren are in complete agreement with his position seems like a pretty big stretch to me.

Here are some of the articles that I found…

Is there a possibility that sometime in the future the Church will provide private schools for our children? If not, what counsel can you give me about private and home schooling?

Education and the Church

Judge the Schools? Act, Don’t React

“To Be Learned Is Good If …”

[Danzo]

No one has ever explained to me why a freshman in college is considered full time with 15 hours a week (three per day) while a few months eariler as a high school student 35 hours is considered not enough.

I think schools can be much more effiecent (more education with less cost) than they are right now.

[Calm]

No one has ever explained to me why a freshman in college is considered full time with 15 hours a week (three per day) while a few months eariler as a high school student 35 hours is considered not enough.

I think schools can be much more effiecent (more education with less cost) than they are right now.

In college there is an assumption of 3 hours of out of class work to one hour of inclass on average.....IIRC (memory goes back several decades so could be wrong).

This makes for a total time of 60 hoursl

I don't know what the ratio is supposed to be for high school, I only know I rarely took any homework home, an occasional AP English paper is all. All other work was done in class, during the library period or lunchtime (I was not very social, too shy).

Studying in college:

Studying in high school:

[Danzo]

In college there is an assumption of 3 hours of out of class work to one hour of inclass on average.....IIRC (memory goes back several decades so could be wrong).

This makes for a total time of 60 hoursl

I don't know what the ratio is supposed to be for high school, I only know I rarely took any homework home, an occasional AP English paper is all. All other work was done in class, during the library period or lunchtime (I was not very social, too shy).

My college experience is varied, some classes had the 3 hours of homework, some you could get by with none at all

My question is, why can we have the same presumtion at high school as college? less time with instruction would mean less hours (teachers) needed, then we could afford to pay the teachers more, as well has have a higher expectation of quality. All by shifting some of the responsibility to the one who has the most to gain or lose, the student.

[Danzo]

Duplicate Post

[Calm]

My college experience is varied, some classes had the 3 hours of homework, some you could get by with none at all

My question is, why can we have the same presumtion at high school as college? less time with instruction would mean less hours (teachers) needed, then we could afford to pay the teachers more, as well has have a higher expectation of quality. All by shifting some of the responsibility to the one who has the most to gain or lose, the student.

Kids are not viewed as adult enough to take on that responsibility, parents see it as shifting the responsibility from the teacher to the parent, not the student, frequency of failing grades will likely go up. However I could see teaching three subjects a day with three hours of alloted study time, high amount of homework given with a lab open run by teacher aides or students that met a standard of not only knowing the subject, but also being able to help teach it and then alternate classes over the week so that one ends up with 6 subjects total (easier ones being taught Tuesday and Thursday for a total of 4 hours work, harder ones 6 hours a week. It never made sense to me I'd spend as much time in class in home ec as I would English, Math or Science.

Such a school system would have to be wiling to stick by their rules, especially during the adjustment phase, not giving into parent pressure to make things easier for the kids...and parents, holding people to the penalties as well as offering good rewards to balance things out.

PE in high school should be optional, for those opting out instead they would have supervised running/walking time at least, basketball and other sports for fun to ensure they got enough exercise but they wouldn't have to waste time in instruction if they didn't want it. I found the vast majority of my time in PE a total waste and definitely not helping me improve my physical fitness. PE should be something along the lines of recess where kids can pick what they want to play to maximize their efforts and involvement, supervisors along to ensure safety and a minimum of effort. Kids should also be able to choose what time they do this to maximize benefits (sign up for a time slot) as well as allowing them to get together with friends to play, again this will likely maximize effort and enjoyment.

PS: read a study once where kids in home school got the same amount of work done in two hours as a full school day due to less distractions and less wasted time. Streamlining school to make more effective use of time would be wise.

Money saved by allowing kids to do homework at home (pretty easy these days for most things if they have internet access at home) could be put into a fund where kids are rewarded/paid for their work and its quality...better work, more money. My son's high school used a similar reward system, awards would go toward paying the student's tuition at one of the local colleges or universities.

Kids that refused all efforts to help them self motivated could be placed in classes based on the current standard model with additional fees imposed to pay for the additional staff and space required....thus motivating parents to get involved.

[bluebell]

No one has ever explained to me why a freshman in college is considered full time with 15 hours a week (three per day) while a few months eariler as a high school student 35 hours is considered not enough.

I think schools can be much more effiecent (more education with less cost) than they are right now.

At the undergraduate level, 12 hours a week is generally seen as fulltime actually.

I get what you are saying though.

[Danzo]

Kids are not viewed as adult enough to take on that responsibility, parents see it as shifting the responsibility from the teacher to the parent, not the student, frequency of failing grades will likely go up.

Why should the parent be responsible for the children's grade? Children should take ownership of their own work. It is probibly the only way to get them to learn anything in the first place.

[bluebell]

Why should the parent be responsible for the children's grade? Children should take ownership of their own work. It is probibly the only way to get them to learn anything in the first place.

Kids that age don't have mature brains yet. It would be a lame parent who left a high school aged kid's scholastic development completely in the hands of the teenager. Parents can't do everything for a child, but their child's learning (even a teenager) is still their responsibility to a large extent.

[Danzo]

Kids that age don't have mature brains yet. It would be a lame parent who left a high school aged kid's scholastic development completely in the hands of the teenager. Parents can't do everything for a child, but their child's learning (even a teenager) is still their responsibility to a large extent.

Although a wise parent can encourage a child (even an adult children) whether a child learns are not is up to him or her. Letting the student off of the hook for his or her academic success is the worst thing that has happend to the school system.

Every says that if the student doesn't achieve, it must be the fault of the parent, the teacher, the neighborhood, the government, Obama, the principle or whatever.

No one suspects that maybe the student didn't want to learn, or has no motivation to do so

Ever wonder why other countries kids score higher than the US?

It is because most other countries there is a consequense for choosing a wrong answer on a test.

Only in the US, if a child dosen't do well on a standardized test, the teacher and the school is the only one punished/rewarded

[bluebell]

Ever wonder why other countries kids score higher than the US?

It is because most other countries there is a consequense for choosing a wrong answer on a test.

Only in the US, if a child dosen't do well on a standardized test, the teacher and the school is the only one punished/rewarded

Part of the reason they do better is because they know that their parents will not accept anything less from them. Success is demanded by the family. I don't think that as many Asian children, for example, would be doing so well in school if it wasn't expected of them by their parents.

And of course, in America, children are punished for not doing good in school-they are punished by 'the system'. They have little chance at opportunity, little chance at college, little chance for economic success. All are very really punishments. The problem is that teenagers are very good at giving up what they want most for what they want at the moment. They need something besides their own desire to help them achieve. Part of a parents job is to be the one who helps them do that.

If parents were as invovled in their child's education here in america as they are in other countries, I believe the US would be able to compete with foreign students.

[Calm]

Ever wonder why other countries kids score higher than the US?

Much higher parent involvement in many cases.

In order for there to be decent consequences that are followed through on so that it works being the child's responsibility, the parent must be involved.

[Avatar4321]

Eliminate the government aspect of it.

[thesometimesaint]

Avatar4321:

local? State? National?

What do you propose to take their place?

The Church commits millions of dollars to just a small university system. To do it K-Doctorate would financially bust the Church in a matter of days.

[LeSellers]

Public schools have a thousands of years record. In the US it has been nearly from the landing of the Pilgrams.

Those schools were not at all like the schools imposed on families today. GCTF-welfare schools, as we know them today, did not exist in USmerica until 1852 in Massachusetts, and many states resisted them until 1912. Even as late as 1882 (iIrc), the people of Barnstable, Massachusetts, refused to send their children to the gctf-welfare school, preferring to send them to the local private school. That year, if it's the correct one, the militia, under orders from the governor, marched the children, at point of bayonet, past their private school to the gctf-welfare school. It is not, and never has been, about "education": it's about control over children's minds.

In the early "public" schools of USmerica, the students were under the complete control of the parents who voluntarily sent their children. The parents paid directly for them (possibly with some support from the community, usually the church, not the state, but not always). Parents had the right to abstain from sending, and to teach their children in any way they saw fit. There was a law in many New England colonies/states that made parents stupid: Until there were six families with children under age 10, aIr, in a community, there was no need to build a school. However, when the sixth family moved in (or was formed by marriage and childbirth) the law demanded they build a school and hire an outside instructor. To that point, however, the parents were considered competent to teach their children on their own.

What are the first public buildings to go up in any settlement? The church house and the school house.

Now "public" means "private", because the "public" church building was not owned by the state, and neither was the school house.

The first school teacher in Utah Deseret (actually, she taught along the Mormon Trail on her way across the plains) was commissioned by Brigham Young, and charged for her lessons as the parents were able to pay. Brigham paid for many orphans and poor children to attend schools around the Territory. The imposition of gctf-welfare schools on the Saints was a form of coerced indoctrination against the Church and against the Priesthood. Just as in Massachusetts a decade earlier, the issue was never about education, it was always about control over who would teach, what he would teach, and under whose control the children's minds would be.

When Horace Mann copied Friedrich's schools, his goal was the same as the emperor's: to separate the children from their parents and to instill a different set of values and mores in the next generation. That remains the primary goal of gctf-welfare schools to this day. The only thing that has changed is how far long the track they have progressed. And their progress has been formidable.

Lehi

[Nemesis]

Those schools were not at all like the schools imposed on families today. GCTF-welfare schools, as we know them today, did not exist in USmerica until 1852 in Massachusetts, and many states resisted them until 1912. Even as late as 1882 (iIrc), the people of Barnstable, Massachusetts, refused to send their children to the gctf-welfare school, preferring to send them to the local private school. That year, if it's the correct one, the militia, under orders from the governor, marched the children, at point of bayonet, past their private school to the gctf-welfare school. It is not, and never has been, about "education": it's about control over children's minds.

In the early "public" schools of USmerica, the students were under the complete control of the parents who voluntarily sent their children. The parents paid directly for them (possibly with some support from the community, usually the church, not the state, but not always). Parents had the right to abstain from sending, and to teach their children in any way they saw fit. There was a law in many New England colonies/states that made parents stupid: Until there were six families with children under age 10, aIr, in a community, there was no need to build a school. However, when the sixth family moved in (or was formed by marriage and childbirth) the law demanded they build a school and hire an outside instructor. To that point, however, the parents were considered competent to teach their children on their own.

Now "public" means "private", because the "public" church building was not owned by the state, and neither was the school house.

The first school teacher in Utah Deseret (actually, she taught along the Mormon Trail on her way across the plains) was commissioned by Brigham Young, and charged for her lessons as the parents were able to pay. Brigham paid for many orphans and poor children to attend schools around the Territory. The imposition of gctf-welfare schools on the Saints was a form of coerced indoctrination against the Church and against the Priesthood. Just as in Massachusetts a decade earlier, the issue was never about education, it was always about control over who would teach, what he would teach, and under whose control the children's minds would be.

When Horace Mann copied Friedrich's schools, his goal was the same as the emperor's: to separate the children from their parents and to instill a different set of values and mores in the next generation. That remains the primary goal of gctf-welfare schools to this day. The only thing that has changed is how far long the track they have progressed. And their progress has been formidable.

Lehi

If you continue to politicize posts you are going to start spending time suspended. Thread closed.

Nemesis