Newt Gingrich: Let's End Adolescence

[Seedle]

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.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Mr. Gingrich characterizes adolescence as a failed experiment. But in the time before the problem arose, children were regarded as mini-adults. Thus, no age of consent, almost no limits on what drugs could be consumed, no age limit on marraige except parental objections -- which were, in turn, absolutely understood as final. No judge or preacher would let a girl/woman be married without a relative to "give her away."

Additionally, in that time there were no high schools or middle schools to speak of -- the substitute were "preparatory schools," very private and very expensive. The role of elementary education was to prepare the children for full participation in society -- readin', writin', and 'rithmetic. Children were pulled from school for work such as planting and harvesting, making repairs to damaged buildings --whether by fire or weather, and loading and hauling.

Then, nothing moved at greater than the speed a horse can run unless it traveled on a track, guns fired one bullet at a time, and almost everyone had regular access to at least one musket/rifle. Almost all non-farm jobs were tiered to a structure like Apprentice, Assistant, Journeyman, Master, none of which was taught in school. Lastly, every white person in America was assumed to be a Christian and could expect to be heavily harrassed if he didn't attend church. Non-whites were either slaves, savages, or Catholic (horror of horrors). I'm sure Newt thinks that was a better world, but frankly it sounds like Hell to me.

If we need to redefine the age of consent, drinking, military service, marraige, driving, full-time work, then let's have that discussion-- not based on an imaginary "what was," but on a decision as to what should be. The current education system is clearly producing substandard results. The system clearly lacks discipline both self- and external. The rewards and punishments are too abstract for the young and too obvious to the rest of us. But this situation came about not due to to a failed experiment but based on a lot of half-baked ideas on how to protect and shelter children, mostly introduced after WW II.

His point isn't that we should just turn back the clock 100 years. Obviously we live in a different world now. The thing you should take from his article is that for most of human history people took on adult responsibility in their teens and were successful. There is no biological reason for our current attitude toward youth.

That is the point. Obviously any specifics of any proposal will need to be examined in light of the present day.

But just like it isn't right to wish for a golden yesteryear full of knickers, school houses and Americana that never was, it also isn't right to fear a dark past of sweatshops, kids in coal mines and other distopian images of the past. The good and bad parts of the 19th century are no longer with us. We need to find a way forward for today. Finding a solution to present problems that involve a speedier transition to adulthood would benefit the 21st century greatly.

[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?

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Public schools ARE social engineering. A drinking age IS social engineering. 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.

Newt sees that our current model of social engineering isn't working and is suggesting a better way of going about it.

Social engineering is beside the point. Modern society is based almost entirely on social engineering. So many people cannot live so closely without that. One aspect is not working as we envisioned, says Newt, quite rightly. However, the failure could be in the vision, in the methodology, or in the system.

1) Do we expect too little, define our expectations poorly?

2) Does the current school structure have inherent weaknesses such as underpaid teachers, lack of discipline, indeterminent standards (see # 1)?

3A) Is 12 years of non-collegiate education too much? Is it reasonable to ask youngsters to keep their hormones in check for SIX years? Does the system fail to provide a degree of specialization for the students based on desire and displayed skills at the high school level? (We all know about boredom in middle and high schools.)

3B) Are schools too much like jails? Do too many students figure that out while still in the institution?

[OzzyKP]

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.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer


Social engineering is beside the point. Modern society is based almost entirely on social engineering. So many people cannot live so closely without that. One aspect is not working as we envisioned, says Newt, quite rightly. However, the failure could be in the vision, in the methodology, or in the system.

1) Do we expect too little, define our expectations poorly?

2) Does the current school structure have inherent weaknesses such as underpaid teachers, lack of discipline, indeterminent standards (see # 1)?

3A) Is 12 years of non-collegiate education too much? Is it reasonable to ask youngsters to keep their hormones in check for SIX years? Does the system fail to provide a degree of specialization for the students based on desire and displayed skills at the high school level? (We all know about boredom in middle and high schools.)

3B) Are schools too much like jails? Do too many students figure that out while still in the institution?

Yes, sorta and yes/yes.

[DirtyMartini]

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.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Dis
and how would you change the culture? You can't do it by force. Well you could... but that would imply a fascist type goverment.

And getting up on TV and lecturing kids to shape up or ship out isn't the way to change culture. You can't punish, demand, lecture, or cajole people to be responsible. Giving people responsibility is the only thing to make one responsible.

It's not easy, that's for sure. But there's a huge marketing machine dedicated to advancing the culture of teenage irresponsibility. The best thing to do is keep producing articles, blog posts, etc which document the historical invention of the teenager. Hell, maybe even sneak the idea into history or sociology lessons at high school.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Newt has an excellent idea.

Lets start with all the laws and set them to 18. That would be a good start. Full driving at 18, no restrictions. Drinking at 18, no restrictions. Marriage, and the rest at 18, no restrictions.

As for paying kids to go to school, I think that's a bad idea.

1. The teacher's union has too much power. Don't give them more money to distribute as they see fit.

2. If you do give money, do what we do up here. 500 dollars at graduation if you get your grades at a certain level.

Tie it into standardised tests, so that the teachers have NO say in who gets the money.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

[Asher]

I like how you never fail to **** up the basics, Ben.

Provincial examinations at all grade 12 subjects including the SAT.

Why should Provinces (in Canada) include the SAT (an American test) in the grade 12 curriculum?

I'm also endlessly amused by the logic that only schools already performing well should receive adequate funding.

If you're a school with underperforming students, let's take more money from them. Christian values?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Look at it this way.

Per pupil funding is roughly 8k a year here in BC.

Tag 8k funding to 80 percent average on assessed tests.

If the school averages 50 percent per student, they will received 5k per student per year.

If the school averages 100 percent per student, they receive 10k per year maximum.

If the average student gets 10 percent, then they will get 1k per student, which will never happen.

[Boris Godunov]

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.