How Can Tech Help Fight Education Costs?

http101 asks: "With the ever-rising costs of fuel, we seem to forget those that are truly having problems affording it. No, not the homeless, but our own kids. 'Kids,' you ask? Yes, because being driven to school on the 'Yellow Dog' or the 'Edu-Express' better known as a school bus, is costing your state more money than ever before. In my neighborhood, we have a plethora of home connected by fiber and at least high-speed internet. So my question is, how can technology be better-implemented to ensure a student's studies and also lower the costs of fuel for the districts?"

Comments

Correlation

[Oculus Habent]

School is still babysitting. Unless you have a parent or tutor in the home who is capable of directing the child to maintain their studies - or a particularly dedicated student - the problem is not one of information transfer, but of physical control.

Those costs, however, are education overhead, if you will. Busses do not scale with learning or technology. If every other student stays home the bus is even less efficient. Unless you can convince all of the distant students to learn from home... of course, in my area, these are often the ones who cannot get/afford high-speed access.

I do think technology can help education costs. Technology can provide students a way to obtain and submit their homework electronically. Technology can automate grading. It can provide online, linkable calendars of each course with the daily details of homework, tests, quizzes, etc. Technology, harnessed properly, can mean more productive time for student and teacher, alike. Along the way, it might save a gallon of gas or two, but mostly for the parent who's child left their books/homework/reading at school.

Re:Correlation

[SuperBanana]

School is still babysitting.

I have a friend whose wife is a grade school teacher. Spend 15 minutes with a teacher, and you'll realize just how truly ignorant that statement is. Many teachers I've met are far more dedicated to their job than any techie I've ever met. You don't teach to pay the bills- because it doesn't, not well at all. You teach because you love the concept of helping people learn and contributing to society. The standards are high- when it comes to education and training, they don't have a choice. Peer review is ongoing. Certification is required and often also ongoing. The amount of prep work my friend's wife does for teaching gradeschool classes is astounding.

Maybe -your- school is full of teachers who are in 'cruise mode', but most are full of people who have dedicated their lives to teaching your children. Show a little gratitude.

Re:Correlation

[b17bmbr]

Since I teach HS, maybe I can clarify. Yes, school is babysitting, at least the way many parents see it. Neither I nor most my colleagues see it that way, but it's hard because we often have to deal with a large number of kids that don't want to be there, are f*** ups, or just don't care. We can't remove the 2 or 3 that screw it up for the remaining 34.

Our schools are on warehouse mode most of the time, and that comes from on high, not in the classroom. Part of the problem is the very idea of education has been severely deprecated. I am a geek, linux, java, yada yada, but I teach history and consider myself an historian first. But, history, nor 99% of anything else in school is going to be worth $1 more in the "real world". But that's not, nor has is ever been the point of an education.

So, we have marginalized an education for practical use, which means that kids don't give two shits about history, just a letter on a piece of paper. It's either "I need it for college, how do I get an A" or "When are we ever gonna need this"?

Don't cry for me Argentina, as I love what I do and have great kids. Really. But, we are in many ways a babysitter, or a caretaker, holding them long enough so they don't rampage the neighborhood while the mommies are out walking the babies. Until there is a penalty (other than personal opportunity squandered) for not graduating and learning, it'll only get worse.

Re:Correlation

[badmammajamma]

Fear not, Mr. History Teacher. When I was in high school I had no interest in history and thought it was a complete waste of time. Ironically, my favorite teacher would become a history teacher who used to go into all kinds of details about war strategies used in the civil war and other wars involving America. I would sit there and listen very intently to everything he had to say about these battles. However, I still only got a C in his class. This was in part due to his tough tests and partially because even though I found his lectures interesting, I still never did my history homework. :)

Fastforward about 10 years...
I developed a great appreciation for history and watch all this shit on the history channel, read books, have discussions with friends, etc. What really matters in the end is whether the person you are teaching is ready for the information. I wasn't in high school but many years later I was. I still remember that teacher though and wish I could sit there and listen to him talk about those battles once again. Cest la vie...

Re:Correlation

[name773]

maybe they should have specific classes for teaching technology, and let the other learning be a focus outside of those classes. technology tends to get in the way with the learning process unless it's tactfully used (showing simulations in physics is probably the best i use can think of, and illustrations in general if they are animated or aren't in the book).

personally, i think it's easier to give a presentation without powerpoint (chalkboard/overhead), to write a paper by hand (writing comes more natural than typing even though it's slower for me), to write math by hand (the notation is complicated, but i do use a graphing calculator for non-simple computations), and to listen to the instructor (it's hard when they're fiddling with a computer). it's not that i don't know how to use computers, i'm 17 and grew up operating them, it's just that i feel they're more of a hinderance than the graphing calculators and specific purpose analog equivalents (chalkboard, notebook, etc.)

although they're simply wonderful for looking up information.

and don't worry about teachers not embracing the tech, as you get more young ones in they'll do fine. my chem teacher last year did a wonderful job using powerpoint for presentations, but i still like his whiteboarded notes better.

Re:Correlation

[Nuttles1]

Adding to what you said (parent post was long, didn't want to copy it all).

The reason why it concedered by many as 'babysitting' is because most parents do not foster in their kids the love of learning. They expect teachers to do it. If the love of learning doesn't start at home, then teachers will always have an uphill battle. Even, sorry to say, to the point that some people will call it 'babysitting'

Re:Correlation

[j_kenpo]

Lets just cut through the BS...

"How can technology be better-implemented to ensure a student's studies and also lower the costs of fuel for the districts"

  The above statement is a ruse. You really don't care about students studies, what you care about is fuel costs, your tax money, blah blah blah. Your like a most people in this country, you want to find a cheap short cut to education at the expense of raising taxes. If its your money your concerned with, why don't you ask your school district why the hell your tax money is paying for such bullshit positions as Deputy Superintendent, and the Secretaries for the Deputy Superintendent, instead of going towards building more modern facilities, paying teachers and a scale more equal to what they are worth, buying better books, and researching better and more entertaining ways to educate children so that learning can be fun and interesting to them (I'm thinking like Bill Nye type teaching here). And if your really concerned about those rising fuel costs, well try carpooling in your neighborhood. If your response is "I'm too busy as a working parent, I don't have time", then tough shit, your part of the problem. Tech is not the answer to rising fuel costs.
If you really wanted to improve the studies of students, you'd ask something more like "As a concerned parent, how can I use tech to supplement my childs education and help them find an interest in learning so that they can do better in school"? If that's the case, step one is again, take some responsibility as a parent. Take an interest in your childs studies. Read their textbooks. Quiz them from the post-chapter assessments. Talk with them about topics they are learning about. Help them study. And if you really wanted tech to help them in their studies, how about installing a firewall that blocks outbound IM traffic... but that only works if you take responsibility.

Some of it's not feasible yet

[TurdTapper]

I can see having a one day a week class at home via a live webcast. The teacher can still take attendance and the kids can still get the knowledge. Unfortunately, this is only feasible if every single kid has access to broadband. And, even with all the advances, there are a LOT of people out in the country that can't even get cable TV much less broadband.

Now, this might work in the inner city, but at that point you'd have to subsidize the cost of broadband for all those people that can't afford it. And saving 4 days of bus driving a month compared to making up for 100 or 200 kids worth of broadband at 15-50 bucks a month isn't a savings.

It would be good to save 1/5 of the gas (or more) that's needed for the buses, but that's not going to happen in the near future.

Easy

[AKAImBatman]

So my question is, how can technology be better-implemented to ensure a student's studies and also lower the costs of fuel for the districts?

Just home school. Through this mircale of modern technology, kids can be better taught than through any other method known to man! Not to mention that your child will receive his very own "teacher unit" who just happens to also be related to the child! A Win-Win situation for all!

Joking aside, Home Schooling is a very good option, especially in rural areas where familys can better afford to only have one parent working. The results of various studies show that the home schoolers easily outperform their publically educated peers, and that the social aspect isn't as big of an issue as was once feared.

From Wikipedia (which actually links to quite a few more sources):

"The academic effectiveness of homeschooling is largely a settled issue. Numerous studies have confirmed the academic integrity of home education programs, demonstrating that average homeschoolers outperform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. Moreover, the performance gaps between minorities and gender that plague public schools are virtually non-existent amongst homeschooled students. Source"

---

"According to the findings, children who were schooled at home 'gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society...at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children.'

"The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough maintains that 'insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children.'" Source

Technology only bolsters the abilities of home schoolers. Where as a home schooler of my generation had to be satified with the curriculum, materials the parents could afford, and the local library (an excellent source itself), modern school children can find information on virtually ANY issue simply by checking the Internet. Also, whereas labs done by my generation had to be performed by video tape, the modern generation is capable of actually video conferencing with a lab instructor for more precise education.

Isn't modern technology wonderful? ;-)

Re:Easy

[nomadic]

Just home school. Through this mircale of modern technology, kids can be better taught than through any other method known to man! Not to mention that your child will receive his very own "teacher unit" who just happens to also be related to the child! A Win-Win situation for all!

And that "teacher unit" will in the majority of cases not be competent to teach every subject at the high school level. And in addition to overestimating their own competence, homeschooling parents also have a tendency to overestimate their child's desire to spend time with them. Your kids don't like you that much. Finally, you should at least recognize that a large majority of homeschooling is done for religious reasons. Teaching children creationism over evolution, or that real soon now the end of the world will come, or that the world is 4000 years old, is teaching them lies, and certainly not readying them for the real world.

The results of various studies show that the home schoolers easily outperform their publically educated peers, and that the social aspect isn't as big of an issue as was once feared.

No, the studies may imply that ON AVERAGE home schoolers outperform publicly educated peers, but that's different than the absolute terms you're phrasing it in. And do the studies correct for the fact that homeschooling parents by definition are a) usually above a certain income bracket and b) take more of an interest in their child's education, both of which are indicia of success for traditionally schooled children?

The academic effectiveness of homeschooling is largely a settled issue. Numerous studies have confirmed the academic integrity of home education programs, demonstrating that average homeschoolers outperform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. Moreover, the performance gaps between minorities and gender that plague public schools are virtually non-existent amongst homeschooled students. Source [Home School Legal Defense Association]

Your source is so biased as to completely invalidate any assertion they make.

The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough maintains that 'insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children.'" Source

This source is definitely better, but still a little suspect, considering education studies as an academic field is notorious for it's shoddy research methodology. Take, for example, the vague term of "self-concept" bandied about in that article. Also note the statement "and many parents are anxious about the physical well being of their children in an increasingly more violent school setting". This is one of the central criticisms levelled at public schools by homeschooling advocates, and it seems to be based on a sort of vague, media-driven conception that isn't necessarily true. Violence rates in school go through cycles, and in the past few years schools have become for the most part safer.

Re:Easy

[AKAImBatman]

And that "teacher unit" will in the majority of cases not be competent to teach every subject at the high school level.

That's why it's very important to pick the proper curriculum. Public school books expect the teacher to provide most of the information verbally. In many of the curriculums designed for home schoolers, the books provide sufficient information to teach the child and allow the parent to understand and help the child if needed.

homeschooling parents also have a tendency to overestimate their child's desire to spend time with them.

I actually didn't see my mother very much. Most of our work was done in the morning, and she'd correct the work and perform one-on-one sessions in the afternoon. If all went well, we could actually be done with our schoolwork within five hours of work.

Finally, you should at least recognize that a large majority of homeschooling is done for religious reasons.

Irrelevant. If it produces better results as a whole, it doesn't matter what the reasons behind the practice are.

No, the studies may imply that ON AVERAGE home schoolers outperform publicly educated peers, but that's different than the absolute terms you're phrasing it in. ...
Your source is so biased as to completely invalidate any assertion they make.

Alright, let's try what you refer to as "[A] source [that] is definitely better.":

MAJOR FINDINGS - ACHIEVEMENT
Almost 25% of home school students were enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools.

Home school student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade (typically in the 70th to 80th percentile) were well above those of public and Catholic/Private school students.

On average, home school students in grades 1 to 4 performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests.

Students who had been home schooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs.

There were no meaningful differences in achievement by gender, whether the student was enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether a parent held a state issued teaching certificate.
---
Even with a conservative analysis of the data, the achievement levels of the home school students in the study were exceptional. Within each grade level and each skill area, the median scores for home school students fell between the 70th and 80th percentile of students nationwide and between the 60th and 70th percentile of Catholic/Private school students. For younger students, this is a one year lead. By the time home school students are in 8th grade, they are four years ahead of their public/private school counterparts.

The results are consistent with previous studies of the achievement of home school students. Source

I dare you to find a study that contradicts these results.

This source is definitely better, but still a little suspect, considering education studies as an academic field is notorious for it's shoddy research methodology.

Arguable, perhaps, but I'd be very interested if you could produce studies showing the opposite. I think you'll find that *all* studies done (no matter by whom) show that Home Schooling has shown superior performance in all areas of children's lives.

Schooling at home not an option for many

[Anonymous Coward]

School is basically a daycare for most families. Even if they have high-speed internet access, they can't leave their kids home alone when both parents work.

Don't forget the social aspect

[Mystical Presence]

Part of going to school is also to teach kids how to be social and interact with others.

How does/would home schooling deal with this aspect?

Distance education

[Gary Destruction]

Distance education could be a possible solution. However, it would not be without some major issues. First of all, the ability for children to learn with distance education would be an issue. Age would definitely be a factor in that regard because they may or may not have the discipline or concentration to handle it.

Secondly, there are some social implications. Distance education means that kids would not be interacting with other kids in the physical sense. They would be in front of a screen. That may or may not socially impact them. On another note, distance education could mean the end of school shootings as we know it. Kids would have the Internet to provide some protection from being made fun of because there is no visual contact with other students.

A third issue with distance education is the obesity epidemic. As far as I know, there are no gym classes with distanced education. That also means no playground. And if children become attached to the computer, they will less likely to be physically active. This also adds the question of how distance education would impact extra curricular activities.

A definite advantage of distance education is that it would teach children to use proper netiquette. It can also teach them ethical computer usage. Another advantage of distance education is that school buildings wouldn't bee needed which means lower costs. That includes janitorial work as well as electricity, property maintenance, etc. There would be a building, but none that has the requirements of a school building.

They could

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

- Organize adult-supervised bicycle rides for kids who live within 3 miles of their schools

- Stop buying computers for primary schools that provide little educational value compared to cheap books and good teachers. The savings could pay for school bus

- Replace old school bus with efficient new ones. Perhaps even a hybrid concept or something similar. Very high cost upfront, but gas savings.

- Raise taxes. Gap! yes! raise *YOUR* taxes so that *YOUR* children may go to school and have a chance at a good education and a good future, a concept America as a whole has completely forgotten for some reason.

Re:They could

[hawkbug]

Yeah, I was just gonna chime in on that one - my Dad was a school administrator for 30 years. Anytime a local city resolution was going to be passed to help pay for school things, people came out and protested like mad, mostly the older farmers who didn't have kids - or if they did, they were long grown up and gone by now. It was always impossible to get things like that passed to help schools, so schools always operated with a very small budget.

The sad thing is, a good education system just doesn't help people with kids - it helps our society as a whole, so I'm not opposed to having slightly higher taxes if the money is used wisely in the school district.

Re:They could

[manifestcommunisto]

Raise taxes. Gap! yes! raise *YOUR* taxes so that *YOUR* children may go to school and have a chance at a good education and a good future, a concept America as a whole has completely forgotten for some reason.

I don't have children, you insensitive clod!

,p> How about you stop asking for taxes (i.e. the public) to pay for your kid's education, and send your kid to a private school so you could pay for your own kids instead of milking people like me.

Re:They could

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget raising taxes. I don't have any kids, and I pay quite enough in property taxes to the schools, thank you very much.

If YOU had the kid, YOU take the kid to school. YOU figure it out. Leave my pocketbook out of it. If YOU don't want to take your own kid to school, then how about YOU pay more for the kid to take the bus because it's a convenience for YOU.

When I was in school - I walked in rain, snow, sleet, etc., or rode my 10-speed when the weather was nice. If it was really cold, I got a ride from mom. But I never took the bus because we lived about 2 miles from the school.... not far enough to take the bus.

Now as I drive to work, I see a zillion little kids all waiting to take the bus, and THEY ARE ALL FAT. Fuck that - if I had kids, they'd be walking their asses to school.

The only kids that should be allowed to take the bus are the handicapped ones, and I've known some handicapped kids who would rather wheelchair it down the street than take the "short bus"...

When I lived in the City, my mom paid a girl that lived down the street from us to walk me to/from school every day... That was at least 20 blocks one way.

We had crossing guards at the main streets, and used patrol boys on the side streets (we had orange belts, and crossed the kids on the side streets... We started at 5th grade or so... I think I still have my belt.

I fail to see what the difference is now...

Besides the handicapped, School busses should be reserved for field trips.

Fuel efficient technology/What are you getting at?

[frostyboy]

With the mention of fiber connected homes and broadband connectivity, I cannot help but think perhaps the poster has some sort of idea like: "well we don't need schools anymore, let's have all the kids learn at home!" That's a beast of a discussion in and of itself.

As for the main question of how technology in general can help save money now being spent on fuel for school buses, the immediate choices are more obvious. They include things like hybridization of the vehicles, natural-gas burning buses, and other forms of making the fleet more fuel-efficient. It's only a matter of time before some of the efficiency improvements we're starting to see in the family car show up in school buses.

Visit the oldest currently running "webcam" on the internet

Re:So, in short, how can tech help homeschool?

[AKAImBatman]

No, I think the question he's trying to ask is, "How do we home school without home schooling?"

And the answer is, "Just home school the child. The result will be that your child will do *better* acedemically and socially."

The downside is that home schooling isn't for everyone. I was home schooled, but my wife doesn't feel up to the challenge. So we send our kids to a private school. Even then, it was VERY difficult finding a school that was both affordable and met the needs of our child.

Only problem...

[Mr. Underbridge]

...is the kids who were home schooled typically lack social skills.

Socialization?

[Will_Malverson]

I went to 13 years of public school, and all it taught me was how to interact with people born between October 15, 1974, and October 14, 1975. When I got out into the real world, I had no idea how to interact as an equal with people who were 20 years my senior.

I'll leave up to the other replies to discuss whether or not the socialization aspect of public school is otherwise a good thing.

Then you are the problem

[Chemisor]

> What makes you think that most parents are
> qualified to be teachers? In all subjects?

The fact that most parents have finished high school and supposedly have a diploma signifying that they know all the stuff they are supposed to know. If you don't then how can you justify keeping your diploma? If you do, then you should be able to explain it to your kids. If you can't, then you know you don't know it, and should probably refresh your knowledge.

Re:Then you are the problem

[Malor]

Sure, but you're talking about a teacher that has to teach 50 kids at a time, and gets a new set of 50 kids every year. He or she will need a wide variety of teaching methods to reach all the different learning styles.

A homeschool teacher would very rarely have more than two or three students, and what with the living together constantly thing, it's likely that the kid would adapt to nearly any teaching style. Kids are like that. And, even if the kid can't adapt, a teacher with so few students can spent a lot more time adapting his or her style to suit.

Teaching is not some deep mystery that only the Privileged Few are able to do. At one time in this country, nearly everyone was homeschooled.... the idea of regimented public school was bitterly, bitterly fought in some places.

Parents have been teaching their children since the Stone Age. Now, I'm not saying modern parents should be doing it without outside help. I'd strongly suggest reviewing a professional curriculum to at least familiarize oneself with what's being taught in public schools. But, overall, I see no reason to doubt that most parents could do a fine job of educating their kids.

And, let me tell you, they sure couldn't do a lot worse than a lot of the public schools. You just would not believe how ignorant these supposedly 'educated' children often are. Stone Age all over again.

Missing the bigger picture

[rearden]

While I generally applaud increasing or adding to our general use of technology in helping to solve US educational deficiencies or to just help keep our educational system in tune with the world; on this one I have to call into question the logic of a technological solution to a social / infrastructure issue. As much as school is an educational institution, for many it is also a social institution, and while many home schooled groups do resolve this missing ingredient of regular social interaction among peers many do not. School is where our children learn (or fail to) how to interact, respond to, and respect others and other groups. That aside, I think the greater concern is that we are looking to technology to resolve a financial issue rather than a methedoligy or substance issue. Providing home schooling for moral, ethical, or simply quality issues is one thing, but providing it as a means to lower fuel cost comes across to me as fixing the symptom and not the problem.

If we want to reduce our fuel cost for schools, let's look at mass transportation. We need to consider doing like the MTA's (Mass Transit Authorities) and switch to cleaner, more efficient fuels for schools buses (CNG, etc). In metro areas we need to encourage having kids ride the metro bus system instead of maintaining two bus systems (school and general transit). We could place a "school official" (a.k.a- the current bus driver) on each MTA bus that picks up kids, and then they would be responsible for safety and counting fares. This would reduce fuel and maintenance cost for both the school system and the MTA, it would also introduce social change in our society by removing the stigma of riding public transportation. Over all it would be a benefit to many, and in rural areas the application of alternative fuels and more efficient modern buses would most likely be a better solution than attempting to build out some expensive county wide internet/ multimedia network infrastructure.

Trying to solve a social/ infrastructure problem in life by throwing more technology at it generally does nothing but complicate the situation. Social & infrastructure problems require a social or infrastructure solution. Technology is not the end all be all solution- the tech bubble should have taught us that.

Just my thoughts....

De-Socialize schools?

[TheSync]

How about allowing the free market to come up with effective solutions to schooling instead of lockng entire communities into government monopolies.

Open Source Textbooks

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the requests we constantly hear about (being as I'm a) out of school and b) not a parent) is the need for text books.

Text books are HORRIBLY expensive.

Why can't a State DOE contract out the creation of school books, just like they do software, and then distribute those books electronically to the campuses where they can either access them directly via computers, or they can simply print them out at bulk printers.

I mean, seriously, does teaching Algebra really change that dramatically over the years? How about having an always current Science or History book, updated annually.

You're telling me that you can't find an author willing to take $50-100K to create a solid text book? State pays them once and then has perpetual copyright and redistribution rights (or even shared copyright). Then the State can offer these books as options to the districts.

Re:Oh boy, you asked for it...

[gbutler69]

WOW! I really feel the need to respond to this. Don't get all freaky or anything. I'm sure many people are going to fly off the handle at what this "gentleman" just said; however, I'd like to analyze his point of view a little. First, I'd like to make note of some important facts from the above: 1. ..nerdy white kid... 2. ...all sorts of schools...7 in all... 3. considerable in school violence What do these facts imply? 1. Implies that this person is someone who is not inclined towards violence and has a personality that is not aggressive (or perhaps passive-aggressive more likely) and is not at the top of the social heap. 2. Poor. Likely working class. Probably not incredibly stable home life/economic situation. 3. Lived in "Inner-City" school populated with more poor, likely working class, with few stable homes/economic situations. Now, some of you might say: Obviously, this guy is a racist jackass and probably deserves what he got. Also, he might say, "I think all niggers should die for what was done to me". How did this state of affairs arise? What can be done about it? Well, I think I can speak a little from experience. I could talk of similiar situations and a similiar background for myself. I recall several times during my younger years when incidents such as those described caused me to have a similiar attitude for a short time. Trust me, it is really, really tough to be magnanimous when you are being victimized or you see others being victimized. The problem is a general cycle of violence. Human beings are, in general, extremely self-centered, selfish organisms who want as many resources for themselves as possible and will do nearly anything to obtain them. People cooperate with one another and form civilizations because they feel they get a better deal that way than if they simply went around cracking everyone on the head. Some people, however, do not feel they are getting a better deal. Some of them are right. If they were enslaved, or, if they were beaten and maligned and neglected by their parents (maybe partly because they were slaves and beaten and maligned and neglected by their masters) they will go forth into the world with hatred and attempt to "take" what they can without regard to their fellow man. Now, unfortunately, those who may or may not have a legitimate beef with with how they've been treated in life may take out their dissatisfaction and aggression on entirely innocent parties. THIS IS 100% WRONG AND CANNOT BE CONDONED! Society today wants to have it both ways. We want to be absolved of abuses past victims (or more likely ancestors) experienced without doing anything to break the cycle of violence. This will not work. What can be done about it? I believe it is unacceptable for someone to roll-over and allow themselves to be abused for any reason. It is also unacceptable to go forth and abuse others without reason (in fact, I'd say it is simply unacceptable to abuse period). So, the simple solution is this. Follow the "Golden Rule" that is enshrined in every major (and minor as far as I know) religion in the world, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (NOTE: It is not, "..as they have done unto you.."). What do I mean by this? If someone attacks or abuses you, fight back with everything you have. Never, ever permit someone to abuse you. On the other hand, and more importantly, NEVER EVER abuse anyone else. Simple, right? If only it were so. Again you come back to the whole "Selfish/Self-Centered" thing. I guess that's why society needs religion (NOTE: I am an atheist). If it were all this simple, things would be really great and I wouldn't have had to see people shoot their spouses on their front lawn when I was 13 years old, and I wouldn't have had to have seen a drunken man throw his baby into the street of traffic because his wife/girlfriend was yelling at him because he "drank" the money they needed to buy baby formula, etc, etc, etc, and the above man wouldn't hate "niggers" (to use his turn of phra

Will not work

[Anonymous Coward]

For many reasons, will not work.

1. You cannot force people to make a neighborhood safe. If the majority of the people won't work to make it safe, it will not matter what the safety minded minority want. Result: If the safety minded people can only get their kid to a safe school by moving, they will move.

2. If the kid can't get the kind of education he/she or their parents want, they will move to be attend the "magnet" school that provides what they want.

3. Nation-wide federally funded schools would be a disaster. Since when has the politicos in DC known how to do anything correct at a local level? If anything, the feds are already too involved.

At my district they wanted to reform the budget, save some money across the board. At the time, I asked a board member how it was going. He stated it was terrible and frustrating. He stated that more than 70% of the budget could not be changed in any way because of federal and state mandates. They had to spend money for programs and things that we don't need but the laws demand.

4. I pay taxes for the public schools whether my kids attend or not. Why should I be penalized for sending my kids to a private school by spending even more of my own money?

Eliminating private schools will not automatically improve the public ones. It primarily would do two things: Make the public schools worse because they would then have an absolute monopoly and, again, the people that care will move to the good schools. And there will be good and bad schools no matter how enforcement same-ness is tried.

It is not the cure. It would only segregate things more and make the bad even worse. People that care enough about their kids' education will get around the "forced improvement" by changing their residence.

Tech is miniscule - get the books handled first !

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.opensourcetext.org/

California spends $400,000,000.00 each year on K-12 textbooks.

If California printed their own textbooks from open content, freely available books, they would be able to spend the $400 million elsewhere or better yet return it to the citizens.

Tech fiber, internet access, etc just /. tech centric again, fixing the most basic problems with public schools would be hundreds of times more cost effective.