Moderator: Community Team
DoomYoshi wrote:No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.
Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.
DoomYoshi wrote:In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.
BigBallinStalin wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.
Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.
Disagree.DoomYoshi wrote:In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.
Agree.
Hence, my insisting TGD to define the goal.
thegreekdog wrote:I'm pretty sure BBS and Saxi have a side bet on how long he can string me along until he tells me what's wrong with public education and the alternative to public education that will achieve the goal of education.
thegreekdog wrote:Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?
Timminz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?
In a free market, what is in someone's best interest is represented by what they value the most. Since all people value different things differently, we can assume that it is not in everyone's best interest to have other people's children educated. Now, we can likely also assume that those who value the education of other people's children, also value educating themselves. So, people who value education (for themselves, and those around them) will end up living in areas with other people who value education, while those who value education lower will live in their own areas around other people who don't value education.
Free market solution ftw!
[/quote]thegreekdog wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Tgd has me sold so far.
My main issue with public education is something I hope you could answer Tgd.
Being that the role of education is to make educated citizens, how can we educate children without indoctrinating them? Especially with teachers being public employees, they are usually brainwashing children to believe in leftist propaganda.
Another form of indoctrination I worry about is religious. Should public education be forcibly universal?
Do all people need education? For example, is it ok if I don't send my child sex slave to school?
These look like three main issues.
(1) Indoctrination
Generally (and I use the term loosely), indoctrination can only really happen in classes like history or politics or social studies. Perhaps English or literature classes. Science and mathematics are not really things where one can get indoctrinated. If we just take the "indoctrinatable (patent pending) classes" (history, social studies) and acknowledge that there is indoctrination happening at public schools, the question I would ask in return is this - why do you care? Parents generally have as much or more control over indoctrinating their children than teachers. I'm not suggesting we ignore the issue, I just think the issue is made way bigger than it is by creationist, revisionist historians, and the like.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.
Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.
Disagree.DoomYoshi wrote:In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.
Agree.
Hence, my insisting TGD to define the goal.
Insisting schmisisting. I asked the question of what the goal is many posts ago. We need to agree on the goal first before we can debate on the best ways to get to the goal.
The question, for your reference: Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?
If the answer to that question is yes, then we can move on to determining the best way to educate all children. If the answer to that question is no, then we need to redefine what our goal is so we can best determine the way to reach the goal.
DoomYoshi wrote:No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.
Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.
Lootifer wrote:Goal: to uniformly deliver the curriculum to all American children between the age of 5 and 18.
Means: Delivery and curriculum be optimised based on academic research.
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:No, the way of determining an effectiveness is to compare to results of other systems. Alternately, you can set a minimum standard to test again. Either way, you can't just say: is education working without (preferably) previously defining a minimum standard or looking at other systems.
Once again, the nearest store and Shanghai are two different places, I can not be in both (unless I live in Shanghai). So the point doesn't matter.
Disagree.DoomYoshi wrote:In other words: "education" is not a concisely and precisely defined goal. "nearest store" is.
Agree.
Hence, my insisting TGD to define the goal.
Insisting schmisisting. I asked the question of what the goal is many posts ago. We need to agree on the goal first before we can debate on the best ways to get to the goal.
The question, for your reference: Is it in an individual's (or group's) best interest for other peoples' children to be educated?
If the answer to that question is yes, then we can move on to determining the best way to educate all children. If the answer to that question is no, then we need to redefine what our goal is so we can best determine the way to reach the goal.
What is our goal?
What are our means?
DoomYoshi wrote:But BBS, you haven't declared an intended level/qulaity of education. So there is no way to know if we have reached that level until you define the intended level. Secondly, because the level is undefined, we could assume it to be impossible. If my goal is to cease material existence and will myself into mathematical reality, and I end up walking to shanghai, have I been inefficient? There is no contradiction. You are saying the same thing I am saying but denying it.
Definition of 'Efficiency'
A level of performance that describes a process that uses the lowest amount of inputs to create the greatest amount of outputs. Efficiency relates to the use of all inputs in producing any given output, including personal time and energy.
Investopedia explains 'Efficiency'
Efficiency is an important attribute because all inputs are scarce. Time, money and raw materials are limited, so it makes sense to try to conserve them while maintaining an acceptable level of output or a general production level.
Being efficient simply means reducing the amount of wasted inputs.
wiki wrote:"In economics, the term economic efficiency refers to the use of resources so as to maximize the production of goods and services"
"Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost."
EconLib.org wrote:To economists, efficiency is a relationship between ends and means. When we call a situation inefficient, we are claiming that we could achieve the desired ends with less means, or that the means employed could produce more of the ends desired. āLessā and āmoreā in this context necessarily refer to less and more value. Thus, economic efficiency is measured not by the relationship between the physical quantities of ends and means, but by the relationship between the value of the ends and the value of the means.
The inescapably evaluative nature of the concept raises a fundamental question for every attempt to talk about the efficiency of any process or institution: Whose valuations do we use, and how shall they be weighted? Economic efficiency makes use of monetary evaluations.
From this perspective a parcel of land is used with maximum economic efficiency when it comes under the control of the party who is willing (which implies able) to pay the largest amount of money to obtain that control. The proof that a particular resource is being used efficiently is that no one is willing to pay more in order to divert it to some other use.
wiki wrote:Effectiveness is the capability of producing a desired result. When something is deemed effective, it means it has an intended or expected outcome,
wiki wrote:In medicine, effectiveness relates to how well a treatment works in practice
wiki wrote:In management, effectiveness relates to getting the right things done. Peter Drucker reminds us that āeffectiveness can and must be learned.ā
wiki wrote:Efficacy, efficiency, and effectivity are terms that can, in some cases, be interchangeable with the term effectiveness. The word effective is sometimes used in a quantitative way, "being very effective or not very effective". However, neither effectiveness, nor effectively, inform about the direction (positive or negative) and the comparison to a standard of the given effect. Efficacy, on the other hand, is the extent to which a desired affect is achieved; the ability to produce a desired amount of the desired effect, or the success in achieving a given goal. Contrary to the term efficiency, the focus of efficacy is the achievement as such, not the resources spent in achieving the desired effect. Therefore, what is effective is not necessarily efficacious, and what is efficacious is not necessarily efficient[5]
thegreekdog wrote:You tell me mon frere. Let's start with your goal.
My goal is to provide education to all the children living in the United States at some minimum level (as yet to be determined). But let's put that aside for now... what is your goal?
Lootifer wrote:Funnily enough in a optimised education system I'd say you'd actually do that for a portion of the school population (kids identified as self learners).
Lootifer wrote:Obviously I skimped out on the means question. It would require a lot of work to establish a robust centrally run education system that matches a free market solution in terms of efficiency. But I believe its possible, and due to the nature of children and their education (we have a responsibility as a society to ensure every child has a fair and equal start to their life) the extra effort is worth it.
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:You tell me mon frere. Let's start with your goal.
My goal is to provide education to all the children living in the United States at some minimum level (as yet to be determined). But let's put that aside for now... what is your goal?
My goal is to pursue the upper echelons of higher education! To scale the "Ivory Tower", reach the summit, turn around casually, and scream at the masses:
PPPTTTTTTT!!!!! SUCK IT!!!!!
(I haven't decided how many middle fingers I wish to extend. A dilemma, I know).
Then I get paid to give lectures and teach kids, teenagers, and these older kids called "young adults." So, I'd end up educating some small fraction of people through the relatively free market.
That's free markets, babe, "not your central plan." OHHH!!!!
BigBallinStalin wrote:Lootifer wrote:Funnily enough in a optimised education system I'd say you'd actually do that for a portion of the school population (kids identified as self learners).
I know, right?Lootifer wrote:Obviously I skimped out on the means question. It would require a lot of work to establish a robust centrally run education system that matches a free market solution in terms of efficiency. But I believe its possible, and due to the nature of children and their education (we have a responsibility as a society to ensure every child has a fair and equal start to their life) the extra effort is worth it.
It would be if you could centrally plan it within a charter city--where people have that freedom of association, voluntary and explicit 'social' contracts, and all that jazz.
(But then again, if there were many charter cities, or many central planners within a charter city, then we'd be in a market of 'public' education).
With government as is, technocracy or streamlined central planning is impossible. The incentive structure for producers and consumers is a mess, (e.g. the consumers can't 'vote with their feet'--regarding public schools, and producers like government employees generally are very difficult to lay off).
In grades 4 and 8 for both reading and mathematics, students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools. The average difference in school means ranged from almost 8 points for grade 4 mathematics, to about 18 points for grade 8 reading. The average differences were all statistically significant. Adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics resulted in reductions in all four average differences of approximately 11 to 14 points. Based on adjusted school means, the average for public schools was significantly higher than the average for private schools for grade 4 mathematics, while the average for private schools was significantly higher than the average for public schools for grade 8 reading. The average differences in adjusted school means for both grade 4 reading and grade 8 mathematics were not significantly different from zero.
Comparisons were also carried out with subsets of private schools categorized by sectarian affiliation. After adjusting for student characteristics, raw score average differences were reduced by about 11 to 15 points. In grade 4, Catholic and Lutheran schools were each compared to public schools. For both reading and mathematics, the results were generally similar to those based on all private schools. In grade 8, Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools were each compared to public schools. For Catholic and Lutheran schools for both reading and mathematics, the results were again similar to those based on all private schools. For Conservative Christian schools, the average adjusted school mean in reading was not significantly different from that of public schools. In mathematics, the average adjusted school mean for Conservative Christian schools was significantly lower than that of public schools.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: ConfederateSS