[JosephEL]

Originally posted by VJ
(2) he spent plenty of time ****ing his math teacher while he was still a teenager ...N-nice

[newspetty]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

Public schools ARE social engineering. A drinking age IS social engineering. I know that. Really. That was, in fact, kinda my point. All this stuff is social engineering, and it has potentially big consequences. The risks (and indeed, the rewards) are high, so you better think things through. I'm not against making changes, but I'd like to see things done carefully. Hence my pointing out the lack of detail on Newt's part when it comes to rights & privileges.

Unless you think conservatives would be for eliminating all such laws, I think it is fair to say that social engineering is already taking place across the board and is universally supported by both sides. Yeah, that's true. It's just that (it seems to me that) conservatives often try to avoid admitting that. Anyway, no argument with you here.

Newt sees that our current model of social engineering isn't working and is suggesting a better way of going about it. Yes, and there are a couple of interesting ideas in there. I'm all for some trials, as I've said.

-Arrian

[metropropuskruww]

Giving money for grades is a bad idea. Grade value varies too much from school to school and even teacher to teacher.

Standardized testing isn't much better. If it is multiple choice, it just measures your ability to take tests. If it is more complex, then you go right back to subjective grades (though, admittedly, the standardization would ameliorate that somewhat.)

Don't get me wrong, the idea is a good one, I just think implementation would be difficult, if not impossible.

As for the general discussion: The education system does not single-handedly create age segregation nor lack of achievement. Ageism on the part of adults contributes to those things as well. In order for this to eliminate adolescence, you can't just hand over all the responsibility of adulthood without the privileges. I think this is my way of saying what Arrian et al are getting at.

[dmitrynts]

Seems to me Gingrich is advocating imposing the burdens of adulthood on kids while not giving them any of the benefits. Why would anyone who advocated the rights of youth be OK with that?

[RG3rGWcA]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Seems to me Gingrich is advocating imposing the burdens of adulthood on kids while not giving them any of the benefits. Why would anyone who advocated the rights of youth be OK with that? I expect the rights will come one way or another. Either Newt also supports some (but not all) rights for youth but isn't saying anything about it for obvious political reasons. Or he hopes to just get more responsibility passed through which would, with many not-so-gentle nudges from my group and others, create an increased demand for rights.

"I work 40 hours a week and pay taxes, I need to vote!"

And while my cause is called "youth rights" we believe that rights and responsibility go hand in hand. So whether you describe it as a "right to work" or a "responsibility to work" it works out to be the same. Maybe if we called ourselves the National Youth Responsibility Association we'd get more support from conservatives. *shrug*

The issue of work cuts to a central facet of this argument. My beef is that youth are not respected or treated equally or fairly by society. One key reason youth are not respected is because what they do, school, is not valued. They don't entirely want to be there, and adults see them as ungrateful little brats who waste their time away while we work our asses off. Americans are very work-centric, so when we see a class of people not working and slacking off, we resent them for it.

Giving youth a substantive, important role to play in society is better for them to find purpose in their lives, and better for us to see them as contributing members of society instead of leeches.

[erelvenewmeva]

You want to end adolescence for your kids? thow em out on the street. charge 'em rent. goverment doesn't need to do it for you.

If I understand him correctly, I agree with Arrian -- Newt's rant is full of nanny-state garbage completely at odds with the supposed conservative small government agenda.

[loan4younow]

social engineering for 21st century -

1. start with redistribution of wealth (ie taxes ), in order to
2. create 2-3 years 75% paid maternity period
3. support extended preschool family/communities to exist and help kids grow up (no not the nursery mini-hell holes, more like parents or families can get a year/two off work - 75% paid - to do this, move pension age up if needed to accommodate for this extra time off when it's needed most, so that kids can actually see, speak and learn from their parents/extended family)
4. Primary school age starts at 6 or 7, 4-5 hours a day only, 8 years (the family/community groups would take care off them while the rest of the parents/family are working)
5. secondary school age 14-15, 4 years - general in education
6. University level 18+
7. Classes of 10-12 pupils max throughout
8. Increase the taxes to support the maternity/preschool community groups/teacher population
9. The end result would be very socially beneficial, as people would have time + money to raise the kids themselves (and not someone else do it for them like now) which would more than balance 10-15% tax that would be necessary to fund such extensive care and education
------------------

key "inventions" being - extended paid maternity, shorter and later starting school, 10-12 pupils max per teacher, and the new group - extended family/local community support which would have to fill instead of nurseries/child carers, where except from monetary incentive to take care of the kids, there would be some other kind of bond as well...

Such groups would have to be operational non-stop, have several members, have 4 or 5 kids max per 1 adult (less being very desirable for that age), and they could be created from mothers on maternity leave, fathers having a required 1/2 years as "paternal" time off period, and retired family members as available... ideally being organized with multiple families of choice so that there is "multiple" support... that would give people time to enjoy the kids and be a part of their childhood... if we could serve in the army for 24 months in 1950's, and many nations have 12 months compulsory army even now... I am sure we can afford men getting 75% paid time off as well now in order to actually try and raise their family full-time.

People with no kids contribute by paying taxes and benefit from reduced crime, smarter future voters and generally a more pleasant environment to live in.

[deermealec]

1. start with redistribution of wealth (ie taxes ), in order to
2. create 2-3 years 75% paid maternity period
3. support extended preschool family/communities to exist and help kids grow up (no not the nursery mini-hell holes, more like parents or families can get a year/two off work - 75% paid - to do this, move pension age up if needed to accommodate for this extra time off when it's needed most, so that kids can actually see, speak and learn from their parents/extended family)
4. Primary school age starts at 6 or 7, 4-5 hours a day only, 8 years (the family/community groups would take care off them while the rest of the parents/family are working)
5. secondary school age 14-15, 4 years - general in education
6. University level 18+
7. Classes of 10-12 pupils max throughout
8. Increase the taxes to support the maternity/preschool community groups/teacher population
9. The end result would be very socially beneficial, as people would have time + money to raise the kids themselves (and not someone else do it for them like now) which would more than balance 10-15% tax that would be necessary to fund such extensive care and education
------------------

key "inventions" being - extended paid maternity, shorter and later starting school, 10-12 pupils max per teacher, and the new group - extended family/local community support which would have to fill instead of nurseries/child carers, where except from monetary incentive to take care of the kids, there would be some other kind of bond as well...

Such groups would have to be operational non-stop, have several members, have 4 or 5 kids max per 1 adult (less being very desirable for that age), and they could
be created from mothers on maternity leave, fathers having a required 1/2 years as "paternal" time off period, and retired family members as available... ideally being organized with multiple families of choice so that there is "multiple" support... that would give people time to enjoy the kids and be a part of their childhood... if we could serve in the army for 24 months in 1950's, and many nations have 12 months compulsory army even now... I am sure we can afford men getting 75% paid time off as well now in order to actually try and raise their family full-time.

People with no kids contribute by paying taxes and benefit from reduced crime, smarter future voters and generally a more pleasant environment to live in. Disagree.

The biggest reason why people can't afford to have a larger family is because half their income is going to support the state. You cut taxes, people will be much better off.

1. 2 years mat leave? That's horrible. That basically makes young married women much more expensive to hire. I don't see any need to change or extend mat leave.

I would rather see income splitting for all married couples, to give an incentive for the wife to stay home. I don't see why one person making 50k a year should be taxed more then two making 25k a year.

2. Bad idea. You'd be better off with income splitting, so that if the wife stays home, and is not financially penalised for doing so, then the rest of this will follow.

3. Primary school. I'd do away with kindergarten and pre-school. They are just babysitting services now. I would have Grade 1-7 same as we do now, but give parents school vouchers so that they can choose which school they want their kids to attend, rather then being stuck with the one in the neighbourhood.

Class ratios would be set a 1:30, and I'd also have it so you would get a tax rebate for every dollar you spend on educating your child in a private school.

4. Secondary school would be overhauled. I would have mandatory assessment at the end of the year. Test would check for reading and math skills only, evaluated by the state. Schools would get funding based on how well their students do. The better their students perform, the more per pupil they receive.

The combination of this and vouchers would mean that the schools would very quickly compete with each other to provide the best education.

5. Grade 11-12.

I would change these as well. School curricula should be as rigorous as the IB for those who wish to go to college. Those in a different stream will take other courses. Two streams for graduation. Provincial examinations at all grade 12 subjects including the SAT.

6. Universities.

I would have them required to offer challenge exams for every single course. If you pass the exam you get the credit. Rather then making the student go through the burden of applying to challenge, the student would get a chance in "Challenge week" at the start of class to qualify for credit.

If a student has successfully challenged, he can continue challenging as many courses as he likes until he fails one. If he fails a challenge exam, then he has to do the course that he's now enrolled. Theoretically, if you pass 40 of 40 challenge exams in a semester you could graduate.

[jokiruss]

Why should Provinces (in Canada) include the SAT (an American test) in the grade 12 curriculum? What does American and Canadian have to do with it? I took the test, and I think it should be required. It's another way for universities here in Canada and the US to assess students, and best of all, it's indepedent of the teacher unions and the provincial standards.

As it is, it is just guesswork to assess schools in different provinces.

I'm also endlessly amused by the logic that only schools already performing well should receive adequate funding. That's how it works in the real world Asher. If you don't perform you don't get funding. If the schools don't shape up they will close.

If you're a school with underperforming students, let's take more money from them. Christian values? It works hand in hand with the vouchers. If you are a parent with a child in an underperforming school, you can transfer the child out of there to one that is doing better.

I can see your concern if parents were not permitted to transfer their child, but if they are permitted, I see no reason why schools shouldn't be funded based on their performance.

[anxpuna]

If you've actually taken the SAT and still believe it to be an adequate or useful means of gauging student aptitude, then you've really got no excuse for wanting to bring it to Canada, except perhaps as a continuing part of your general anti-Canada attitude.

[Freefspruptpx]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Sounds like someone didn't do too well on the SAT 20+ years ago... I doubt would have done too well when I was 12 or younger, no.

[Dweplyododo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
=There were plenty of students in my high school that paid to have the chance to take the SAT. That's not because of their feelings as to the quality of the test and reliability for scoring aptitude, but rather because they knew many U.S. schools use it and it would perhaps improve their chances of entry.

These days, the SAT is fairly meaningless because it's relatively easy to "teach to the test." Students spend courses cramming to answer the kinds of questions that will be asked rather than doing real learning.

If we're fantasizing about revamping the education system anyway, there's no reason to continue with the SAT.

[Crazykz]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It also provides a measure for assessing students in different states and provinces. I took it myself, as I wanted to keep doors open in the US should I want to go to school down there. I rest my case.

What would you replace it with? I'd start with something more akin to the subject-specific ACTs. But if we're really fantasizing about a perfect education system, I'd go for a system where standardized testing wasn't done at all, as student transcripts + writing evaluations would be sufficient.

[flielagit]

What about French-inclined? Do you grade them on a curve?

[kertionderf]

Most societies in the world have adolecense now, and most of them have made it "work". The failures of American education have more to do with attempts to undermine it than by it not being a workable concept.

We are obviously better off today than in the times Newt harkens back to, and I think a good question would be if we owe our good times to adolecense- besides, there are no laws preventing teenagers from doing adult things and acting in adult ways. And besides, many adults are and always have been idiots.

[blankostaroe]

Originally posted by Seeker
We need to import Che'pol (corporal punishment) from South Korea to the english countries.

It's unpleasant, but it sure works. More politeness, harder working, quieter, less insolence, etc etc.

98% of kids have absolutely no concept of 'the future' and are therefore largely unmoved by rewards and punishments set even a few hours into the future.

Long live the Love Stick!

I've been working in Korean Middle, High, and Elementary schools for several years now so I might be biased.

It's not nice, but it's 'What Works' for all but the tiny proportion of precocious little professors. Only if the kids get to hit back. Otherwise, **** you to hell ****er.


98% of kids have absolutely no concept of 'the future' and are therefore largely unmoved by rewards and punishments set even a few hours into the future. No. You are a ****ing moron.

[TerriLS]

Glad to have him on my side.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/ma...7085289974.htm

I really don't like this idea. I don't want a president who thinks the biggest problem faced by 13-year-olds is that they don't have jobs. Oh, and their lack of earned income is responsible for a meth epidemic? And making them learn more slowly than the Indians and Chinese?

Newt Gingrich is a bigoted, rabid right-wing monster.

It's too bad MrFun didn't elaborate when he wrote this, I would like to know more about how Gingrich is a rabid monster.