We here at Spending It are pleased to be guest hosting the 5th Edition of the Personal Finance News Carnival this week.  As you can see below, this edition of the Carnival has a nice variety of personal finance articles that were submitted from many d…

Interesting points you’ve made there.

I think much of the educational reforms undertaken in the US is patchwork. Many parents have abdicated the responsibility of parenting to the state, leaving the government to (at least) worry about, if not care for children financially (x percentage of children live in poverty, what do we do!) to their emotional well-being (let’s make sure they don’t bring firearms to school and shoot everyone!), to morality (are we only imbuing materialism in school without infusing it with morality tales!), to their future productive potentials (how to make them more creative, but with the proper technical foundations!).

So to your last point, absolutely. Parents should do more. But many don’t. And in the interest of societal well-being, the state and its appointed education lieutenants step in. Is that the preferred method of parenting/education? No. Educators do not, and cannot replace parents or family. But in lieu of such happy occurrences, it’s the next, and for many, the last best thing.

As to your point of age and moldibility (is that a word? haha), I don’t know. I tend to think of education, and growth of children, as a continuous process. For those less privileged (I’m assuming when it comes to No Child Left Behind, we’re not talking about upper/middle-class kids), the will to learn come early and never leave, some will never have it without the proper environment and social pressure. For the vast number of kids in the middle, it takes a push or two from external influences: friends, educators, some turning event. I’ve heard of experimental high schools in DC (or was it New York?) where low-income kids enroll, and do extremely well. The measure of “wellness” is mostly standardized testing scores and college admission rates.

I think this may be a good rebuttal to your point. Kids in middle/high school need the technical foundation to build on (which is what you are saying) for their creative potential to be unleashed in the future (higher education was meant to serve that purpose before it became ubiquitous and accessible for everyone). So I think compulsory education should ensure most children least have a standardized level of knowledge and skills to face the basic challenges of life. Some of those that make it to college may not turn out to be movers and shakers, but at least they are instilled with work ethics and an education that they can later deploy to move up in life.

Now the idea is as above, but execution is something else. For example, I don’t think undergraduate educations are really doing the job properly, with emphasis on publishing instead of teaching for faculty members, but that’s another story.

Interesting points you’ve made there.

I think much of the educational reforms undertaken in the US is patchwork. Many parents have abdicated the responsibility of parenting to the state, leaving the government to (at least) worry about, if not care for children financially (x percentage of children live in poverty, what do we do!) to their emotional well-being (let’s make sure they don’t bring firearms to school and shoot everyone!), to morality (are we only imbuing materialism in school without infusing it with morality tales!), to their future productive potentials (how to make them more creative, but with the proper technical foundations!).

So to your last point, absolutely. Parents should do more. But many don’t. And in the interest of societal well-being, the state and its appointed education lieutenants step in. Is that the preferred method of parenting/education? No. Educators do not, and cannot replace parents or family. But in lieu of such happy occurrences, it’s the next, and for many, the last best thing.

As to your point of age and moldibility (is that a word? haha), I don’t know. I tend to think of education, and growth of children, as a continuous process. For those less privileged (I’m assuming when it comes to No Child Left Behind, we’re not talking about upper/middle-class kids), the will to learn come early and never leave, some will never have it without the proper environment and social pressure. For the vast number of kids in the middle, it takes a push or two from external influences: friends, educators, some turning event. I’ve heard of experimental high schools in DC (or was it New York?) where low-income kids enroll, and do extremely well. The measure of “wellness” is mostly standardized testing scores and college admission rates.

I think this may be a good rebuttal to your point. Kids in middle/high school need the technical foundation to build on (which is what you are saying) for their creative potential to be unleashed in the future (higher education was meant to serve that purpose before it became ubiquitous and accessible for everyone). So I think compulsory education should ensure most children least have a standardized level of knowledge and skills to face the basic challenges of life. Some of those that make it to college may not turn out to be movers and shakers, but at least they are instilled with work ethics and an education that they can later deploy to move up in life.

Now the idea is as above, but execution is something else. For example, I don’t think undergraduate educations are really doing the job properly, with emphasis on publishing instead of teaching for faculty members, but that’s another story.

You definitely put a lot of food for thought on the table. I guess people have debated what the right way is for education going forward. On the one hand, the US is definitely worried about the fact that American kids generally fare nowhere near as good as Asian kids might, yet the all-round ability and creative abilities in the American education system are probably quite high.

What if though – the problems are starting much before? I don’t know what your take on No Child Left Behind is, but I think its really made no difference – if anything schools are just now focused on a narrower field of vision. But here’s the problem – there is really too much choice in the education system here! You can’t have a 12 year old choose between studying physics and chemistry for instance – education is not comprised of individual subjects but needs to be more holistic. NCLB has contributed to this effect of wearing blinders, I believe.

I just think that the point you raise about focusing on creating the next generation of interpreters misses one key point. The most moldable minds are not those that are in universities right now – they are in the primary schools, junior high and high schools and if they do not have a good foundation, then they most certainly will not be able to build anything further.

And last but not least – what about the family? We’ve become much too reliant on the system to “bail us out”. Isn’t it as much the parent’s responsibility to teach the children as much as the school’s? If, as a parent, you don’t take an interest in your kid’s education, how can you expect your child to do the same?

You definitely put a lot of food for thought on the table. I guess people have debated what the right way is for education going forward. On the one hand, the US is definitely worried about the fact that American kids generally fare nowhere near as good as Asian kids might, yet the all-round ability and creative abilities in the American education system are probably quite high.

What if though – the problems are starting much before? I don’t know what your take on No Child Left Behind is, but I think its really made no difference – if anything schools are just now focused on a narrower field of vision. But here’s the problem – there is really too much choice in the education system here! You can’t have a 12 year old choose between studying physics and chemistry for instance – education is not comprised of individual subjects but needs to be more holistic. NCLB has contributed to this effect of wearing blinders, I believe.

I just think that the point you raise about focusing on creating the next generation of interpreters misses one key point. The most moldable minds are not those that are in universities right now – they are in the primary schools, junior high and high schools and if they do not have a good foundation, then they most certainly will not be able to build anything further.

And last but not least – what about the family? We’ve become much too reliant on the system to “bail us out”. Isn’t it as much the parent’s responsibility to teach the children as much as the school’s? If, as a parent, you don’t take an interest in your kid’s education, how can you expect your child to do the same?