How to get an educational reform

We will not, CANNOT get an educational reform without a societal reform that gives the parents back to the kids.

If we can get the societal reform, we will not need the educational reform.

Busted families and education - the 'need' to warehouse kids under age 18.

Part of the reason for my meandering educational career is a paper I wrote for a graduate level philosphy-of-education class about 1991.  The paper explored who should have the final say about a child's education, the parents or the state.  It wasn't a very good paper, and I only got a B- on it.  My ideas were pretty raw, and despite trying to look at situations with a choice-and-consequences kind of view (rather than 'right or wrong'), I ended up dumping lots of personal feelings into the paper.

In 1991, my oldest child began Kindergarten.  Despite urgings from family and friends, I resisted pre-school.  I had a college degree, was finishing a Master's, had taught successfully for several years, we had a play group and cousins.  I didn't see the need to clutter up our lives with another commitment to be somewhere at a particular time when the parent-child ratio was so much better than the teacher-student ratio at any pre-school.  I liked doing things with my kids.  I could do them just fine, thanks.

But writing the paper opened my eyes to what people think about the need for public education.  By that, I mean that people believe that schools are a necessary part of a childhood experience, and also believe that schools are necessary to a functioning society.  We've also been taught that the school knows better than the parent.

Well, given our current, peculiarly American view on work, schools perform an important function for our society.  But are they the right functions?  Are they good functions?  Will they protect our society or contribute to tearing it down?

In America, there is a buck to be made!  In this land of opportunity, absolutely anyone can become a millionaire with hard work and a bit of good fortune. You don't have to win the lottery or be on a game show.  Opportunity plus instinct equals profits on everything from Beanie Babies to iPhones.  Among the parade of aliens in the Star Trek series, the Ferengi were the mercenary merchants of anything.  If there was a market anywhere in the universe, they would find it.  They had 285 Rules of Acquisition which their children learned like the Pledge of Allegiance.  Here are a selection of them, from http://www.sjtrek.com/trek/rules/. 

• Once you have their money ... never give it back.
  
• Never pay more for an acquisition than you have to.
  
• Never allow family to stand in the way of opportunity.
  
• A man is only worth the sum of his possessions.
• Small print leads to large risk.
  
• Opportunity plus instinct equals profit.
  
• Greed is eternal.
  
• Anything worth doing is worth doing for money.
  
• A deal is a deal ... until a better one comes along.
• A Ferengi without profit is no Ferengi at all.
  
• Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
  
• Never place friendship above profit.
  
• A wise man can hear profit in the wind.
  
• Peace is good for business.
  
• War is good for business
  

Doesn't this sound like US?  We ARE the Ferengi!  And we've failed unless we own the 3500 square foot house, have a student loan to match our mortgage, two cars and an RV in the 1200-square foot garage and a third car when the kids get a driver's license.

Which brings me to the topic of this post.

Somewhere in the last 100 years, children lost their status as economic asset and in this country are now 100% economic liabilities.  There's no financial reason to have a child whatsoever.  Children only cost money, they don't make money.  People with large families (more than 3 kids) are condemned for putting a strain on the earth's resources.

Since children cost money, that means that to afford them we have to make more money.  Where are we going to put the kids when we're out making money?  Daycare, from the earliest possible moment.  Pre-school, because the word sounds so much better and more productive than 'daycare'.  Then school, starting when the child is four or five, whether the child is ready for it or not, and not because the child needs to learn (you will hardly be able to stop that from happening), but in school because the parents need to work.  We tell ourselves we're putting them there to learn, but I propose that in our society, that's only a secondary reason, and only one of them.

Financial strain is a leading cause of divorce.  Divorce is a leading cause of financial strain.  Never-married and single parents are the heads of most households that are below the poverty level.  And then our school system preps kids to enter the job market and become Ferengi, and does zero, absolutely nothing to prepare kids to commit to and maintain lifelong relationships.

Is it any wonder that it's so hard to do school?  Perhaps we're raising kids for the wrong reason.  Maybe deep down inside we all understand that acquisition is pointless.  Are we hoarding because we don't have lives worth sharing?  If we have lives worth sharing, worth risking the economic liability of having kids for, why do we warehouse them so that we can work to give them more opportunities?  More electronic games?  A bigger house?  We're never there, so it's not like they can have their friends over.

Here we sit, in the most prosperous society the world has ever known.  We know how to make money.  We know how to make luxuries for everyone of which the emperors of the past could not even conceive.  We don't have a clue why we've acquired so many things.  We can't stay married until death parts us.  We can't make the world a better place for everyone.  We aren't even allowed to be the parents and primary educators of our kids.  And we can give them anything except a family.

Education and the family, Part 2, K-12 buildings

It is no secret that the MAIN indicator of student success is the parents' involvement in the child's education.  That is, if the parent is on top of things, if the parent is pushing for better performance, checking up on homework, showing up to school, etc. then it is far more likely that the child will succeed in school.

That's primarily why home schooled students do so well in higher education.

So why is our educational system so adamant about breaking up the family?  That is, we want to rip the toddlers away from their parents and put them in preschool.  In some local schools, the K-3 kids go to one building, the 4-6 to another, the 7-8th graders to a third, and the high schoolers to a fourth building. If families have even two children spaced a few years apart, it gets crazy for parents to attend very many functions at all of those different schools.

We tend to think that bigger is better, that bigger is more economical.  But having taught in a K-12 school where all of the buildings shared the same parking lot, and there were only 350 kids K-12, I can tell you that there was a much better family atmosphere in that environment than in the schools I attended growing up, or have taught in elsewhere.  Not only was the holiday program attended by the entire family, it was attended by the entire community.  Parents didn't have to divide up the responsibilities of so many nights out because there was only one event for all of the kids.  They went to events as families.  They got to know their kids' teachers, because the kids would probably have that teacher more than once.  Excellent teachers got the benefit of lots of affirmation, and the community worked to keep them there.  Poor teachers left after a year, because the word got around about them.  Educators had important stakes in how things were done, because their kids were also students in the school.

My gut feeling is that a K-12 school should have no more than 400 kids attending.  Everyone can actually know the names of everyone in the building if that is the limit, and we'll know who their siblings and parents are as well.

If the main indicator of student success is family involvement, then we should not make it difficult for the family to be involved in the child's education.  We should be thinking through school structure and activities with the family in mind.

I would like to propose that school districts offer both kinds of education, large buildings divided by age, and small neighborhood buildings, more like one-room school houses for K-8 or even K-12 kids.  Some folks actually think that changing schools as a child grows is a way to get them ready to transition to high school.  I don't know what's so special about high school that we need to 'transition' to it.  I also don't know what moving to a new building has to do with education.

My experience says that smaller is better, and families are happier that way.  

Education and the family

Topics in this series will include:

K-12 buildings

Busted families and education - the 'need' to warehouse kids under age 18.

Busted families and education - How much can you expect?

Stop assaulting family values!

Re-thinking society and K-12 education

The family and education, Part 1

Watched the 1968 version of "Yours, Mine and Ours" with Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda this evening.  Helen North is a widow with eight children.  Frank Beardsley is a widower with ten children. Of course, they meet, marry, and begin to raise 18 children together.  This is the 'Aha' moment of the script:

Frank Beardsley (to eldest daughter, who is complaining that boyfriend Larry wants her to 'prove she loves him'):  "I've got a message for Larry.  You tell him this is what it's all about.  This is the real happening!... And if you want to know what love really is, take a look around you... And take a good look at your mother."

Helen:  "Not now!"

All 18 children are present, rushing her down the steps into the car.  She is in labor with her 9th child, which with their blended family, will make 19 children.

Frank:  "Yes, now!  It's giving life that counts, and until you're ready for it, all the rest is just a big fraud.  All the crazy haircuts in the world won't keep it turning.  Life isn't a love-in, it's the dishes and the orthodontist and the shoe repairman and the ground round instead of roast beef, and I'll tell you something else.  It's not going to bed with a man that proves you're in love with him -  it's getting up in the morning and facing the drab, miserable, wonderful everyday world with him that counts...I suppose having nineteen kids is carrying it a bit too far, but if we had it to do over, who would we skip... You?"

Coming out

It's time to take a stand.  I'd hoped to contribute to discussion on education and cause folks to think and question their long and closely held views, without exposing my specific experience.  I thought this would protect the little school I administrate and current and former students.

But the persecution of the church in America has begun following this November, 2008 election, and I am no longer willing to hide behind any electronic wall and avoid confrontation.  Be assured, the most aggressive thing I'm going to do to you is pray for you, and vote.  And ask you to think about behavior, yours and mine.  Educate me, if that's what I need.  After all, that's the business I'm in.

Today my real name goes on my blog, and you can find me.  I'll entertain any civil comments.  Name calling will not survive comment screening.

Student loans are EVIL!

There have been many who have called into question the financial return that a college education gives the American wage earner.

I'm going on record as stating that WHATEVER the returns might be, they will be grossly offset by any student loans the graduate has to pay back.

First, let's establish that colleges don't loan money.  Colleges often have nice grant money that one does NOT have to pay back, but they don't usually loan money longer than the term the student is enrolled, meaning the money is paid back by the end of the term or the student cannot enroll for the next term.  Student loans are not the fault of any college.

But our US government has guaranteed money for banks to loan to students.  That means that the bank doesn't have to pay back the money they got from the government to loan to the student if the student defaults on the loan.  (Does this sound like the foundation for the current housing loan crisis?)

Most banks won't loan to a student without a co-signer, which means that a parent is usually responsible if the student can't meet the payments, but the good news is that most students feel obligated enough to establish their good credit and they do pay back their student loans.  Most of them.  A student who defaults, becomes ill, or dies can bankrupt the entire family with those loans.

Student loans have a long payback period, often 30 years.  Students who have achieved a Master's degree or Doctoral degree are going to have a student loan payment equivalent to a mortgage on a decent house.

Yes, you really need to think through the implications of a student loan, and if your college education is worth the payments you'll be making for that education after college.

Here's why student loans are evil:

1.  College graduates need to be able to go to where their new job opportunities are going to take them, to be able to apply those newly learned skills.  If they have a loan equivalent to a mortgage, they aren't going to be able to buy a house when they get there.  Many of these expensive college graduates end up living at home with mom and/or dad until that college loan is significantly reduced.  Then they have the freedom to move about, but that can be years after graduation.

2.  Student loans may well be one of the reasons for the rise in college costs.  Banks love to loan money, the more the better.  If college costs go up, so what?  That means the return the banks earn will be greater.  There's no reason for colleges to curtail costs if students can get the loans to pay for them.  This is probably the reason that college costs in recent years have risen far faster than inflation.

3.  Who would want to marry $40,000 - $100,000 or more in student loans?  Love isn't the same as money, and a warm feeling won't pay the rent or a mortgage.  Debt obligation can limit a choice of spouse, or your own debt obligation can limit who will choose you.

4.  Women with significant college loans may well have to choose between staying home with a family and work.  If her loans are equivalent to a mortgage, then circumstances are going to require her to work.  If she wants a family, then the burden of the loan payback becomes the wage-earner's burden in that family.  If the wage earner also has student loans, the wage earner may well be paying both husband and wife student loans as well as the mortgage.  If your mortgage is 1/3rd of your income, and husband and wife student loans are both equivalent to that mortgage, then you don't eat.  If you want one parent to stay home with your kids, then don't take out those loans.

5.  Student loans (as well as mortgage loans) make you a slave to someone.  You will be obligated to the job that pays those loans back.  If there's a cause somewhere in the world to which you would like to lend your assistance and expertise, then you're stuck paying those loans back instead.  If God would like to use you somewhere else, you will be unable to go.

6.  Your student loan will make someone rich.  Over a 30 year period at 5%, you could well be paying that loan back almost twice.  You'll pay back the full amount of the loan, and the interest you will have paid will amount to about 93% MORE than your loan.  If your interest is 7%, your payback will be about 139% MORE than your loan.  Couldn't YOU use that money?

In general, an educated population is a tax-paying population.  It's in a government's interests to encourage education and research that not only makes life better for its citizens but also protects those citizens (military).  Tax payers in countries such as ours, where the government is by the people and for the people, need to decide how much education is worth, and need to discern if we're getting the return we expected, or are just getting a population burdened with unnecessary debt.  Debt will immobilize a nation, as we're seeing with the current loan crisis.  Debt can even obligate one nation to another.  The US may well be the biggest lender to other nations, but that CAN change.  Keeping American citizens out of debt is in our national best interests.

If your college education will guarantee you 50% more income then it may be worth it to do that.  ('Guarantee' is a funny word in this context!)  But you will have more flexibility and more choices after college if you have no loans.  You can take some time and see the world.  You can use your education to help folks in out-of-the-way places.  The money you earn will be yours to do as you please.  But if you take those loans, you may well be stuck with a job that earns your loan payment and leaves you with little else.

Don't do student loans!