How would you change the education system?

[ASU2003]

Education

Obama wants to overhaul education from 'cradle to career' - CNN.com

Do you think there is a problem with the education system would be the first question? Does it cost too much? Are there too many dropouts? In the debate between public vs. private vs. homeschool, which one would be the best? And should the federal government or state decide where education dollars go, or is that something for local cities? Do we need to address the difference in education funding between wealthy cities and poorer cities, or should you get what your parents have paid for?

The next part is what I am concerned with, as I was when I was 14 as well. There is a lot of politics behind what kids are taught after 6th grade it seems. I was concerned that I was getting a censored and biased view of the issues, and that I was being educated for a 9 to 5 job. Getting to school on time, turning in assignments, and not talking to any of my classmates was the norm. There is a lot of pressure to get good grades and score well on standardized tests because you are competing with thousands of other kids for a limited number of career opportunities. There wasn't any education of world issues, personal economics, politics, moral issues*, or human relationships/social skills/acceptance of others. Now the last one, most kids would pass pretty easily, but it is a pretty important life skill that not everyone has.

(*there was debate class, but you had to research whatever side of an issue that was assigned to you)

So, this is what I would like to see happen, or at least how I think I would have had a better education. I did turn out ok though.

0-5, Parents need to teach kids the basic skills and early education things. Let the kids explore and teach them good behavior and such. Education should be fun and not work. Counting, alphabet and basic reading and such.

K-6th grade, I don't think there is any problem here, except that the school year is too long. I went through K-6th grade with very little technology, so as long as you learn the basic education stuff, and have fun PE classes and art/music classes, then it is what it should be. Just because one school does better or has better scores doesn't mean too much, they should be fixed if there are problems though.

7th-12th grade, this is where I think most of the problems are. I would have been much happier to have watched TV and movies from experts in their field on a wide range of topics. There should also be more hands-on experiments and projects. I think that paying companies to take a few students in year 10 or 11 as a co-op worker would be beneficial and teach kids about how things actually happen in the real world. I did this in year 12 for half a day, and I got a lot from the experience. And there should be one day a week when they can research and teach themselves something of their own choosing. And if I had a few thousand dollars, I think I would have learned a whole bunch of stuff about myself by taking a trip around the world when I was 18. Lots of kids do this through the military, Peacecorps or religious groups. Then again, the Internet wasn't as big and things like Google Earth and travel TV shows weren't as popular (or didn't exist) when I was in school. Then again, not all kids are the same, and I'm not quite sure how to best educate young adults about reality without censoring it. Or if they would even care if they were given video games, IM and a cell phone.

So, what do you think of the education system that we have today? Would you change anything about your educational experience?

[roachboy]

there's alot in this topic---i think things will occur to me as time passes that i don't think of now---but for the moment:

from what i've seen teaching in universities, the main thing that high school teaches that's a real problem is intellectual passivity. there's way way too much emphasis on very concrete problem solving and nowhere near enough on encouraging kids to think their way through problems. more generally, kids coming out of high school seem in general to have a very difficult time thinking for themselves, taking intellectual chances, etc.. i've thought for a long time that high school kids should be taught philosophy, should have more seminar-style classes, etc..

the other thing i think would be a very good idea is to institute a year or two between high school and college. maybe a national service thing---maybe something international--but it seems to me that having some kind of break from school in the context of which kids can explore what they're interested in, who they might be turning into, to figure out a bit better what they want to do would have a huge impact on the quality of university education for them.

thinking about this...good thread.

[snowy]

There's a lot to this thread, so I will have to come back to it and address some issues with education further, as the discussion fleshes out. But one thing caught my eye in the OP:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

0-5, Parents need to teach kids the basic skills and early education things. Let the kids explore and teach them good behavior and such. Education should be fun and not work. Counting, alphabet and basic reading and such.

The problem with this statement is bolded. That's right--parents. The problem is parents don't have time to provide all the social and educational intervention a child under the age of 5 requires. Only 10% of families in the United States are the "traditional" family, with a stay-at-home mom. Most families have two working parents or a working single parent. Where do those children go while their parents work? Childcare.

Parents also don't have a lot of time after they are done working to deal with all that it takes to give a child a great foundation; household chores must be done. Also, it's often difficult for parents to critically reflect on raising their child; they're in the trenches, dealing with the day-to-day. Parents aren't professionals, and may not have any idea as to how to go about teaching a child to read. Obviously, a lot of parents do the best they can with what they have, but I think Obama is attempting to acknowledge the fact that most American children under the age of 5 spend their days in childcare.

So what do we do about that? How do we guarantee children a great foundation when it's not entirely in control of the parents to do so? Well, we can start by expanding funding to programs like Head Start, so that low-income children have access to preschool. We can better our certification standards for existing childcare. We can increase the availability of education and training for those who would like to go into the fields of early childhood education; evidence shows that childcare workers with more education provide better care, and we know that children who receive better quality care have better long-term educational outcomes. We can make sure that parents have access to community parenting education resources so that they can optimize the time they do spend with their children.

I'll be back, ASU. There's a lot to address. Heck, I think some of these issues are probably worthy of their own threads.

[spindles]

We are quite lucky in some respects - my wife is a 'stay at home' mum. With reading and writing, we are taking the approach that we should encourage our children to enjoy books - reading books to them should be fun, with learning their letters and how to read a secondary issue. My eldest (who is 4.5) can recognise all the letters and has a pretty good idea what the all sound like, can count really well (a number of the books we have at home include some amount of "how many X's on this page" and he enjoys finding things in pictures. If you can get your kids to appreciate books, it is a huge benefit, but I don't think we are equipped (or most parents are) with the skills to teach him to read and write (except as a addition to what he is learning at pre-school and what he will learn when he reaches infants school next year) - just because someone can read doesn't automatically make me a good reading teacher.

I know in Oz, there already is a focus on skills training late in high school, so if the children are interested in (for example) plumbing or nursing, then some of their school time is spent on more skills based training (outside of the school - at technical colleges etc. and work experience) in an effort to
a) keep them in school longer (in the past some of these students could stop high school at 16 year of age and) so they get a broader education
b) still help to kick start their careers earlier

I'm all for a gap year between high school and university. Whether that is spent working or travelling is for the individual, but think this would provide more balanced university students.

[Willravel]

I'll try to boil it down as much as possible.
- concentrating more on conflict management and problem solving, especially at younger ages
- concentrating less on cookie cutter routines
- concentrating more on creativity
- English class only mandatory k-10, and the last two are literature only. Kids should know grammar backwards and forwards by the time they're in middle school.
- PE includes curriculum on diet and fitness, not just running and dodge ball
- free college for teachers and tripling the current education budget
- an independent and transparent department of government to ensure that schools only teach facts in the math and science department
- longer school day and longer school year
- all teachers must be educated in the subject they teach
- the one and only standardized test, the SAT, will be changed completely in format and content every year. You study for the test by going to high school; no special classes, no special books.
- classes in high school to help kids explore the different careers out there

I can think of a lot more, but that's a good start.

[Bill O'Rights]

Frighteningly enough, Will...I find myself in agreement with most of your suggestions. The only one that I'm wary about is...

Originally Posted by Willravel

- free college for teachers and tripling the current education budget.

Tripling the current budget will, in my opinion, just encourage more waste. Look at the defense budget for a good example of that. Simply tossing more money at the problem won't fix it. And, so far as free college for teachers...I can go along with that...provided that they are required to put in X amount of years into the profession, with Y amount of those years in an inner city or an "at risk" school. Not right away. I wouldn't throw a newbie teacher to the wolves like that. They should perhaps apprentice for a couple of years under a seasoned educator, get their "feet wet", then go show what they've got. Kind of like a residency.

Other than that...believe it or not...I actually think that some of your ideas are pretty sound. Frankly...and I hate to sound cliche...but kids today are not getting the education that I got. And, I didn't get the education that my parents got. It's got to end.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Tripling the current budget will, in my opinion, just encourage more waste.

You have to allocate it when drawing up the budget, it's not just one big check and a handshake. A lot of it would be higher wages for teachers and ensuring students have access to the best possible resources. Also, the longer school day and year aren't going to be cheap.

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

And, so far as free college for teachers...I can go along with that...provided that they are required to put in X amount of years into the profession, with Y amount of those years in an inner city or an "at risk" school. Not right away. I wouldn't throw a newbie teacher to the wolves like that. They should perhaps apprentice for a couple of years under a seasoned educator, get their "feet wet", then go show what they've got. Kind of like a residency.

That's exactly what I had in mind. Considering we'd be paying them so much more than teachers make now, who would they be to complain?

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Other than that...believe it or not...I actually think that some of your ideas are pretty sound. Frankly...and I hate to sound cliche...but kids today are not getting the education that I got. And, I didn't get the education that my parents got. It's got to end.

Shoot, they don't get the same education I got and I've only been out of high school for 8 years. People like us should be saying, "I wish my education was as good as things are now".

[Bill O'Rights]

Will, I send my son to a private parochial school that does an outstanding job on a shoestring budget. He is getting a very quality education. That is important to me. So much so that even though I lost my job last November, I still manage to scrape up the $180 a month that we pay after his scholarship. If his private school can do it, why can't the public schools? Needless to say that I am a fan of school vouchers now.

[Willravel]

Some private schools are pretty horrible and some public schools are truly outstanding. Each has the opportunity to be something special, something worthy of our youth, but it's hit-and-miss. That underfunded elementary school I mentioned was one of those outstanding public schools, but that doesn't mean the teachers weren't underpaid, the textbooks weren't out of date and the place wasn't falling apart.

We need both vouchers and increased funding (yes, I'm a raging liberal that's okay with vouchers, so long as the private schools aren't teaching about how 6000 years ago the Earth was created by a white man with a beard). Allocate 8-10% of the Willravel education plan funds for vouchers if you want, so long as the public system isn't left in the dust. That's the problem liberals have with vouchers: we don't want underfunded public education so everyone will go private. Near or total privatization of education is pretty evil.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by Willravel

That's the problem liberals have with vouchers: we don't want underfunded public education so everyone will go private. Near or total privatization of education is pretty evil.

And here's where we part company. Public...private...shouldn't matter. If the public schools could do as good or better than the private schools, then there will not be the "exodus" that you predict. Right now...today...private schools have learned to do more with less because they have to. When public schools learn to do the same, then there would be an even playing field.

[Willravel]

Public schools can be regulated and have to be religiously neutral, private not so much. Private schools can discriminate for any reason, they can change costs, they can teach complete bullshit, and they're not all respected for accreditation. Schools in California that teach "alternates" to evolution can't transfer science credits at all. They're as useless as the crap they teach.

[Bill O'Rights]

Will, Will, Will...you're pushing a worst possible case scenario. Now, I admitedly know nothing of California schools, but that's not how the rest of us roll.You've known me long enough by now to recall that I am an atheist...right? Now, ask yourself why an avowed atheist would subject his one and only son to the "horrors" of a Catholic school. The answer is the quality of the education that he receives. I'm even ok with the religion classes that he takes. It's not going to hurt him one bit. As the son of a minister, you know that while religion does not equal morality, it does espouse values. I have 0 problems with him learning values along with geometry (or should I have said algebra). Trust me that I'm keeping a close eye on the whole "indoctrination" thing. When it comes to things like evolution vs creationism...if it comes up, you bet your ass that I'm going to temper it. What he comes up with in the end will be entirely up to him.

[Willravel]

Catholic school? It's the nondenoms and "loose affiliation" private schools that are teaching creationism. Shoot, it's even in many secular private schools. It's even in public schools, but the difference is that the wackos that teach creationism or ID in public schools can be stopped. The private institutions that house these maniacs need not do a thing about this kind of curriculum. I'm not saying we should condemn all private schools for the sins (no pun intended) of the few, but if we're going to think of them as a viable option it makes sense to ensure that they don't break the most basic rule an education system can have: teach fact, not fiction as fact.

[Derwood]

More magnet schools please.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

And here's where we part company. Public...private...shouldn't matter. If the public schools could do as good or better than the private schools, then there will not be the "exodus" that you predict. Right now...today...private schools have learned to do more with less because they have to. When public schools learn to do the same, then there would be an even playing field.

There will never be an even playing field between public and private school. Both you and will have avoided mentioning one key difference between the two--private schools get to take who they want, and public schools have to take everyone. Everyone--even the medically fragile handicapped kid who is more or less a vegetable in a wheelchair. And some of those handicapped kids even have to sit through the same standardized tests as the rest of the school. Gee, I wonder what that does to the scores? Oh, and if a parent decides that the public school is not doing a good enough job of meeting their child's special ed needs--guess what? The public school district has to foot the bill for that special needs child to then go to a special private school for special needs kids.

I'm not saying that the mentally handicapped don't deserve an education, but we should seriously reevaluate our special education policies, how we administer special education, and how we can best balance the needs of the school at large with the needs of the special education program.

[samcol]

I think the federal government should stay out of education ENTIRELY. They have plenty of other problems that they clearly cannot deal with as it is. The states are perfectly capable of handling their own education. Plus keeping it at a local level allows for regions to have their children be taught how the see fit. If the schools in California want to teach evolution and schools in Utah want to teach creationism thats fine. Why should we force one or the other on the ENTIRE nation?

Also, I think homeschooling and private schools are great too. The allow for more flexibility and the students do better on standardized tests anyway.

[Derwood]

as long as the quality of public schools is tied to property taxes, we'll always have a gross difference in quality of education between the rich and poor

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by samcol

If the schools in California want to teach evolution and schools in Utah want to teach creationism thats fine. Why should we force one or the other on the ENTIRE nation?

Um because creationism is entirely unscientific and wrong and evolution in it's basic form has been reaffirmed by countless peer-reviewed and repeatable experiments?

this debate reminds me of something I read recently in an Alan Moore interview--talking about how he was expelled from high school and had to educate himself:

All too often education actually acts as a form of aversion therapy, that what we're really teaching our children is to associate learning with work and to associate work with drudgery so that the remainder of their lives they will possibly never go near a book because they associate books with learning, learning with work and work with drudgery. Whereas after a hard day's toil, instead of relaxing with a book they'll be much more likely to sit down in front of an undemanding soap opera because this is obviously teaching them nothing, so it is not learning, so it is not work, it is not drudgery, so it must be pleasure. And I think that that is the kind of circuitry that we tend to have imprinted on us because of the education process.

Not some catch-all answer, but a pretty astute identification with one of the major problems with education.

[SirSeymour]

We have to change the basic premise of education in this country before we can fix it. Right now the stated goal of all pre-college education in this country is prepare everyone for college. Not everyone is going to college. In fact, we don't want everyone to go to college. It is a bad goal.

We need to realize that we have different types of students and work to meet the needs of all of them. A cookie cutter solution designed to prep kids for college is wholly inadequate and wrong for the kid who is going to graduate and go to work as a day laborer in construction or as an unskilled, unionized line worker for an auto manufacturer. More emphasis on a vocational track with classes in life skills would help this a great deal. It would also get the kids who are not interested in college out of the classes they don't want thus cutting down on teachers work load and the number of disinterested students that can cause disruptions in these classes.

I think we also need to get rid of students personal technology in schools...specifically cell phones. They are a completely unnecessary distraction during the school day. If parents need to contact kids they can do it the same it was done when I was in school...call the office and leave a message.

Specific ideas that I like to change things:

• Bring back the idea of failure. School is, in a very real sense, a prep for life and employers fire people who fail too much, too often or too big. Schools are doing a disservice by not allowing kids to fail when they fail.
• Vouchers. Public schools have no real competition right now. They know they are getting the money. If parents have the option to take not just their kid but also their money and go somewhere producing a better product then public schools will be forced to get better.
• Students should be separated by ability when appropriate. Main streaming doesn't so much help the kids at the bottom of the ability scale so much as it handicaps the kids at the top. Teachers are stuck working with the bottom few who are struggling because they are not allowed to fail them while the top kids are allowed to get bored.
• Every student should be required to learn a second language and that should start with kindergarten. It is a recognized fact that languages are easier to learn at younger ages so this needs to start very early. The specific language should be left up the local school district to choose as what is appropriate and useful in Texas or SoCal is not the same as what would be appropriate and useful in NE right across the border from Quebec.
• Do away with technology before 6th grade. The US is losing ground in the world to countries who focus on the basics...reading, writing and math. You don't see a computer in an elementary classroom in China or India. Teach a firm foundation first then go on to other stuff.
• Logic and philosophy should be taught in a real way in high school. Teaching facts is great but if you teach a kid to think, they can get the facts for themselves.

Just some ideas my wife (public school teacher at the elementary level) and I have been kicking around for a while.

[roachboy]

personally, i think one of the main system-level problems in education is that it's way too decentralized, way too locally controlled.
there are two main reasons why:
first tying educational funding to local property taxes means that the school system is a direct mirror of the class structure of a community. people like to go on and on about meritocracy and all that, but in a system structured around replicating the class structure there is no meritocracy.
second, this kind of decentralization makes it almost impossible to steer overall system objectives in any particular way. like it or not, the primary function of education is the reproduction of the labor pool. as the parameters which shape labor change, the school system as a whole has to change. this compounds the problem noted above: the enables the reproduction of an entirely outmoded image of the labor pool----feedback loops that connect coherent information about labor markets to schools are shabby, erratic, unco-ordinated---this is not helped by the fact that american public discourse was dominated for 30 years by neoliberals who treated accuracy of image concerning both the class structure and labor markets as secondary to a feel-good ideology. so in post-reagan statistics, you get the united states as a giant lake woebegone...denial of basic social realities does not and cannot make for coherent education.

i oppose vouchers in anything like their present form simply because they're transparent as a conservative weapon aimed at destroying the teachers union; because they're mostly about legitimating christian church-basement school operations; and most importantly they don't change a thing about the dominant class-specific modes of distribution of educational opportunities--nothing about the voucher program opens up places like exeter or groton--the voucher system has no connection to this private stream of relatively high-quality education which is available in the united states only, and i mean only, to the children of the affluent.

[[edit: so i don't oppose the idea of vouchers...i would like to see less gap between public and private schools, but private in the sense noted above---opposition to this would come from people who benefit from the existing system, and this would be nothing more than a defense of class privilege...it's a weak position to argue from. what i oppose is the class stratification of educational opportunities...and if an alternative way of thinking vouchers can be used as a wedge to destroy some of all of this class-based way of doing education, i'm all for it. i just don't think it's a terribly powerful weapon.]]

i agree with sirseymour on the importance of instituting second (or third) language programs as early as possible.
the correlate of that is that english-only initiatives should be seen as paleolithic. which they are.

i also agree on the basic importance of teaching philosophy--also of teaching research strategies in conjunction with it. logical skills enable problem-solving skills; information handling and parsing are critical. at this point, student don't seem to encounter either until they hit university, which is a shame. the exception is--of course--the more elite private schools, which are often run along a logic that progressively blurs the line between high school and university courses, with junior and senior years being kinda like junior college, particularly in comparison with no-child-left-behind backwater style public schools.

o yeah---nclb should be repealed. like immediately. it has everything to do with conservative dreams of building a permanent majority by flattening kids ability to move outside the immediately given and nothing---at all---to do with teaching kids to think.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by roachboy

logical skills enable problem-solving skills; information handling and parsing are critical. at this point, student don't seem to encounter either until they hit university, which is a shame. the exception is--of course--the more elite private schools, which are often run along a logic that progressively blurs the line between high school and university courses, with junior and senior years being kinda like junior college, particularly in comparison with no-child-left-behind backwater style public schools.

Why do you think it is that these skills are left for college? I've never been able to figure this out. Logic exercises and information handling aren't necessarily too difficult for children, especially when they're made into games. Is it the devotion with the English/math/science/history model?

[roachboy]

i dont really know why--i doubt it's a single factor or policy though. over the past 6 years or so, it's been a consequence of crap like nclb.

but there's a longer-term pattern that fits into, which you can see in the multiplication of basic writing courses in universities, the impetus of which is (no matter what the programs say) a remedial thing---teaching college-level writing is also necessarily teaching the skills associated with it, which include not only the form of a critical essay, but also the modes of reading and handling/organizing information, basic research, etc. these programs came up in response to problems that were already present for universities by the mid 1990s (i think that's when these "writing across the cirriculum" programs really took off, but i could be wrong about that)...

so don't really have a clear explanation for it.
maybe someone else does?

[Willravel]

Maybe I should frame it this way: who stands to gain by not teaching these skills until an individual is out of high school? I don't know. Well, what is the result of a lack of these skills in elementary, middle school and high school children and teenagers? I'd guess that they have a less than stellar ability to problem-solve and think outside the box, which might mean that they are more easy to control. I don't want to get all conspiracy-theorist, but it makes sense. Pliable, unquestioning students are easier to control. Another crazy thought is that younger people generally vote liberal, but I'll file that under "crazy" for the time being.

[roachboy]

well, that's basically how i see the logic behind "no child left behind"...
and there's a host of strong arguments that connect education to forms of social control.
but that doesn't really help explain the longer-term trends within the educational system itself.
i mean, it's not like nclb was sold in anything like the terms that are being used here to describe it, right?
and the system itself functions in significant measure through a denial of it's own social control components--except in "disciplining" modalities---which raises the process of redefining "special needs" students over the past 20 years or so--but that's another question, off the topic (i think snowy talked about it earlier and in a more lucid way than i have)---in part because control is not the only function the educational system performs. rather, it's kind of like the reverse side of developing skillsets.

that said, the specific questions of how and why this transfer of functions from high schools into universities happened aren't answered by any of this.

[cj2112]

Brick and Mortar public schools by nature are flawed. They were flawed when my parents were in the public school system, they were flawed when I was in the public school system, and they're flawed now. If you have an average student they are fine, but if you're student is not in the middle of the pack, then they simply aren't equipped to deal with the kid. My daughter is an average student and therefore the public school system works. However, my 13 y.o. son, while very intelligent, does not do well in public school at all.

I have recently enrolled him in a "virtual" charter school. The curriculum is much more challenging, yet his GPA went from 1.6 to 3.7. He spends more time than is required doing his school work, he says he is enjoying school for the first time since 1st grade, and his actions confirm this. He receives a much more individualized curriculum, he is able to walk away for a bit if he is having a tough time or getting frustrated with a lesson, and he understands what is expected of him. His instructors are certified, the school is fully accredited, and it meets/exceeds the same requirements a traditional public school meets. Ohh...it's run by a corporation, they get less money for him than the public school, and provide a superior education.

[Stare At The Sun]

Increase funding by a fairly absurd amount.
Back to basics. Computers should be in computer classes and that's it.
Teach grammar.
Teach ancient history, students should know far more about the history of the world than they do.
Raise the standards.
Stop college from being high school part II. Make it about *education*, and NOT the piece of paper.
Eliminate standardized tests.
Make tech prep/vocational programs not only for the loser kids, double or triple the number of available programs.
All state colleges free if you get a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale, so long as you maintain a 3.0 in college.
Mandatory 1 year study abroad in college.
I could go on for ages. We don't only need reform, we need much much higher standards.

[SirSeymour]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i oppose vouchers in anything like their present form simply because they're transparent as a conservative weapon aimed at destroying the teachers union; because they're mostly about legitimating christian church-basement school operations; and most importantly they don't change a thing about the dominant class-specific modes of distribution of educational opportunities--nothing about the voucher program opens up places like exeter or groton--the voucher system has no connection to this private stream of relatively high-quality education which is available in the united states only, and i mean only, to the children of the affluent.

[[edit: so i don't oppose the idea of vouchers...i would like to see less gap between public and private schools, but private in the sense noted above---opposition to this would come from people who benefit from the existing system, and this would be nothing more than a defense of class privilege...it's a weak position to argue from. what i oppose is the class stratification of educational opportunities...and if an alternative way of thinking vouchers can be used as a wedge to destroy some of all of this class-based way of doing education, i'm all for it. i just don't think it's a terribly powerful weapon.]]

So you are opposed to vouchers if the parent is choosing to send the child to religiously based private school? Just trying to be sure I understand.

For the record, when I say vouchers, I am not putting limits on what type of school the parent can choose to use them for. If they want to use them for a christian school that if fine and if they want to use them for a private secular school that is fine too. I do think there needs to be an upper limit on income to qualify for vouchers.

Originally Posted by Willravel

Why do you think it is that these skills are left for college? I've never been able to figure this out. Logic exercises and information handling aren't necessarily too difficult for children, especially when they're made into games. Is it the devotion with the English/math/science/history model?

I don't think they are completely left behind. I just think it isn't taught in a formal sense as a Philosophy Class or a Logic Class. In other words, it is not labeled as such. I got a lot of both of these in other course pursuits in high school but in hind sight, I wish I had more of a formal education in them.

I also think a lot of it comes from parents. My folks let me struggle with things growing up. I had to figure out how to figure out things. When I failed at it or went the long way round we discussed it. I got the benefit of learning how they would do it complete with their thought process from start to finish. In short, I was getting educated at home as well as at school. That doesn't happen as much these days, especially in lower income brackets. Kids with inattentive parents will never do as well on average as kids with engaged parents no matter how much time, money and effort the school system throws at them.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i dont really know why--i doubt it's a single factor or policy though. over the past 6 years or so, it's been a consequence of crap like nclb.

but there's a longer-term pattern that fits into, which you can see in the multiplication of basic writing courses in universities, the impetus of which is (no matter what the programs say) a remedial thing---teaching college-level writing is also necessarily teaching the skills associated with it, which include not only the form of a critical essay, but also the modes of reading and handling/organizing information, basic research, etc. these programs came up in response to problems that were already present for universities by the mid 1990s (i think that's when these "writing across the cirriculum" programs really took off, but i could be wrong about that)...

so don't really have a clear explanation for it.
maybe someone else does?

I think it has to do with fear.

Teachers are afraid to teach difficult material, and philosophy is difficult material. They're afraid to look stupid in front of their students.
Teachers also don't want to teach things like philosophy or critical thinking because they don't want to teach children to question their authority.

Personally, I find it much more effective to stress to the students that I am a learner too, and that I have as much to learn from them as they do from me. If they see me make a mistake, it lets them know that mistakes are a part of the learning process.

I had some really great philosophical conversations with 8th graders over the last academic term, and it cemented my belief that teachers who really want to reach children teach the hard stuff regardless.

As for grammar and writing--again, I think it's a fear thing. Most teachers have little to no experience with grammar and have no idea how to go about teaching it. Teaching writing is a difficult proposition; I did a lot of thinking over the last many weeks about how to teach writing skills. One thing I noticed is that teachers tended to jump into writing. They expected that their students would be able to write, and while that's certainly true, the teachers didn't first give students the knowledge they needed to be able to talk about their writing constructively. It was frustrating to want to talk about mechanics with these kids, because they didn't have a clue. I think it's important to start with the tools first before expecting them to produce work. And I think that's another area where the education system goes wrong--they don't bother to teach kids the building blocks of skills or how to talk about those skills in order to improve them. They don't teach critical thought about developing skills. There's all this focus on developing skills, but they're going about it in an ass-backward fashion.

[percy]

Originally Posted by roachboy

there's alot in this topic---i think things will occur to me as time passes that i don't think of now---but for the moment:

from what i've seen teaching in universities, the main thing that high school teaches that's a real problem is intellectual passivity. there's way way too much emphasis on very concrete problem solving and nowhere near enough on encouraging kids to think their way through problems. more generally, kids coming out of high school seem in general to have a very difficult time thinking for themselves, taking intellectual chances, etc.. i've thought for a long time that high school kids should be taught philosophy, should have more seminar-style classes, etc..

the other thing i think would be a very good idea is to institute a year or two between high school and college. maybe a national service thing---maybe something international--but it seems to me that having some kind of break from school in the context of which kids can explore what they're interested in, who they might be turning into, to figure out a bit better what they want to do would have a huge impact on the quality of university education for them.

thinking about this...good thread.

Yeah pretty much agree. The problem with North America's education system is that students are measured by how well their grades are which quite frankly is putting the cart before the horse.

As long as memorization and regurgitation are used as teaching techniques, something that satisfies strictly short term retention, nothing will change.

Students from early grades should be taught how to think first and then take that skill and think how to learn. But that will require a new curriculum, more adept teachers who genuinely give a shit, creativity, more topics to study, etc.

Unfortunately nothing will change. And people wonder why so many hate their jobs and their lives as adults. Maybe because they weren't given a chance to think and experience something that they may have liked to pursue but couldn't, because it wasn't part of the same old, same old curriculum.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by percy

As long as memorization and regurgitation are used as teaching techniques, something that satisfies strictly short term retention, nothing will change.

Students from early grades should be taught how to think first and then take that skill and think how to learn. But that will require a new curriculum, more adept teachers who genuinely give a shit, creativity, more topics to study, etc.

I agree. The key here is to teach a love (and skill) of learning.

While there are some lazy teachers, I find that they are not a prevalent as one might think. Most public school teachers are hamstrung by policy as much as by budget.

What's amazing to me is that policy makers can't seem to understand that education is the foundation of a nation's growth. If you aren't developing your brain power, you can't compete. You are squashing your nation's potential.

[percy]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I agree. The key here is to teach a love (and skill) of learning.

While there are some lazy teachers, I find that they are not a prevalent as one might think. Most public school teachers are hamstrung by policy as much as by budget.

What's amazing to me is that policy makers can't seem to understand that education is the foundation of a nation's growth. If you aren't developing your brain power, you can't compete. You are squashing your nation's potential.

Well said. I can still remember my first year of university, when a soc or psych prof was asked by a student what was on the mid-term exam. He replied, "Everything discussed in this room relevant to the course and all required reading."

Half the room or more almost revolved. What!! No practice tests? No study periods, no Q&A's during lecture time, no handouts with possible Q&A's?

Unbelievable. One girl was in tears. Several students threatened to go to the Dean because it was unfair they weren't being provided with the answers or at least a heavy implication thereof.

Me. I was calm and collected. Probably because before I went to university I lived on my own, worked for a couple of years, paid bills, found out what I wanted to study and decided that to succeed I needed an independant mind and body. Learned alot. At 21 I had learned how to think on my feet because I certainly didn't learn to think in high school. Also moving to Toronto and knowing no one and starting from scratch was a learning experience in itself, even if it was shithole Toranna. (Sorry Charlatan, can never get enough digs in - and I'm joking,..it isn't all bad,..cough Maple Leafs)

And like you said, can you imagine if the initiative was there to promote free thinking and ideas from a young age. We all would get very old (older) very fast. Not a bad thing though

[Charlatan]

Just read this column by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. I think it's quite relevant to this thread.

LINK

Speaking of financial crises and how they can expose weak companies and weak countries, Warren Buffett once famously quipped that “only when the tide goes out do you find out who is not wearing a bathing suit.” So true. But what’s really unnerving is that America appears to be one of thosecountries that has been swimming buck naked — in more ways than one.

Credit bubbles are like the tide. They can cover up a lot of rot. In our case, the excess consumer demand and jobs created by our credit and housing bubbles have masked not only our weaknesses in manufacturing and other economic fundamentals, but something worse: how far we have fallen behind in K-12 education and how much it is now costing us. That is the conclusion I drew from a new study by the consulting firm McKinsey, entitled “The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools.”

Just a quick review: In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. dominated the world in K-12 education. We also dominated economically. In the 1970s and 1980s, we still had a lead, albeit smaller, in educating our population through secondary school, and America continued to lead the world economically, albeit with other big economies, like China, closing in. Today, we have fallen behind in both per capita high school graduates and their quality. Consequences to follow.

For instance, in the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment that measured the applied learning and problem-solving skills of 15-year-olds in 30 industrialized countries, the U.S. ranked 25th out of 30 in math and 24th out of 30 in science. That put our average youth on par with those from Portugal and the Slovak Republic, “rather than with students in countries that are more relevant competitors for service-sector and high-value jobs, like Canada, the Netherlands, Korea, and Australia,” McKinsey noted.

Actually, our fourth-graders compare well on such global tests with, say, Singapore. But our high school kids really lag, which means that “the longer American children are in school, the worse they perform compared to their international peers,” said McKinsey.

There are millions of kids who are in modern suburban schools “who don’t realize how far behind they are,” said Matt Miller, one of the authors. “They are being prepared for $12-an-hour jobs — not $40 to $50 an hour.”

It is not that we are failing across the board. There are huge numbers of exciting education innovations in America today — from new modes of teacher compensation to charter schools to school districts scattered around the country that are showing real improvements based on better methods, better principals and higher standards. The problem is that they are too scattered — leaving all kinds of achievement gaps between whites, African-Americans, Latinos and different income levels.

Using an economic model created for this study, McKinsey showed how much those gaps are costing us. Suppose, it noted, “that in the 15 years after the 1983 report ‘A Nation at Risk’ sounded the alarm about the ‘rising tide of mediocrity’ in American education,” the U.S. had lifted lagging student achievement to higher benchmarks of performance? What would have happened?

The answer, says McKinsey: If America had closed the international achievement gap between 1983 and 1998 and had raised its performance to the level of such nations as Finland and South Korea, United States G.D.P. in 2008 would have been between $1.3 trillion and $2.3 trillion higher. If we had closed the racial achievement gap and black and Latino student performance had caught up with that of white students by 1998, G.D.P. in 2008 would have been between $310 billion and $525 billion higher. If the gap between low-income students and the rest had been narrowed, G.D.P. in 2008 would have been $400 billion to $670 billion higher.

There are some hopeful signs. President Obama recognizes that we urgently need to invest the money and energy to take those schools and best practices that are working from islands of excellence to a new national norm. But we need to do it with the sense of urgency and follow-through that the economic and moral stakes demand.

With Wall Street’s decline, though, many more educated and idealistic youth want to try teaching. Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teach for America, called the other day with these statistics about college graduates signing up to join her organization to teach in some of our neediest schools next year: “Our total applications are up 40 percent. Eleven percent of all Ivy League seniors applied, 16 percent of Yale’s senior class, 15 percent of Princeton’s, 25 percent of Spellman’s and 35 percent of the African-American seniors at Harvard. In 130 colleges, between 5 and 15 percent of the senior class applied.”

Part of it, said Kopp, is a lack of jobs elsewhere. But part of it is “students responding to the call that this is a problem our generation can solve.” May it be so, because today, educationally, we are not a nation at risk. We are a nation in decline, and our nakedness is really showing.