What happened to the US education system? [Archive]

excaza

23rd June 2011, 09:59 AM

Is our education system even responsible or are other variables, like culture, more to blame for this decline?

I don't know enough about the subject to argue one way or another. However, I am pretty confident in my guestimation that both societal and household attitudes play a significant role in the potential success of one's education. In order for most students to learn and retain things they are taught, they need to actually be interested in learning them in the first place. Using the Cold War as an example, everyone was fascinated by space travel and wanted to be an astronaut or rocket scientist (obviously, I'm generalizing here). Why, how, or even if that has changed since then, I have no idea. In many other cultures, say...India or South Korea, there is a huge societal push to excel in math and science. How it compares to the US, I can't say. Their schooling schedules are also different, I know in SK they're in school for much longer than we are here.

Yes, money is a problem too (again, in general, there's obviously exceptions). Class sizes are increasing, teachers are still underpaid, school supplies are often subpar. Whether it's do to lack of funding, misappropriation of said funding, or some other reason I don't care, it's still part of the problem.

Honestly, there's dozens upon dozens of arguments put forth on the subject, and I think there's some merit to almost all of them.

rwguinn

23rd June 2011, 11:05 AM

All those kids who hated Math and Science grew up, couldn't get into engineering or business colleges, and became teachers and administrators.

INRM

23rd June 2011, 11:34 AM

excaza

23rd June 2011, 11:40 AM

There are a variety of powerful interests including government that don't want their citizens to possess too much critical thinking skills. They want smart people who can do their jobs, but not much else.
:rolleyes:

While I realize you can't resist, let's not turn this into a conspiracy theory thread.

rwguinn

23rd June 2011, 11:40 AM

sigh...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

ZirconBlue

23rd June 2011, 11:46 AM

:rolleyes:

While I realize you can't resist, let's not turn this into a conspiracy theory thread.

I dunno. Could be fun. How 'bout this:

Those other countries have passed us by, because they've been stealing our precious bodily fluids.

Dancing David

23rd June 2011, 12:34 PM

Travis

23rd June 2011, 01:53 PM

The issue isn't with an "American Educational System" because no such thing exists. The problem is with lots of individual schools. The public schools I went to did an excellent job even though they were relatively poor schools money wise. I didn't really realize this until I showed up in college and saw how all these graduates from other public schools lacked fundamental skills.

I think the general reason my own schools were good was because the locals, who control the schools via electing the school board, were wise enough to allow the school board to bring in experts from the University of California system and just let them do their job without impedance.

ZirconBlue

24th June 2011, 06:20 AM

I think the general reason my own schools were good was because the locals, who control the schools via electing the school board, were wise enough to allow the school board to bring in experts from the University of California system and just let them do their job without impedance.

I guess the school board knew that resistance was futile.

Jack Astor

24th June 2011, 06:47 AM

I don't know if the U.S. education standards have lowered, but I believe at the college level, the average quality of student is lower than in the past because there is greater access and accommodation to students who wouldn't have considered college thirty years ago. It waters down the quality.

iknownothing

24th June 2011, 08:41 AM

How well did American students of previous generations do relative to other countries? Were we ever at the top?

I was just talking to my mom last weekend, who went to school in the 40s and 50s. She said they were always hearing about how poorly American students were doing compared to Soviet students.

rwguinn

24th June 2011, 08:46 AM

Moon-Spinner

24th June 2011, 09:36 AM

fuelair

24th June 2011, 11:58 AM

When I was going through school, it seemed like everybody was into learning science and history with more passion than what I see today. Also here weren't any questions about what we were learning. Facts were facts. The school system hadn't become the battlegrounds of what to teach kids that it is today. Teachers are being strangled in what they can teach, for fear that some parents will raise a stink and/or a lawsuit.And school boards and many admins are bending over for them - if they do not drink the Kool-Aid themselves. Of particular fun to me is watching the ca. 7 year recycling of three basic "strategy/intervention/success/empowerment/your buzzword here" ways of teaching - my wife actually brings them up in meetings hoping others will recognize that we're just changing the Dog and Pony show of this season
for the Mud Wrestling of the next followed by the Calgary Stampede of the third and then the Canine/Equine again. I've often thought it might be fun to do that myself and build a comfortable business in consultation and writing How-To books just before time for each cycle to recur.* But, unfortunately, I have a conscience.

Note, I said seven years - that is approximate and local. Early adopter states (California/New York) and such tend to be on the front end and tend to switch to the next after app. 7 years, the next group has switched within a year-2 yrs of the first adopters and the last finish the 3rd or 4th year. And the movement to the next occurs ........

themusicteacher

24th June 2011, 12:03 PM

All those kids who hated Math and Science grew up, couldn't get into engineering or business colleges, and became teachers and administrators.

If they hated math and science, why would they have wanted to or have been qualified to be engineers? I know this sort of nonsense is part and parcel with the "teachers are stupid and lazy" argument but it's simply an ideological swipe at education. Any other gems for us?

rwguinn

24th June 2011, 03:05 PM

If they hated math and science, why would they have wanted to or have been qualified to be engineers? I know this sort of nonsense is part and parcel with the "teachers are stupid and lazy" argument but it's simply an ideological swipe at education. Any other gems for us?
Well, Excuse the hell out of me, dude. We seem to be a little sensitive here.

Dancing David

25th June 2011, 07:29 PM

Well, Excuse the hell out of me, dude. We seem to be a little sensitive here.

Excuse me you know nothing about actual teaching, so I think you are ignorant to have made your original statement. It is just a good example of the meme of trashing teachers by people who would not survive a minute in a third grade class room, much less kindergarten.

What is the main skill a teacher needs?

Do you have ***************************************** clue?

Doing well at math, will not an adequate teacher make, doing well at science will not a teacher make.

I bet you don't even know what the main skill a teacher needs, even though every teacher knows it.

So what is it?

Have a clue? Or just ignorant?

Dancing David

25th June 2011, 07:33 PM

All those kids who hated Math and Science grew up, couldn't get into engineering or business colleges, and became teachers and administrators.

Oh this is such a polite statement now isn't it?

Well, Excuse the hell out of me, dude. We seem to be a little bit of jerk here.

So what do you know about education, how many math and science people would last five minutes in a high schools much less middle school or grade schools?

Please tell us of your extensive knowledge of primary and secondary education.

goodm0urning

25th June 2011, 07:51 PM

Travis

25th June 2011, 07:59 PM

I guess the school board knew that resistance was futile.

I meant to write "interference" but that actually kinda works too.

ThunderChunky

26th June 2011, 03:44 AM

The overall quality of education could certainly be improved in many ways, but there is absolutely no shortage of scientists in this country. The scientist shortage is a myth.

Professor Yaffle

26th June 2011, 04:04 AM

jhunter1163

26th June 2011, 04:30 AM

Address the argument, not the arguer, and be civil and polite.

Jack Astor

26th June 2011, 06:34 AM

Reading and math scores have been rising over the decades. Drop-out rates are dropping. The rate of adults with high school diplomas has been rising, and so has the rate of adults with Bachelor's degrees. I strongly doubt that this can be neatly explained by a simple loosening of standards.

We are getting smarter, or, at least, better-educated. But the world is also a more competitive and skill-intensive place than it used to be.

I'm not so sure about this. I worked for a large telecom, and knew a number of people with no degree who went back to college in a program designed for adults (Wayland Baptist University). In their evaluations at enrollment, they received credit for life experience and work training. Most received about two-years worth of credits. Having done the same training they received college credit for, and I can assure you it was not particularly difficult. I don't think this is unusual, and places like the Univ of Phoenix give the same type of credit. Some of these places are a bit of joke, from what I've seen. And there are a lot of them nowadays.

Could these type of programs be why there are more degrees awarded?

I'm by no means an expert on education, but my belief is that there are more educated people, but the overall quality of the education is down.

cesarz

28th June 2011, 04:35 AM

Watch Waiting For Superman - quite good documentary on US school system.

MNBrant

28th June 2011, 06:21 PM

All the east indian kids moved to private schools. I really don't know how things work in the school system. Seems to me that I learned more in the old system than the new but I was in a transition period. In the old days the slow kids were taught in the same classroom as the smart kids but in different groups so there was an incentive for the slow kids to catch up. Then there was a transition period where they took the slow kids to a big room where they didn't teach them anything but disciplined them alot. then they went to the small special ed classes that were great for catching up on your homework at school. Some of them actually taught subjects however. They 8 person ones were great as you could get some team discussions going but the 4 person classes were just too small. As far as I know they didn't have regular classroom teachers in these classes back then. They were just low paid folk. Nowadays I hear its a 4 year degree to teach special ed. Gotta love specialization.

MNBrant

28th June 2011, 06:24 PM

I'm not so sure about this. I worked for a large telecom, and knew a number of people with no degree who went back to college in a program designed for adults (Wayland Baptist University). In their evaluations at enrollment, they received credit for life experience and work training. Most received about two-years worth of credits. Having done the same training they received college credit for, and I can assure you it was not particularly difficult. I don't think this is unusual, and places like the Univ of Phoenix give the same type of credit. Some of these places are a bit of joke, from what I've seen. And there are a lot of them nowadays.

Could these type of programs be why there are more degrees awarded?

I'm by no means an expert on education, but my belief is that there are more educated people, but the overall quality of the education is down.

Actually I was thinking of going to Excelsior college that, while highly regarded, is a place where you can test out of the entire program without taking many classes.

I was listening on the bus to a couple young women talking on the bus. One was going to american university and the other was going to pheonix university. The american U one seemed unaware how much her credits cost and was going to pay her rent etc by selling bottled water to people getting on to the interstate. The other one suggested selling them by a lake and actually seemed aware that her credits were over 300$ each. I would estimate their ability to repay at nil but thats only my opinion. The idea that someone would think that you are going to make much money selling bottled water at 1$ a pop anywhere is kind of funny though.

NoahFence

28th June 2011, 06:27 PM

A teacher in a place I won't name had a bad day about 5 years ago, and was back-talked by one of her 7th grade kids.

Fast forward to the summer between the 7th grade kid's junior and senior year in high school, and the 7th grader's nearest competition got her ART grade changed from an A to an A+.

In the middle of the summer.

Who changed it? The aforementioned teacher who had a bad day 5 years ago. She admitted to having a bad day and that's why she carried this grudge around with her until ultimately she was in a position to affect this 7th grader's entire future. So there's the 7th grader, SECOND in her class as opposed to first. By .008 (I'm NOT lying) by .008 points.

Because this teacher was in a bad mood 5 years ago and had an opportunity to exact her revenge.

THIS is why teaching in the US is awful today. Entitlement.

ETA
Thankfully there's a University in Cambridge, MA who doesn't care, and can see that this 7th grader is now flat-out brilliant.

Jeff Corey

28th June 2011, 07:40 PM

Anecdotes are not data. Unsubstantiated anecdotes are no basis for sweeping generalizations. The lack of any critical thinking on a skeptics forum is appalling.

NoahFence

29th June 2011, 07:11 AM

Dancing David

29th June 2011, 07:23 AM

Because this teacher was in a bad mood 5 years ago and had an opportunity to exact her revenge.

One teachers does not a system make, you have no idea how much **** all teachers take on a daily basis in my schools district, do you? You don't have a clue either. Worried about class rank, gosh, I wonder what that has to do with reading and test scores. i deal with kids who deal with some real ******** everyday, drugs, violence alcoholic parents, absent parents, sexual abuse and physical violence.

this tends to make them a little rough around the edges, if I remembered every time a student was rude to me I would not be able to do my job, which is to be the adult and act like one.

Take your class rank story and go cry on your Ivy League shoulders, my students have some real issues to deal with, like learning to read when you always spend the night with a different relative everyday of the week.

Dancing David

29th June 2011, 07:28 AM

Anecdotes can be used as examples. That's just one example of the entitlement of 'teachers' today. It surely is not unsubstantiated, as you can probably tell by my tone, it was someone very close to me.

I can tell by your tone, you don't have a clue as to why test scores are low. Get real, it may be your relative, so what.

One data point, that probably scored high.

Meanwhile a significant percentage of 7th grade students read at a thrird grade level,

What do you think this thread is about?

I apologize but it is not about some class rank issue, I see more entitlement from middleclass parents everyday, whining, pissing and helicoptering. That si *********** entitlement. meanwhile most inner city students have to worry about just getting to school safely, I wonder how that effects their test scores, don't you?

I wonder if my town says I defensive because our system is failing due to lack of money and the pervasive effects of poverty. Sorry I am not going to worry about class rank, I have students who aren’t getting enough to eat and aren’t safe at home.

NoahFence

29th June 2011, 08:04 AM

One teachers does not a system make, you have no idea how much **** all teachers take on a daily basis in my schools district, do you?

Unfortunately, that one example is copied by many other examples of entitlement.

And as a matter of fact, I do know how many asterisks teachers take.

The class rank issue is simply the one closest to me. If you'd like, I can crash JREF's server with many more examples of teacher entitlement.

excaza

29th June 2011, 08:09 AM

And we can crash JREF's server with plenty of examples where teachers do not have a such a sense of entitlement. Do you have a point?

icerat

29th June 2011, 08:16 AM

excaza

29th June 2011, 08:28 AM

One thing I've wondered. Are they grading on a bell curve in the US? If you lower entry standards and are grading on a bell curve, then isn't it pretty much by definition that your pass marks and quality will suffer?

As far as I'm aware, there's no explicit standard. My, K-8 public schooling, along with my private high school, all graded using the 90-100 A, 80-89 B, etc., where below 65 is a failing grade. For my undergraduate courses in college, it really depended on the professor whether or not the class was graded on a curve, though my school does use an A/B/C/Fail system. My graduate classes have been the same way, though I've had more courses that are graded on a curve now than I did with my undergraduate coursework.

So, to answer your question....I have no idea :p

I agree with you that grading on a curve can significantly affect the quality of teaching, though it may not necessarily be the case. I'm inclined to argue that grading on a curve deflects attention away from the quality of the teaching.

aggle-rithm

29th June 2011, 08:29 AM

Educational performance is yet another one of those things that is related to income inequality:

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/education
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/docs/problems-of-relative-deprivation.pdf (pages 8 and 21)

Income inequality (in the US) was less in the 1950s, so I wouldn't be surprised if the US performed better on an international basis then than it does now.

Both income equality and the US's status as a scientific leader in the 1950's could be due to a single factor...much of the rest of the world was still in ruins after WWII. Until the other countries rebuilt and caught up to us, it was possible for an American household to subsist on the salary of a factory worker. That wasn't true before WWII or after the 1970's or so.

People often complain that things have gone wrong with the US, when much of what they remember as being "right" was just the result of an economic windfall that had little to do with the quality of our education, our work ethic, or other such things.

NoahFence

29th June 2011, 08:37 AM

And we can crash JREF's server with plenty of examples where teachers do not have a such a sense of entitlement. Do you have a point?

Yes - that in my opinion it's getting worse, which leads to the US education system being drastically lower in quality than previous - which IS the point of the thread, no?

excaza

29th June 2011, 08:41 AM

Yes - that in my opinion it's getting worse, which leads to the US education system being drastically lower in quality than previous - which IS the point of the thread, no?

This isn't an argument of opinions. If you believe it's an increasing issue, perhaps you should look for some data on it instead of emotionally charged posting that doesn't actually illustrate anything.

Cayvmann

29th June 2011, 09:26 AM

There are a variety of powerful interests including government that don't want their citizens to possess too much critical thinking skills. They want smart people who can do their jobs, but not much else.

How would you keep smart people from developing critical thinking skills, and what would a person be able to do, that was worthwhile, without critical thinking skills?

Dancing David

30th June 2011, 04:31 AM

Unfortunately, that one example is copied by many other examples of entitlement.

And as a matter of fact, I do know how many asterisks teachers take.

The class rank issue is simply the one closest to me. If you'd like, I can crash JREF's server with many more examples of teacher entitlement.

Yup and the entitlement of parent who complain about such none issues when we have underfunded schools and students in poverty is good example of middle class faux rage.

The facts are that it is NOT the teacher's small petty issues that are causing the low test scores, did you even read the OP or are you just venting.

I will ask you the same thing that I ask every one, why did the principal and administration not take action against the teacher? It surely was NOT a union contract. Almost all of them allow for discipline, so what led to the teacher not being disciplined ? Hmmmm?

Dancing David

30th June 2011, 04:38 AM

Yes - that in my opinion it's getting worse, which leads to the US education system being drastically lower in quality than previous - which IS the point of the thread, no?

Lets see, in the past students with lower scores and life issues were encouraged to drop out, I wonder what requiring them to finish school does?
In the past students who were 'slow' were allowed to drop out, I wonder what that does for test scores?

In the past no one cared that the african american schools were a travesty, and were allowed to fail. I wonder how that effects test scores?

So we have students who are in poverty, we have students with teen parents, we have students with chaotic lives, we have students who don't attend preschool, and those all effect test scores but somehow we are to believe that it is all teh fault of this mysterious 'teacher entitlement'.

So how would you measure the difference in that variable compared to the past? Hmmmm

excaza

30th June 2011, 05:01 AM

So we have students who are in poverty, we have students with teen parents, we have students with chaotic lives, we have students who don't attend preschool, and those all effect test scores but somehow we are to believe that it is all teh fault of this mysterious 'teacher entitlement'.

So how would you measure the difference in that variable compared to the past? Hmmmm

The only remotely plausible way I can think of to measure it is to look at the rate of reporting by students of this behavior in the teachers (accusations, disciplinary actions, etc.). This is of course assuming that such challenges are recorded somewhere by the administration.

And, like you said, there needs to be some explanation about how a teacher maliciously changing someone's grade affects the standardized testing scores generally used for evaluating the performance of students in different countries. I don't think you'll find anyone who will disagree that there can be favoritism displayed by educators, both positive and negative, but I have trouble believing that such malicious behavior a.) is a common occurrence and b.) has a significant impact on the performance of students on standardized testing.

Dancing David

1st July 2011, 05:10 AM

There are jerk teachers for sure but usually when test scores are altered it is to raise them.

Beerina

1st July 2011, 05:55 AM

As far as I'm aware, there's no explicit standard. My, K-8 public schooling, along with my private high school, all graded using the 90-100 A, 80-89 B, etc., where below 65 is a failing grade. For my undergraduate courses in college, it really depended on the professor whether or not the class was graded on a curve, though my school does use an A/B/C/Fail system. My graduate classes have been the same way, though I've had more courses that are graded on a curve now than I did with my undergraduate coursework.

So, to answer your question....I have no idea :p

I agree with you that grading on a curve can significantly affect the quality of teaching, though it may not necessarily be the case. I'm inclined to argue that grading on a curve deflects attention away from the quality of the teaching.

Colleges give "easier A's", under the argument that most people are competent, and are operating at least at B level in college. Of course, there have been plenty of studies showing grade inflation there, too, thus exceeding that concept by quite a bit, whatever its merits otherwise.

Might I suggest an Organic Chemistry course, the "washout" course for pre-med students?

shadron

5th July 2011, 11:24 PM

I guess the school board knew that resistance was futile.

If they didn't choke on the capacity for reluctance.

ImaginalDisc

10th July 2011, 01:03 AM

The following is based partly on my opinion and limited experience as a new teacher. Take with one (1) grain sodium chloride.

Some people claim that a de-emphasis on education has infected our society, and that education is declining is our country. Neither opinion is warranted.

Per capita spending (per student) in the U.S. has climbed steadily since the 1960's when data was first collected on the subject.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_0xroUIlpRLM/SGo9WbROomI/AAAAAAAAAC8/YwOkMJxHZpk/s320/image001.gif

Government spending on education is obviously not going down, and not the problem.

Why is achievement not as high as we'd like, or perhaps as high as we remember?

The buzz word typically used here is "socio-economic status. (http://rer.sagepub.com/content/75/3/417.abstract)" That's pronounced "rich parents." The wealthier a child's parents are, the better the child does in school, generally speaking. This is a much better predictor of a child's school achievement than race, gender, home language, or anything else you might consider, but the correlation isn't super-strong, there's a lot of variation from child-to-child despite the trend. As times have changed in the U.S., we have increasingly focused on trying to give the same educational opportunities to students of all backgrounds.

WARNING, ANECDOTE: My parents are both Cuban immigrants. When I was a kindergartner (1987) my teacher informed my mother that ". . .teaching Hispanic boys is a waste of time, because their parents don't speak English good."

My mother forever won my admiration with her deadpan reply of, "You mean, 'speak English well.'"

Attitudes about not "bothering" to teach some children as well because they're too dark, too poor, or too foreign have dwindled over time, but have not entirely vanished. I taught this year in a school that's almost 50% Haitian, 50% African-American, and in an extremely poor community. Several times, fellow educators tried to give me helpful advice such as, "These kids aren't worth the effort. You don't need to try so hard with them."

The demographic data unquestionably show that drop-out rates, for example, vary by race (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16), but those difference diminish significantly if you instead sort kids by the wealth of their parents.

Race isn't the issue, money and class are.

I admit, it's challenging to teach students who enter the educational system less prepared, have less opportunities for education at home, and have parents who don't value education as a key to later job success than other students. Those are issues related to poverty and desperation, not skin color.

Children and families living in poverty are at greater risk of hunger, homelessness, sickness, physical and mental disabilities, violence, teen parenthood, family stress, and educational failure. These environmental factors are contributers to children that live in poverty being four times more likely to have learning disabilities than non poverty students (Apple & Zenk, 1996). According to Casanova, Garcia-Linares, Torre and Carpio (2005), it is a combination of these environmental factors as well as family influence that contributes to student academic success. If a student has not eaten for days and has clothes that don’t fit, how can he/she be expected to maintain focus in a classroom? Children coming from poverty are not provided the same tools as the wealthy; they are entering schools already behind those not living in similar conditions. According to Li-Grining (2007), research suggests that the problem starts with the parents and their lack of education and understanding of the needs of children.
Wiki article. (http://wikiedresearch.wikidot.com/socioeconomic-status-and-education) Their (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/91/3/461/) sources. (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:W1YjPS8OWPQJ:ijsse.com/sites/default/files/EFFECTS%2520OF%2520SOCIOECONOMIC%2520STATUS%2520ON %2520STUDENTS%2520ACHIEVEMENT.doc+Apple,+M.+%26+Ze nk,+C.,+(1996).+American+realities:+Poverty,+econo my,+and+education.Cultural+Politics+and+Education. +68-90.&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShBriTaBSLsV6HH4pKF7h2v8AibjIk_lyW49fTZ d7Bf4LziC0rSs9-LldIixBDLQAHRREMLJhto-z5R3civsIbvAQg1VSvV8e_0MqTQjGVTaAtlFx_m9jOlZ3ffNtp devH2luHP&sig=AHIEtbSZleZhHR1GsZquB2VVxO6MZCSeNQ)

I think that the trouble with what people remember about education in the past is that in the past, we didn't "bother" with children who were deemed as being not worth the effort, so the population of students being served by education was a narrow slice of the total pool of potential students. Only 24.5% of adults 25 and over in 1940 had a high school diploma! By 2000, that had climbed to 80.4%. (Source. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/census/half-century/files/US.pdf) Take a loot at all the charts there. Historically, U.S. educational attainment has risen, and inequality by race has decreased.

That trend's pretty persistent going back in American history. Education has become more widely available and more equitable. Just because it's an uphill slog at times does not mean we should stop, it means the opposite! When students of poor parents get a good education and exceed the economic success of their parents, they provide a leg up for the children they have.

JudeBrando

10th July 2011, 01:06 AM

Liberal progressive control happened to the US education system.

ImaginalDisc

10th July 2011, 01:18 AM

Liberal progressive control happened to the US education system.

Without progressive attitudes like "democracy" and "public education" you wouldn't be able to spell "education," much less have gotten one.

JudeBrando

10th July 2011, 03:53 PM

Without progressive attitudes like "democracy" and "public education" you wouldn't be able to spell "education," much less have gotten one.That's supposed to mean that what today's liberals are doing to and with public education is good?

So you must smack at me... because you cannot deny what I said?

Oh, by the way, ID, churches started the public schools. :)

It started with "the Right." It is now most certainly with "the Left."

ImaginalDisc

10th July 2011, 03:59 PM

That's supposed to mean that what today's liberals are doing to and with public education is good?

So you must smack at me... because you cannot deny what I said?

Oh, by the way, ID, churches started the public schools. :)

And I started in my father's scrotum.

We all outgrow our origins.

Honestly, you didn't cite any facts to refute me. Your claim that the educational system is deteriorating is facetious. See that big post up there? I laid the fact down like Randy Citation-man Savage.

JudeBrando

10th July 2011, 04:00 PM

And I started in my father's scrotum.

Classy. Without question, a Lefty.

ImaginalDisc

10th July 2011, 04:01 PM

Classy.

Factual.

Some of us don't pretend reality conforms to our preconceptions.

Mudcat

10th July 2011, 08:36 PM

What's happening with the educational system is that the teachers can't do their jobs without the parents interfering one way or another. I applaud people getting involved with their children's education, it show they care and encourages the children to learn but they should allow the teachers to get the job done.

However, I think the educational system is better than before not worse as more people are getting educations than ever before (including some who would not have in generations past). More people getting more education means more people doing better in life means less poverty all around.

ETA

10th July 2011, 09:38 PM

Why is achievement not as high as we'd like, or perhaps as high as we remember?

The buzz word typically used here is "socio-economic status." That's pronounced "rich parents." The wealthier a child's parents are, the better the child does in school, generally speaking.

The gap between rich and poor in America is widening at an alarming rate. Do you believe the number of less fortunate (and thus less educated) children in the country is rising?

Liberal progressive control happened to the US education system.

I think you are being a troll, but let's pretend you are being serious. Can you be more specific? By liberal, do you mean secular? Are you saying that church-based institutions are superior? Is there performance data to back up that claim?

ImaginalDisc

10th July 2011, 10:04 PM

The gap between rich and poor in America is widening at an alarming rate. Do you believe the number of less fortunate (and thus less educated) children in the country is rising?

The gap in educational achievement is actually decreasing, it's just that our perception of what is an acceptable gap has changed. Take a look at the census links above.

As for how many kids are living in poverty today compared to 1975 (when we began having data on the subject) is here:

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites/default/files/04_fig01.jpg

17% of U.S. children lived in poverty in 1975, and 20% lived in poverty in 2009. Those percentages have fluctuated between 16% and 22% in that time.

That's. . .not a big trend between the past and today.

Complexity

12th July 2011, 08:03 PM

I think the real question should be, "What happened to Americans?".

fuelair

12th July 2011, 10:35 PM

Anecdotes can be used as examples. That's just one example of the entitlement of 'teachers' today. It surely is not unsubstantiated, as you can probably tell by my tone, it was someone very close to me.It is one example of something one teacher in one location did. I tend to suspect that that is not a first in teaching. And, I suspect favoritism due to either negative or positive "feelings" has happened in rather more professions than teaching. Unless you can demonstrate this is a common occurence AND that it only occurs in education, I think it is just an anecdote...............

Roboramma

12th July 2011, 10:52 PM

THIS is why teaching in the US is awful today. Entitlement.

Doesn't follow. The fact that one teacher treated someone poorly does not show that entitlement is "why teaching in the US is awful today", it doesn't even show that it is awful. Nor have you shown that there is a difference between teaching today and teaching in the past, that similar things don't happen in other countries, or, in fact, anything relating to the discussion at hand.

I wouldn't be surprised if things like what you describe are far too common. Are they more common now than in the past? I doubt it, but if you have evidence, please present it. Are they more common in the US than in other countries? Perhaps, but again, if you have evidence of that, please present it.

ImaginalDisc

12th July 2011, 11:50 PM

Both income equality and the US's status as a scientific leader in the 1950's could be due to a single factor...much of the rest of the world was still in ruins after WWII. Until the other countries rebuilt and caught up to us, it was possible for an American household to subsist on the salary of a factory worker. That wasn't true before WWII or after the 1970's or so.

People often complain that things have gone wrong with the US, when much of what they remember as being "right" was just the result of an economic windfall that had little to do with the quality of our education, our work ethic, or other such things.

That's about my impression, too.

JudeBrando

13th July 2011, 06:10 PM

You said:
Without progressive attitudes like "democracy" and "public education" you wouldn't be able to spell "education," much less have gotten one.

Then I said:
That's supposed to mean that what today's liberals are doing to and with public education is good?

Why didn't you answer?

JudeBrando

13th July 2011, 06:15 PM

I think you are being a troll, but let's pretend you are being serious.On this board, not being a Lefty means constantly hearing "troll." Can you be more specific? By liberal, do you mean secular?Lefty. Liberal. Progressive. Are you saying that church-based institutions are superior?Not-Lefty, not-liberal, not-progressive is superior. Is there performance data to back up that claim?The criticisms of today's educational results fall squarely on the Liberals who have controlled the system for 30 years.

Can you blame Bush?

Complexity

13th July 2011, 07:21 PM

JudeBrando

13th July 2011, 07:25 PM

Nonsense.
What is? Or can you not answer here either now?

ImaginalDisc

13th July 2011, 07:29 PM

You said:

Then I said:

Why didn't you answer?

Because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation. Where are you citations, facts, and evidence? You are just blaming your pet specter for a problem you made up.

Roboramma

13th July 2011, 10:36 PM

What is? Or can you not answer here either now?

The idea that your political leanings are what label you as a troll. I'm not going to call you a troll because I'm happy to assume that you are actually interested in the topic at hand. However, it's clear that you were given that label due to the lack of content in your posts. ID came into this thread with evidence and data. You reply with soundbytes. I can understand why others would feel that you're not actually interested in the discussion, regardless of whether ID is correct or not.

If you are interested in dicussion, perhaps you could address the actual content of his posts?

For instance, ID points out:
Why is achievement not as high as we'd like, or perhaps as high as we remember?

The buzz word typically used here is "socio-economic status." That's pronounced "rich parents." The wealthier a child's parents are, the better the child does in school, generally speaking. This is a much better predictor of a child's school achievement than race, gender, home language, or anything else you might consider, but the correlation isn't super-strong, there's a lot of variation from child-to-child despite the trend. As times have changed in the U.S., we have increasingly focused on trying to give the same educational opportunities to students of all backgrounds.

You don't bother to reply to that, but rather say, Liberal progressive control happened to the US education system. With neither evidence nor any compelling argument to back up your assertion.

So, no, I don't think others find are calling you a troll because of your right-wing views. They are calling you a troll because you are making bare, button pushing assertions, without evidence, and ignoring the actual meaningful content in the posts of others that can address the questions that this thread is related to.

mike3

13th July 2011, 10:42 PM

Without progressive attitudes like "democracy" and "public education" you wouldn't be able to spell "education," much less have gotten one.

So how come it is still hard for the poor to get what they need in terms of education?

ImaginalDisc

13th July 2011, 11:08 PM

So how come it is still hard for the poor to get what they need in terms of education?

I kind of touched on this earlier, but poorer households are less stable, less able to provide health care and food, less likely to provide help with school work, less likely to have a computer in the home, etc.

The deck is stacked against the children of poor parents.

Complexity

14th July 2011, 06:51 PM

What is? Or can you not answer here either now?

What you have been posting has been nonsense.

While I could play your game and answer your insincere questions, having my responses either ignored or replied to with inanity, I can't see any reason to do so. You haven't paid any of us the courtesy of replying seriously to our questions, so you will get none.

JudeBrando

14th July 2011, 07:01 PM

Because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation....that you like to hear or consider... Where are you citations, facts, and evidence? You are just blaming your pet specter for a problem you made up.Do YOU deny that liberal progressives control the education system?
Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?
What is my "pet specter"?
What "problem" did I "make up"?

What you have been posting has been nonsense.
An example of this "nonsense" please..
Do YOU deny that liberal progressives control the education system?
Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?
While I could play your game and answer your insincere questions...
I assure you, I am most sincere.

goodm0urning

14th July 2011, 09:07 PM

Thanks to the influence of the right wing, my school taught abstinence-only sex education and my science teachers had to skate around the issue of evolution. I would have much prefered the alternative--lefty, progressive, or whatever euphemism you'd like to call correct education.

JudeBrando

14th July 2011, 09:10 PM

Jeff Corey

14th July 2011, 10:14 PM

Not More Science High, nor Communist Martyrs High, nor Whassamatta U.Them taught devilolution.

ETA

14th July 2011, 10:36 PM

On this board, not being a Lefty means constantly hearing "troll." Lefty. Liberal. Progressive. Not-Lefty, not-liberal, not-progressive is superior. The criticisms of today's educational results fall squarely on the Liberals who have controlled the system for 30 years.

Can you blame Bush?

If someone came here and said, "It is the religious nutcases and right-wing teabaggers that are destroying the education system!" I would have the exact same reaction that I had with you: calling you a troll. Despite your insistence otherwise, it is not your politics that makes you appear like a troll, it is the presentation of your opinions and arguments.

Words like "progressives" and "liberals" and "conservatives" and "rightwingers" are imaginary terms created by the media and people of power to lump people with varying degrees of opinion into nice pre-packaged notions that are easy for people with limited critical thinking skills to understand.

If you want to contribute to the thread in an intelligent manner, then I suggest toning down the rhetoric and incredibly simplistic arguments that border on childish. No one here is going to be swayed by you or even listen to you so long as you present yourself as an unthinking brute rather than an intelligent human-being with an independent mind.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Can you please present empirical and well-researched evidence that supports your point of a view, which appears to be that a political or cultural group has hijacked the US education system and is causing the decline of US testing and education standards?

excaza

15th July 2011, 04:31 AM

I find it strangely amusing that my biology teachers in high school (I went to a private Xaverian Brothers school) spent a great deal of time teaching evolution, but there is a battle in multiple states about whether or not to teach it in public schools.

Damn lefties...

excaza

15th July 2011, 04:34 AM

On this board, not being a Lefty means constantly hearing "troll."

Well, that's what you get for writing with your right hand. Southpaws are the future!

Dancing David

15th July 2011, 05:11 AM

...that you like to hear or consider... Do YOU deny that liberal progressives control the education system?
Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?
What is my "pet specter"?
What "problem" did I "make up"?

An example of this "nonsense" please..
Do YOU deny that liberal progressives control the education system?
Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?

I assure you, I am most sincere.

I assure you, you don't know much about how education works in the US, stat boards set curriculum, local school boards set policy, many teachers are conservatives and vote republican.

Dancing David

15th July 2011, 05:14 AM

What public school of yours taught such things? Name it.

Excuse me, but you are vastly ignorant, the current curriculums are mainly mixed, however some states and local school boards require abstinence only.

When was the last time you went to school.

The nature of textbooks at current schools and the theory of evolution is what it is, apparently unknown to you.

ImaginalDisc

15th July 2011, 05:33 AM

Not that our troll is making points, but I have thought of another contributor to the faulty perception that education was better in the past than today.

You were taught the wrong skills for today's economy. The older you are, the less your school curriculum related to the present economy. I have a small collection of Latin primers from as late at the 1960's, but none older, because Latin became less common a part of the curriculum as room was made for modern languages. (http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/96003115.pdf)

If you were in high school before 1990 you probably got little to no education in computer science.

1984 - Reagon re-elected; 31 states use 13,000 PCs for career guidance, but there are still relatively few computers in classrooms; the Apple Macintosh computer is developed; computer-based tutorials and learning games are developed by commercial software manufacturers.

1986 - 25 % of high schools use PCs for college and career guidance, K-8 schools buying mostly Apple II and Macintosh computers, high schools buying mostly DOS-based clones.

1988 - Bush elected President; 60 % of all workers in the US use computers, laptops are developed; Gorbachoff proposes an end to the cold war;.

1990 - Multimedia PCs are developed; schools are using videodiscs; object-oriented multimedia authoring tools are in wide use; Simulations, educational databases and other types of CAI programs are being delivered on CD-ROM disks, many with animati on and sound; the US crime increases dramatically; the cold war ends.

1992 - Clinton elected President; for the first time, police and prison budgets begin to surpass education budgets; schools are using Gopher servers to provide students with on-line information.

1994 - Digital video, virtual reality, and 3-D systems capture the attention of many, but fewer multimedia PCs than basic business PCs are sold; object-oriented authoring systems such as HyperCard, Hyperstudio, and Authorware grow in popularity in schools; most US classrooms now have at least one PC available for instructional delivery, but not all teachers have access to a computer for instructional preparation.

1995 - The Internet and the world wide web began to catch on as businesses, schools, and individuals create web pages; most CAI is delivered on CD-ROM disks and is growing in popularity.

1996 - The Internet is widely discussed as businesses begin to provide services and advertising using web pages. New graphics and multimedia tools are developed for the delivery of information and instruction using the Internet; many schools are rewiring for Internet access; a few schools install web servers and provide faculty with a way to create instructional web pages.

1997-2007 - The growth of the internet expands far faster than most predicted. It soon becomes the world's largest database of information, graphics, and streaming video making it an invaluable resource for educators; but marketing-oriented web pages, computer viruses hidden within downloadable programs and/or graphics, and spam (widely disseminated email-based sales pitches) threaten it's usefullness. Search engines such as Google and Yahoo constantly develop new ways to find information within the ever-growing number of web pages. Web sites that offer individuals a place to put personal information become popular, as does internet-based publishing and discussion forums. Voice recognition slowly enters the computing mainstream, but it's development is slowed by an unacceptable frequency of errors. Some computers incorporate TV input, but it is not as common as many predicted. Educational software becomes more useful and interesting to students as graphics and video are incorporated. Larger computer storage capacity and the growing prevalence of CD-ROM and DVD drives in personal computers make it easier for educators to store large graphic and video and sound files for educational applications.

Source. (http://www.csulb.edu/~murdock/histofcs.html)

It's easy to sit back and bemoan how kids aren't taught the same subjects you were, or the same way but if education involves job/college preparation it has to try to hit a moving target.

Mister Earl

15th July 2011, 07:26 PM

Can't politics be left out of this thread? I don't think it's really warranted. Personally, I think the public education system currently here has a couple of things going against it. First, worse and worse teacher-to-student ratios. I think the less kids there are per teacher, the better results you're going to see. Second, I think it's a problem with how funding and grading is done... students seem to be taught to pass the tests rather than know and understand the material.

All just personal opinion, here, based off of my memories from school.

JudeBrando

15th July 2011, 07:28 PM

^ Democrats own the public education system. Why do you want them absolved of responsibility for what they have done?

ImaginalDisc

15th July 2011, 09:28 PM

^ Democrats own the public education system. Why do you want them absolved of responsibility for what they have done?

You mean taught hundreds of millions of Americans to read, write, add, compose poetry, sing, dance, learn American history. . .

. . .now it all makes sense. This is some elaborate revenge plot you hatched for failing civics.

Roboramma

15th July 2011, 11:14 PM

JudeBrando, did you happen to see my post #69? It explains why others are not interested in the kind of dialog that you are attempting to engage in. If, instead, you are willing to have a meaningful dialog about the issue at hand, I'm sure that myself and others will be happy to engage you, answer questions that are honestly posed, consider reasoned and supported arguments, and generally treat you with respect.

I think most people posting in this thread are interested in actually discussing the topic at hand, rather than playing games.

JudeBrando

16th July 2011, 11:45 AM

I will never respond to one of your demands by giving you what you insist upon.I made no demands and desire nothing but the truth.

I noticed you changed "super logic science homo anti-religion man" at 2:53. I was going to report you, but couldn't find the report button.Was it wrong to change "homo" to "homosexual" deliberately because I thought the shorter probably would be offensive to any hyper-sensitive? I tried myself to avoid that. That's wrong? You object? Either is fine with me.

You mean taught hundreds of millions of Americans to read, write, add, compose poetry, sing, dance, learn American history. . .I see... you believe it is reasonable for those in control to get any and all positive credit but, at the same time, the same people in the same system are not responsible or accountable for any negative results. Well, isn't that convenient? Can you blame Bush?

JudeBrando, did you happen to see my post #69? It explains why others are not interested in the kind of dialog that you are attempting to engage in. If, instead, you are willing to have a meaningful dialog about the issue at hand, I'm sure that myself and others will be happy to engage you, answer questions that are honestly posed, consider reasoned and supported arguments, and generally treat you with respect.

I think most people posting in this thread are interested in actually discussing the topic at hand, rather than playing games.Roboramma, do liberals control the public education system and have they done so for a long time now?

I'm not playing any games. I'm being very honest. Can any of you liberals do likewise? Probably not, and I certainly do not expect so. That would mean pointing your fingers at yourselves for a change.

bikerdruid

16th July 2011, 12:13 PM

What happened to the U.S.Education system?

..............the christian right. (which is, ironically, neither.)

AlBell

16th July 2011, 12:49 PM

... do liberals control the public education system and have they done so for a long time now?

I'd say you are looking at the wrong end of the problem. Schools are inundated with the 'won't be educated' and 'uneducatable', thanks to liberalization of the entire social contract that was shared by most citizens until the mid-60's.

JudeBrando

16th July 2011, 01:13 PM

^ That too.

16th July 2011, 02:00 PM

how can the liberals control the public education? do they? sounds like CT stuff.

bikerdruid

16th July 2011, 02:12 PM

how can the liberals control the public education? do they? sounds like CT stuff.

they aren't, or there would be no consideration of teaching creationism in schools.
the american christian right are dong more damage to the education system, and are proud of it.
that goof, rick perry, in texas is a good illustration of that.

JudeBrando

16th July 2011, 02:44 PM

how can the liberals control the public education? do they? sounds like CT stuff.

Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?

You'll find that most of what Brando types sounds a lot like that. Does it in every thread, too (that I seen) and it never fails to be confusing as all get out.

Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?

they aren't, or there would be no consideration of teaching creationism in schools.
the american christian right are dong more damage to the education system, and are proud of it.
that goof, rick perry, in texas is a good illustration of that.

Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?

It's a real easy question that no liberals will answer.

bikerdruid

16th July 2011, 02:51 PM

Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?

It's a real easy question that no liberals will answer.

i'm not a liberal, but i'll answer.
happily, the organization is still largely liberal.
once the tea baggers get a hold on it, the boundaries between science fact and mythology will become very blurred.

readin', writin' and 'rithmatic.............
who needs edumicated folks...all uppity an' such?

JippyJay

16th July 2011, 02:53 PM

I imagine that there are plenty of factors that come into play when looking at how other countries have caught up to the US. Technology has certainly made it easier for information to be shared with the public, and has allowed for additional educational options as well (online classes, online how-to articles, and such). I'm sure politics has a role in it as well. For instance, we often trained foreign military units when I was in the military. Introducing any new knowledge to a foreign power means they have the ability to pass it along. I'd be surprised to hear that such instances of foreign info sharing stopped with the military.

I personally feel that we in the US are expecting students to learn too much of the wrong information, at least by the time they are in college. It's something that would be difficult to prove, but it's certainly how I see it. Students are now expected to have a basic knowledge of nearly all topics rather than devoting their focus to the knowledge most needed in their field.

Another option is that a large part of the lag in US education is due to issues outside of the classroom. It's well documented that the US has a horrid problem with teenage obesity. I believe it's about three times as bad now as it was during the Cold War era. This could help explain the educational issues, since nutrition is so important to brain development and learning.

It could also be partly due to how the educational data is gathered. It'd be interesting to get some info on that. Were all schools from the countries reporting data, and accurately, during the Cold War era?

JudeBrando

16th July 2011, 02:58 PM

happily, the organization is still largely liberal.

Largely? Where do you consider the NEA to be in any way even slightly conservative?

bikerdruid

16th July 2011, 03:01 PM

Largely? Where do you consider the NEA to be in any way even slightly conservative?

i do know that bush's education reforms were devastating to american education.

Complexity

16th July 2011, 03:06 PM

Largely? Where do you consider the NEA to be in any way even slightly conservative?

They can be stupid and rather nasty on occasion.

Mudcat

16th July 2011, 03:07 PM

i do know that bush's education reforms were devastating to american education.

"No child left behind", while well intentioned, was especially devastating.

16th July 2011, 03:12 PM

Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?

Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?

Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?

It's a real easy question that no liberals will answer.

i dont know, how could i find evidnece for your claim?

JudeBrando

16th July 2011, 03:20 PM

They can be stupid and rather nasty on occasion.Thank you for your back-handed acknowledgement of the truth that the NEA and the public education system is controlled by liberals and they are responsible for its increasingly dismal results. Finally.

i dont know, how could i find evidnece for your claim?Use your head instead of your prejudice and search out what you don't yet know?

JudeBrando

16th July 2011, 03:23 PM

i do know that bush's education reforms were devastating to american education.

You mean when he was sucking up to Teddy Kennedy because he was dumb enough to think it would make liberals like him?

bikerdruid

16th July 2011, 03:25 PM

You mean when he was sucking up to Teddy Kennedy because he was dumb enough to think it would make liberals like him?

wow.

bikerdruid

16th July 2011, 03:26 PM

Use your head instead of your prejudice and search out what you don't yet know?

this statement just broke the dial on my irony meter......

Startz

16th July 2011, 04:05 PM

AlBell

16th July 2011, 04:31 PM

Startz

16th July 2011, 04:37 PM

Complexity

16th July 2011, 05:14 PM

Thank you for your back-handed acknowledgement of the truth that the NEA and the public education system is controlled by liberals and they are responsible for its increasingly dismal results. Finally.

You were born to disappoint and to be disappointed.

Wrong again.

I haven't agreed with anything you said. I found a somewhat witty way to insult 'your people'. That is all.

I have said nothing from which you may infer my opinions of the NEA (except that they can be somewhat stupid and nasty on occasion).

Reading and thinking are important skills. Really.

rwguinn

16th July 2011, 05:52 PM

We turned the schools into baby-sitters, and are forcing them to do parent's jobs, too.
Most parents do not get involved, or if they do, it is to rescue little Johnny or Janet from the jack-booted Nazis who do not recognize just how perfect the little hellion actually is.
[anecdotal evidence] When my son was a Sophomore, he was struggling with Algebra. I scheduled a meeting with his teacher. When I showed up, not only was the teacher in attendance, but the head of department and the vice-principal. They displayed an air of defensiveness and were obviously expecting some sort of parental attack.
When I told them "I have gotten him into trouble in 6th grade by trying to teach him my way. I need to know how you are teaching this course, so I can augment, rather than oppose, your methods. I don't care if he earns an "A" or a "C", as long as he knows the material. How do we do this?"
After they picked their jaws up off the floor, the V-P left, commenting on how different this was from most of these types of conference, and we got a plan hammered out that not only reduced the time it took him on his homework, but increased his knowledge.
Other parents were aghast--they made demands of the teachers to help their kids, and change grades, deserving or no. I had friends on the faculty, but by the time he graduated, some parents and the Superintendent were glad to see his back[/anecdotal evidence]
I've seen it all too often. Parental support and teaching are important--the schools cannot and should not be in loco parentus--that's not their job.

JudeBrando

16th July 2011, 06:56 PM

John D. Rockefeller's General Education Board-
"In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into men of learning or philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters, great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, statesmen, politicians, creatures of whom we have ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in an perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way".

Edward Roth, 1906, "Social Control"-
"plans are underway to replace family, community and church with propaganda, mass-media and education ...people are only little plastic lumps of dough".

http://4brevard.com/choice/Public_Education.htm

"The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher's Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling"
John Taylor Gatto

http://www.amazon.com/Underground-History-American-Education-Investigation/dp/0945700040

"these institutions that produce barely literate, dependent, conformist, incomplete individuals full of emotional and psychological problems, who lack real knowledge (and whose capacity for acquiring such is deliberately weakened or eliminated), and who are just `educated' enough to pay their taxes and buy the latest products, are not, in fact, failing schools - on the contrary, if we are to believe Gatto's analysis, they are performing their designated function PERFECTLY. That purpose is to mold people in such a way as to make them more easily controlled by corporations and the state (a clear-cut example of how, contrary to popular myth, the interests of big business and those of big government more often than not coincide.)"

Complexity

16th July 2011, 07:46 PM

JudeBrando - The problem is, you have to give people some reason to read a list of quotes, and you haven't.

Your posting history doesn't lead one to anticipate much pleasure or interest, so why bother with a wall of words?

Fortunately for you, you fascinate me and I'll read anything you right (though only words that are your own).

Never fear - I'll let you know how you are doing.

17th July 2011, 02:06 AM

Thank you for your back-handed acknowledgement of the truth that the NEA and the public education system is controlled by liberals and they are responsible for its increasingly dismal results. Finally.

Use your head instead of your prejudice and search out what you don't yet know?

now i was hoping you would direct me to something that would support your claims.
It is a claim i often hear , but have never seen any evidence that would back up that claim.

and btw, i have no prejudice in this case. i even think there might be some truth in it, as i do indeed have the impression that "liberals" might play a bigger role in education than they do in general. But i would have thought you would be able to confirm this with evidence, you were not able to, i wonder why.

JippyJay

18th July 2011, 07:38 AM

What happened to the U.S.Education system?

..............the christian right. (which is, ironically, neither.)

That doesn't even begin to make sense. The OP is asking why the U.S. education system has been going down hill since the Cold War era. Christianity had much more influence on the educational system in the past than it does today. So your reply actually suggests that the Christian influence is what led to a better educational system and the loss of such influence is leading to the downfall of educational levels in the U.S.

I love how some people on this board attempt to turn everything into religion and politics.

ImaginalDisc

18th July 2011, 07:41 AM

That doesn't even begin to make sense. The OP is asking why the U.S. education system has been going down hill since the Cold War era. Christianity had much more influence on the educational system in the past than it does today. So your reply actually suggests that the Christian influence is what led to a better educational system and the loss of such influence is leading to the downfall of educational levels in the U.S.

I love how some people on this board attempt to turn everything into religion and politics.

You see my post up there, full of all kinds of facts which dispute the claim that education has deteriorated? Go read it.

JippyJay

18th July 2011, 07:48 AM

According to the last survey done by the NEA, 55 percent of teachers described their political philosophy as conservative or tending to be conservative and 45 percent described their political philosophy as liberal or tending to be liberal.

Excellent work at bringing a stat into that claim Startz, seriously. :) I will however ask if you know how that statistic was gathered? I know that I've seen surveys in the past that were asking school employees such things, but were really misleading with how they weighed the results. One had been asking teachers to identify any personality theorists that they could recognize in their work and then someone else added words such as conservative or liberal when describing the results. At the same time, only a small percentage of those surveyed had degrees in counseling or any psych related field. As such, I doubt any were truly qualified to recognize the influence of most of the personality theorists.

Startz

18th July 2011, 08:47 AM

Excellent work at bringing a stat into that claim Startz, seriously. :) I will however ask if you know how that statistic was gathered? I know that I've seen surveys in the past that were asking school employees such things, but were really misleading with how they weighed the results. One had been asking teachers to identify any personality theorists that they could recognize in their work and then someone else added words such as conservative or liberal when describing the results. At the same time, only a small percentage of those surveyed had degrees in counseling or any psych related field. As such, I doubt any were truly qualified to recognize the influence of most of the personality theorists.

The original source is http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/2005-06StatusTextandAppendixA.pdf.

While I doubt it's perfect, my reading is that the survey is pretty well done

Dancing David

18th July 2011, 09:22 AM

^ Democrats own the public education system. Why do you want them absolved of responsibility for what they have done?

Except they don't, how many schools boards are run by Republicans or Democrats?

Really, do you even care?
Who determines the state curricula and standards, who passes the laws and determines teh structure of education, state legislatures and local school boards.

So Jude Brando, do you actually think before you spame your opinion. How exactly do teh Democrats 'own' education? Are you saying that every state legislature is Democratic, are you saying that every school borad is Democratic, are you saying that all principals and superintendants are Democrats.

Dancing David

18th July 2011, 09:25 AM

Roboramma, do liberals control the public education system and have they done so for a long time now?

I'm not playing any games. I'm being very honest.

Ah so you are being truthfukl when you say all school boards are run by Democtrats, that all state legislatures are run by Democrats and that all schools' staff are Democrats.

You are just spamming. Or you are seriously ignorant of the make up of state legislatures and school boards.

So...
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=21317

26 states have Republican control of the state legislature
16 are Democrats
8 are divided or non partisans

So WHO determines state educational policies in those 26 states Jude Brando, the Magic Teacher's Union of Democratics Liberal Sorcerreres?

Dancing David

18th July 2011, 09:34 AM

Would YOU say the National Education Association is liberal or conservative?

Who determines state standards and curricula? The NEA or the state legislature?
Who determines local school policies and curricula, the NEA or teh local school board?

bigred

18th July 2011, 09:47 AM

What has happened to the US education system today compared to during the Cold War?
That's surprisingly easy. Attitude and discipline. Both have taken a nose dive. eg teachers/staff as authority figure(s) became a joke as their authority was shredded...although that's a symptom of a much larger problem of our society in general, esp in the family unit, which has also become more and more of a joke. Discipline (as in lack of it) is a huge part but not the only part, and parents who used to (all things being equal) believe the teacher when a problem arose w/the kid now far more often default to believing their perfect little angels has been wronged and by golly let's sue!

I recall a survey (sorry, don't have link, will look later) where kids who did well in school were asked what the primary reason was; American kids mostly said a parent or particular teacher. The foreign kids mostly said "hard work." And hard work, which used to be a source of pride and a given in America, is now something IMO incresaingly avoided in our increasingly instant gratification/welfare mentality society.

/rant

Can't politics be left out of this thread?
You don't know where you are, do you :cool: FYI digressing threads into a political catfight and/or excuse to Christian-bash is a JREF tradition. :rolleyes:

bigred

18th July 2011, 09:49 AM

bikerdruid

18th July 2011, 10:43 AM

That doesn't even begin to make sense. The OP is asking why the U.S. education system has been going down hill since the Cold War era. Christianity had much more influence on the educational system in the past than it does today. So your reply actually suggests that the Christian influence is what led to a better educational system and the loss of such influence is leading to the downfall of educational levels in the U.S.

I love how some people on this board attempt to turn everything into religion and politics.

the fact that the christian right is actively pushing to have creation mythology taught as science fact, proves you wrong.

JippyJay

18th July 2011, 10:10 PM

Thanks for the link Startz, I'll give it a read tomorrow. :)

Minoosh

19th July 2011, 01:23 PM

It's not critical, Republicans vs. Democrats on school boards, in the Legislature, teaching school. Universal taxpayer funded public education is collectivist, it's a socialism most people don't mind because otherwise they'd have to be with their kids all day.

Post-Sputnik, the "New Math" may have hurt by pushing sophisticated concepts over the basics. A lot of people became convinced they "can't do math" and passed the attitude to their kids.

See Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" for theories about Asian success at math. He ties it into growing rice - it's very demanding, you have to stick to it, precision matters - and cites language traits that make math a bit less mystifying.

Patience is huge: In my experience American students tend to get easily discouraged; if they can't do it "in their head," they think they can't do it.

Learning is hard, hanging out is easy. In my day the Vietnam War helped, if you flunked out off you went ... and students in some countries may just be more motivated, more driven to compete.

ImaginalDisc

19th July 2011, 07:54 PM

See Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" for theories about Asian success at math. He ties it into growing rice - it's very demanding, you have to stick to it, precision matters - and cites language traits that make math a bit less mystifying.

In my unqualified opinion, Asian cultures value education more highly, so the parents are more supportive and can can even verge into pushiness with regards to educational success.

This is a broad and generalized brush I'm painting with, mea culpa.

Dancing David

20th July 2011, 09:42 AM

Post-Sputnik, the "New Math" may have hurt by pushing sophisticated concepts over the basics. A lot of people became convinced they "can't do math" and passed the attitude to their kids.

I disagree, the modern curriculums for math are very accessible, take Everyday Math for K-6, it is third or fourth generation new math.

I think that math is conceptual and I have seen kids learn algebra through Connected Math in middle school much more easily than the first generation of new math that I was taught in 1972.

The main issue as always is that people who are not middle class and have the training themselves are not good at helping their kids, usually due to schedules. Now there are also the "fourth graders should not have homework" parents as well.

So in my district most student do not get assigned homework in grade school, they only have to take home what they did not get done in class time, which is adequate if they aren't goofing off.

Dancing David

20th July 2011, 09:43 AM

In my unqualified opinion, Asian cultures value education more highly, so the parents are more supportive and can can even verge into pushiness with regards to educational success.

This is a broad and generalized brush I'm painting with, mea culpa.

Well considering teh common anti education mems in the US it is part and parcel, my favorite "that is just book smarts".

Minoosh

20th July 2011, 11:15 AM

One of Gladwell's main points was about patience and persistence - and yes, it's easy to overgeneralize but his theories are entertaining and at least plausible. He writes that In rice culture, peasants yielded a set amount of landlords and that any marginal increase enriched the family, thus providing motivation to increase crop yields, thus fostering a culture of industry, persistence, continuous cultivation. As opposed to throwing a few seeds on the ground, harvesting potatoes and going to sleep for the winter. He proceeds to apply this to mental cultivation, saying Westerners thought it important to "rest the mind," as in letting fields go fallow, while rice fields grow more fertile with time due to constant fertilization.

When I spoke of new math I was talking about my experience in the 1960s - doing problems in base 8, working with "sets," even, as I recall, struggling with logarithms in elementary school. "Connected Math" of course makes sense.

Re: "That is just book smarts." Certainly there are anti-education elements in this country, but the some very pro-education sorts are also math phobic. I don't hear of any other subject traumatizing people so much. I've recently spent a year studying math, it's hard, you can't BS your way through it, for most of us it requires practice and patience. It needn't be seen as mysterious or magical, but much of it must be learned in sequence. The sustained effort, the willingness to puzzle your way through the fog, runs counter to our desire for instant results. You can't just watch a movie about it, you have to do it, it can be a slog. But then getting the right answer to the puzzle can feel very empowering, you think, maybe I can get the NEXT thing.

"What Happened to the U.S. Education System?" is a complicated topic, lots happened, but I do think fear of sustained effort holds some people back.

Dancing David

22nd July 2011, 04:59 AM

Re: "That is just book smarts." Certainly there are anti-education elements in this country, but the some very pro-education sorts are also math phobic. I don't hear of any other subject traumatizing people so much. I've recently spent a year studying math, it's hard, you can't BS your way through it, for most of us it requires practice and patience.

Wereyou in K-12? That is the discussion, what methods did your K-12 provide, what does this have to do with the new math, gen four?

It needn't be seen as mysterious or magical, but much of it must be learned in sequence. The sustained effort, the willingness to puzzle your way through the fog, runs counter to our desire for instant results. You can't just watch a movie about it, you have to do it, it can be a slog. But then getting the right answer to the puzzle can feel very empowering, you think, maybe I can get the NEXT thing.

"What Happened to the U.S. Education System?" is a complicated topic, lots happened, but I do think fear of sustained effort holds some people back.

Um, I think that is one of many societal issues, poverty is a much larger one. Both of my schools have a high percentage of low SES, it is a huge impact.

The main effect of asian cultures has nothing to do with growing rice, that person knows nothing about cross cultural agriculture or farming, it is absued.

What do they think non-rice farming is like?

Asian culture and the societies where testing allowed adanvancement?

Minoosh

22nd July 2011, 11:15 AM

Were you in K-12
I took a bunch of college math, then started teaching high school algebra.

... what does this have to do with the new math, gen four?
I'm not sure what new math, gen four is. Most of these kids did not have a solid foundation in arithmetic. I don't know which iteration of "new math" is supposed to build foundations in arithmetic. My point was/is that without that foundation algebra is going to freak them out even more. You can dip into history at different points; in math you need to build things in sequence.

The main effect of assian cultures has nothing to do with growing rice, that person knows nothing about cross cultural agriculture or farming, it is absued
Trying to figure out if you mean "absurd" or "abused."

What do they think non-rice farming is like?
Malcolm Gladwell's point was rice farming was almost year-round vs. a single growing season; that it requires more precision and diligence; that Chinese peasants generally paid a "flat rate" of rice and got to keep the rest, providing incentives to increase yields. Among other arguments that seem fairly well researched. He also talks about pressure to do well on tests.

Um, I think that is one of many societal issues, poverty is a much larger one. Both of my schools have a high percentage of low SES, it is a huge impact

SES? Socioeconomic status? It would be productive to look at what teachers/schools can change vs. what they can't. What practices would help low-income students achieve more?

fuelair

22nd July 2011, 12:00 PM

Best I can say for New Math is that I understood why they started it (I'm New Math Class of '65 - my first NMclass, as college freshman)- they had decided it was not enough to teach arithmetic (actually that it was not even important) but the kids needed to understand the framework of the math before they learned the grunt stuff.
Amazingly (I sarcasm) that led to a generation who could put things in sets and tell you how the Aztecs or Mayans or both numbered things BUT could not divide or fraction for crap. I am still getting those kids/their children in my chemistry classes - as the majority.

JudeBrando

22nd July 2011, 04:40 PM

This is the kind of crap that is happening to public education.

http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/

"They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it."

"...to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?"

"I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT."

Readin', writin' and 'rithmetic are worse than ever, we pay more than ever for it, and homosexuality is a priority.

Minoosh

22nd July 2011, 09:29 PM

Readin', writin' and 'rithmetic are worse than ever, we pay more than ever for it, and homosexuality is a priority.
To whom is it a priority?

ZirconBlue

24th July 2011, 07:01 AM

Readin', writin' and 'rithmetic are worse than ever

Evidence?

we pay more than ever for it

Evidence?

USEagle13

25th July 2011, 03:08 AM

The Cold War era was arguably the United State's Golden Age with major advances in science and technology emerging at a rapid pace. This could not be accomplished without a proper education system founded on engineering, mathematics, and science skills.

Now it seems other countries have caught up and are eclipsing the US as the leader in scientific advancements.

The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report ranked the US as 14th compared to 34 other developed nations for reading skills, 17th for science and 25th for mathematics!

What has happened to the US education system today compared to during the Cold War?

Are less Americans enrolled in engineering, math and science degrees?

Is our education system even responsible or are other variables, like culture, more to blame for this decline?

Am I completely off base in saying the US education system was "better" than it is now?

Too much fluff and puff topics. Too much political correctness and not enough History, Math, & Science.

Also teachers teach from Teachers edition text books too much instead of being well versed in their subjects.

Also alot of teachers go over the reviews (which are usually carbon copies of the tests) right before taking the tests. So kids can sit through class not paying attention (playing with new age gadgets and toys) because they can use rote process since everything is reviewed b4 the tests.

Also there is rampant cheating.

Curriculim is not high enough.

School systems would rather pass students who would other wise fail; intentionally so they get good funding...etc.

There is much more madness I have seen 1st hand.

Oh yeah and alot of the teachers are perverts and actually would rather flirt with students than teach.

Alt+F4

25th July 2011, 08:49 AM

Curriculim is not high enough.

Yeah, we should get that "Curriculim" better weed. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah and alot of the teachers are perverts and actually would rather flirt with students than teach.

Oh please, this is 2011! We've moved beyond just flirting, now we have gay sex with the kids in the chemistry supply room while brainwashing them into becoming god-hating socialists.

Dancing David

28th July 2011, 08:07 AM

I took a bunch of college math, then started teaching high school algebra.

So what do you knwo about current K-6 , seriously. I work in that field everyday, you are wrong, concepts and basic arithetic are taught. What is not taught is the stupid old do two pages of columns of figures.

What do you know about current methods vs. those of the 'ol math'

I'm not sure what new math, gen four is. Most of these kids did not have a solid foundation in arithmetic. I don't know which iteration of "new math" is supposed to build foundations in arithmetic. My point was/is that without that foundation algebra is going to freak them out even more. You can dip into history at different points; in math you need to build things in sequence.

You can say vague thing without any basis of realty if you want, what do you know exactly about the current math products in K-6 vs the old math.

Trying to figure out if you mean "absurd" or "abused."

Stupid and absurd.

Malcolm Gladwell's point was rice farming was almost year-round vs. a single growing season;

that is *********** stupid.

So they don't grow wheat in northern china and value education less.

It is fluff with zero substance.

that it requires more precision and diligence; that Chinese peasants generally paid a "flat rate" of rice and got to keep the rest, providing incentives to increase yields.

More ******** with little way of actual data vs. made up fluff.

Among other arguments that seem fairly well researched. He also talks about pressure to do well on tests.

Pressure to pass a civil service exam under the Conusian model of government.

I already mentioned that.

SES? Socioeconomic status? It would be productive to look at what teachers/schools can change vs. what they can't. What practices would help low-income students achieve more?

You claim to know about K-12 and you don't even know what SES is? Seriously, when was the last time you were in a grade school?

Astrodude

28th July 2011, 01:30 PM

I have two words to sum this up: New Math

To be fair, there have been some other factors including failure to keep class discipline without ruining students lives(like arresting a student for bringing a clearly toy water-pistol to school), television, Piaget's terrible application of his own and kind of neat ideas, lots of busywork stressing drawing and coloring, failure to emphasize assimilation of immigrant children, and just an all around lack of focus on the fundamentals.

We need a good exam system, but we also need to provide avenues to success for those who don't initially succeed on the exams. I don't think Japan does this so they have a high suicide rate. I advocate a "democratic" exam system where people study and register for all exams like the APs or SATs. If they do well, they move on and if they don't and we can't keep paying for them to stay in school, they can still register and take the exams next time they're offered(between 3 to 6 months). This would give us the rigor of an exam system without the suicide rate. So everybody should have to take AP-like exams, but if they don't do well, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
like

In a nutshell though, we should be more like Singapore and less like Germany.

rwguinn

28th July 2011, 01:39 PM

So what do you knwo about current K-6 , seriously. I work in that field everyday, you are wrong, concepts and basic arithetic are taught. What is not taught is the stupid old do two pages of columns of figures.

...
In other words, they are not well-based in arithmetic.

Minoosh

28th July 2011, 08:38 PM

What is not taught is the stupid old do two pages of columns of figures.
No wonder they can't do math.

Anyway, here is one writer's take on rice culture and math.
http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt3.html

Minoosh

29th July 2011, 10:00 AM

I just noticed that the excerpt cited above does not get into agriculture. He starts with language. Farming comes later in the chapter.

gentlehorse

1st August 2011, 06:29 PM

The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report ranked the US as 14th compared to 34 other developed nations for reading skills, 17th for science and 25th for mathematics!

It might be a result of the fact that the US attempts to educate everybody, including those who have absolutely no interest in going to school. Just a guess--

What has happened to the US education system today compared to during the Cold War?
Well, when I was a kid, students could drop out of school and now they can't (at least until they're 18, in this neck of the woods). So, we take classrooms, fill them full of kids who, for a wide variety of reasons, don't want to be there, and then wonder why they're not performing on a par with those who compete to get in, and stay in, school.

Are less Americans enrolled in engineering, math and science degrees?

I don't know.

Is our education system even responsible or are other variables, like culture, more to blame for this decline?

Again, the system attempts to educate everyone.

Everyone.

I feel for teachers. They have a real dilemma on their hands. They have to make sure that everybody is ready to go to college when they get out of high school. A pipe dream, but that seems to be what they're being expected to do-- Many states have some form of state-mandated tests that all students are expected to pass in order to receive a high school diploma, regardless of the extent to which a given student is willing to apply himself/herself toward actually learning anything. When those who don't want to be in school, and who consequently do nothing productive in the classroom, inevitably fail, the blame is put squarely on the shoulders of the teachers. Why? Expedience would be my guess. Easy target, and all that--

The idea of educating everyone is a noble one, and it seems that the cream of the US crop is capable of competing with the rest of the world. I think, however, that the expectations placed on the teachers who dedicate their lives to teaching in such a system border on the absurd. "The system" seems to have lost a realistic sight of what it's actually trying to accomplish.

Am I completely off base in saying the US education system was "better" than it is now?
I don't know. Do you think that filling "upper-level" classrooms full of people who don't want to be there might have a deleterious effect on the learning environment?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we allow everyone who wants to drop out to do so. I am suggesting that, keeping the nature of the system in mind, we adopt some slightly more realistic expectations.

Minoosh

1st August 2011, 09:36 PM

the expectations placed on the teachers who dedicate their lives to teaching in such a system border on the absurd
There's nothing borderline about it. I started teaching freshman algebra at age 51, collapsed after one semester and retreated into doing teacher's aide-type stuff so I could watch people who knew what they were doing. Next semester is up in the air.

My state's graduation test isn't that hard, the biggest hangup is math but a lot of kids pass it in 10th grade. After sophomore year anyone who wants to be on a vocational track should be offered that.

Dancing David

2nd August 2011, 01:14 PM

In other words, they are not well-based in arithmetic.

You said that not me, they do lots of work in class every day at second grade about 10 problems per day and lots of mental math. What they don't do is 80 problems as homework.

So when were you last in a grade school?

Dancing David

2nd August 2011, 01:15 PM

I just noticed that the excerpt cited above does not get into agriculture. He starts with language. Farming comes later in the chapter.

And you present the actual data and then explain why it matters. gee I wonder why some Nordic countries have high test scores?

Dancing David

2nd August 2011, 01:19 PM

Minoosh, so what percentage of student have IQs below 85 and above 70 and what percentage of them get extra help, do you actually know?

Or do you know anything about grade schools? We established you didn't even know what SES is, how about the free and reduced lunch program?

Minoosh

2nd August 2011, 03:38 PM

do you know anything about grade schools? We established you didn't even know what SES is, how about the free and reduced lunch program?

Is this a hazing or something? I posted: "SES - socioeconomic status?" I figured out in the course of typing the acronym what it probably stood for. You bring it up many posts later to ridicule me. You stated in various ways I don't know anything, that Malcolm Gladwell is an idiot, and get plain nasty at the suggestion that often students enter high school with shaky arithmetic skills. (Defensive much?) You sneer that I know nothing about K-6 curriculum, which I never claimed to be an expert on, and imply I don't know what the free and reduced lunch program is, which is so irrelevant it's simply bizarre. Unless ... there are kids getting reduced lunches.;)

I was a new teacher at a school where the freshman algebra flunk rate is more than 50 percent. While it's true I'm utterly clueless on K-6 curriculum in Central Illinois (which you seem to think is the universal standard-bearer), it's just plain fact that this group of kids did not know where to put fractions, decimals or even integers on a real number line; did not know that 2/3 is less than 1, that 1.5 is more than 1, did not know that an equation contains an equal sign. Adding mixed fractions? Not 5 in 150 could do it.

I asked a question, what practices can teachers use to maybe, in small part, compensate for low SES and you never chose to reply, which is a shame because I'm interested in the answer.

Minoosh, so what percentage of student have IQs below 85 and above 70 and what percentage of them get extra help, do you actually know?

DD, how in any way is that relevant? Go ahead and give me the figures, do you actually know? Then I'll be smarter and you can pull some other arcane statistical stumper out of your repertoire of manufactured irrelevancies designed to belittle other people, or maybe just new people on the JREF boards.

Did you actually read the Malcolm Gladwell excerpt? I'd actually value your opinion. There are data in it that seem to support the conclusion that linguistics plays a role in math achievement.

I don't know the statistics on IQ. Many students have issues such as ELD (nee ELL), ADHD, and ED. Many students have IEPs, which are required for ESE or ENE students (hope I'm not violating FERPA). You understand the importance of CM which is one of the reasons I asked a previous question. Another question that I would have liked you to actually answer.

I have no doubt that you are a better teacher than I in every conceivable way. This is a new career for me. If I throw out a question about educational practices please be aware that it is sincere. You don't seem like a jerk in other postings, presumably you know how to address the argument rather than the arguer (although I'm really not trying to argue, I'm trying to learn), and since I am trying to learn, instead of sneering "did you know this statistic," just tell me.

Dancing David

3rd August 2011, 11:50 AM

Post-Sputnik, the "New Math" may have hurt by pushing sophisticated concepts over the basics. A lot of people became convinced they "can't do math" and passed the attitude to their kids.

Minoosh, everything I have stated gets back to this point. The new math did not make anything harder, it still taught the same skills as they taught before, I was in the middle of the new math and I still had to do those awful pages and pages of boring arithmetic, I was never taught mental math. I was not taught concepts, even in pre algebra. And that was the fist generation of new math.

Many students were sure they could not do the old math either, and so fo for their parents.

I am stating very clearly that there are confounding factors that have nothing to do with 'new math':
-poverty
-'slow learners'
-not encouraging those kids to drop out.

These three things are the main reason that test scores have dropped, no longer can student drop out at age 14, no longer are they encouraged to drop out.

These three factors have more to do with any decline in test scores that allegedly exists.

As for rice culture and some unsubstantiated ideas, the burden is on the claimant, I am saying that the null hypothesis is that rice culture is not the reason that aisan societies have higher test scores. In Nihon for example they have teacher class ratios that are much lower than the US, and the cultures have promotion of education that is not related to rice culture.

I am sorry for my behavior in this thread, I have not been as clear as I should have been about why I was asking the questions that I ask, there are confounding factors that have nothing to do with the new math at all, the lower test scores have not been established in the first place.

30% of my class dropped out between junior and senior year 74-75 and 75-76, there were kids who dropped out at 14 before then.

I think that has more to do with the alleged decline in test scores than anything.

I apologize for my rudeness. I am sure you are a fine teacher, I just disagree, the new math gen four that is currently used in K-9 is very well structured for teaching and learning compared to the old math.

I worked (in 6-9) and still work with some very troubled students(K-5), they get it, I think more easily than the old math. (That is opinion and un referenced, the claims of 'research base' can not come into play because there was no research base for new math gen one and the old math.)

So I apologize for my tone and rudeness again

Unfortunately there is little that one as an educator can do about low SES and chaos, accept the students and firmly tolerate and redirect the crap they throw out..

Minoosh

3rd August 2011, 06:12 PM

I am stating very clearly that there are confounding factors that have nothing to do with 'new math':
-poverty
-'slow learners'
-not encouraging those kids to drop out.

I'm not a good teacher. I stepped into a bad situation and found I couldn't fight the distractions well enough to give students who wanted to learn a chance. Now I'm seeking part-time work in alternative programs and if the kids are just as challenging at least I'll be better rested.

I am also certified to teach English, but it is the math that makes me employable. No one needs English teachers.

The textbook I worked with was OK though I balked at sections with titles like "Using subtraction in real life." I couldn't really tell you anything about K-6 curriculum these days, it's probably fine.

Gladwell is good about rustling up quantitative data. He doesn't do scathing indictments of the U.S. education system or anything like that. Basically his stuff is entertainment and food for thought.

Thank you for your response, I see where you are coming from.

Minoosh

3rd August 2011, 08:38 PM

And maybe to go back to "what happened to the system":

In my experiences classrooms have gotten a LOT harder to manage. That is simplistically blamed on inadequate discipline but that begs the question - like saying classes have grown more chaotic because they are too chaotic.

In my day if you were bored you doodled or ditched or maybe whispered; the teacher could still do the yack-yack-yack thing and some kids would follow along. Not ideal I realize but at least not as much as a struggle.

The electronic devices now are ubiquitous, I'd like to ban them, or allow them occasionally as rewards or even as devices woven into the curriculum.

Muldur

6th August 2011, 10:00 PM

Evidence? [re basic skills suffering]

Test results that show US kids falling far behind on basic skills compared to other countries.

Evidence? [re cost of education rising]

Ever growing budget demands on the part of schools across the country.

It's real simple folks...our educational system is going down the tubes because of the following:

Allowing kids to drop out prior to receiving full education
Social Promotion (keeping kids with their age group regardless of skill attainment)
Removal of traditional discipline from schools. Teachers lack authority in classrooms to, if needed, chastise, remove and/or corporally punish students for misbehavior. Schools cannot expell chronically troublesome children to more structured environments (reform school) w/o extensive legal wrangling designed to "protect student rights".
Cirriculum standards lowered and focus broadened in favor of fringe subjects such as "ethnic studies" and "values clarification" as opposed to inculcating basic skills and knowledge.
Lack of "Americanization" in schools. Students no longer educated about the common culture, mores, and civil values and virtues. Students no longer inculcated in the experience of American Exceptionalism.
Funds diverted to educate children not legally entitled to participate in US educational system (illegal immigrant kids). This also impacts several areas above, such as diverting educational resources towards "multilingual education" instead of focusing on English language development as rapidly as possible.

There's more, but you'd clear up 80-90% of the problem if you just fixed those items.

fuelair

6th August 2011, 10:41 PM

Too much fluff and puff topics. Too much political correctness and not enough History, Math, & Science.

Also teachers teach from Teachers edition text books too much instead of being well versed in their subjects.

Also alot of teachers go over the reviews (which are usually carbon copies of the tests) right before taking the tests. So kids can sit through class not paying attention (playing with new age gadgets and toys) because they can use rote process since everything is reviewed b4 the tests.

Also there is rampant cheating.

Curriculim is not high enough.

School systems would rather pass students who would other wise fail; intentionally so they get good funding...etc.

There is much more madness I have seen 1st hand.

Oh yeah and alot of the teachers are perverts and actually would rather flirt with students than teach.

Actually, the reason we use teacher editions is: a) they give us the standard that the material that is being covered meets (often the standards are written so poorly or broadly the teacher can't be sure what one the immediate topic is), b)so the teacher knows what the student assistants who actually did the text thought the answers ought to be (they are wrong/misleading on occasion), c)they provide extra material (additional/different labs, ideas for projects that can occasionally be useful. Regardless of what they say, yes they leave bad students in school for the rason you note, BUT at my school, at least before the senior year and during it one of our admins spends time bringing in seniors who CANNOT possibly graduate with their parents and explaining the value of tech schools.

fuelair

6th August 2011, 10:52 PM

At our school giving a review that matches the test like you note can get you removed or having a conversation about same with the principal. Some people do it but generally they aren't back the following year. Most of the cheating is by devices we could stomp if we could legally install devices to jam cell phone signals. I'm very supportive of that !!

fuelair

6th August 2011, 11:48 PM

Jeff Corey

7th August 2011, 07:50 AM

If we got students (specifically, if only students at or near the necessary level for the material we are teaching taking the classes) who came to us preparedto begin the material we need to teach it would help a lot. As it is, 80% of my students (a close estimate)
come in not able to do the math needed and there is not enough time to teach the subjects and reteach the math that the standards I noted above say they should have known since, at the latest, 7th grade.

I've had college freshmen in intro psych who demanded to use a calculator to determine the arithmethic mean of 1, 1, 2, 3, 5. Without one, occasionally I'd get an answer of 12, apparently not from the 43% that supposedly got an A.*

* Referring to another thread here that cited a study I couldn't believe reflected the facts.

Muldur

7th August 2011, 08:53 AM

If we got students (specifically, if only students at or near the necessary level for the material we are teaching taking the classes) who came to us preparedto begin the material we need to teach it would help a lot. As it is, 80% of my students (a close estimate)
come in not able to do the math needed and there is not enough time to teach the subjects and reteach the math that the standards I noted above say they should have known since, at the latest, 7th grade.

If they don't know the 7th grade material, then they shouldstill be in the 7th grade.

This isn't rocket science, people. You don't know the material? You don't pass to the next grade!

We need to stop worrying about hurting little Johnny's feelings, or "affecting his social development with is peer group" or what the frak ever and start worrying about his inability to demonstrate mastery of basic skills.

bikerdruid

7th August 2011, 09:54 AM

Lack of "Americanization" in schools. Students no longer educated about the common culture, mores, and civil values and virtues. Students no longer inculcated in the experience of American Exceptionalism.

wow.....
....like 'manifest destiny' and the 'monroe doctrine'?

Jeff Corey

7th August 2011, 12:43 PM

wow.....
....like 'manifest destiny' and the 'monroe doctrine'?

By jingo, you're right!

Muldur

8th August 2011, 03:41 AM

wow.....
....like 'manifest destiny' and the 'monroe doctrine'?

You mean the philosophies and doctrine that allowed the US to carve a great nation out of the wilderness and defend it's interests?

The nation that has gone on to spend more of it's sweat, blood, and treasure than any other nation to defend liberty, justice and peace around the world, asking for little or nothing in return?

The nation that even today continues to do those things, keeping it's sons and daughters in harm's way to defend cowardly, weak nations that refuse to stand up against evil on their own two feet (or who are too small to do so effectively)? That sends billions of dollars it can ill afford to other nations for food and medicine that those nations will never be able to repay.

The nation that led until recently the world in industrial and technological development, building better lives for ALL the world's citizens?

I'd say those doctrines had pretty good outcomes. And we should teach our children to be proud of both doctrine AND outcome.

Chaos

8th August 2011, 04:00 AM

You mean the philosophies and doctrine that allowed the US to carve a great nation out of the wilderness and defend it's interests?

The nation that has gone on to spend more of it's sweat, blood, and treasure than any other nation to defend liberty, justice and peace around the world, asking for little or nothing in return?

The nation that even today continues to do those things, keeping it's sons and daughters in harm's way to defend cowardly, weak nations that refuse to stand up against evil on their own two feet (or who are too small to do so effectively)? That sends billions of dollars it can ill afford to other nations for food and medicine that those nations will never be able to repay.

The nation that led until recently the world in industrial and technological development, building better lives for ALL the world's citizens?

I'd say those doctrines had pretty good outcomes. And we should teach our children to be proud of both doctrine AND outcome.

I think he means the philosophy and doctrines that allowed the US to massacre countless natives and drive the rest off their land so that white settlers could take it, and that allowed the US to justify keeping slaves for eighty years after some hypocritical bastards declared that "all men are created equal".

He´s talking about the nation that spent more than a century ruthlessly enforcing its interests in every place it could reach, at the expense of anyone touched by these interests, and then turned around and sold these interventions as selfless heroism.

The nation that never saw a right-wing tyrant it didn´t like and didn´t support, without giving a wet fart about human rights or the will of the people these tyrants were oppressing.

The nation that became leader in industrial and technological development only because all contenders were ravaged by war while it wasn´t, and lost its leading position the moment its contenders were finished recovering.

The nation that couldn´t care less about "ALL the world´s citizens", even to the extent that its own citizens are aware of the existences of anything beyond their own borders.

The nation that is the last in the Western world to still use torture, to still carry out the death sentence, to still start wars of aggression... and don´t get me started about the sway religious fanatics and the products of the cesspools of political extremism still hold there. (Did you know that the US has more Nazi parties than Germany these days?)

If you want to teach your children about this, teach them the truth rather than hyper-nationalist propaganda.

excaza

8th August 2011, 04:26 AM

bikerdruid

8th August 2011, 09:14 AM

Mark6

8th August 2011, 11:26 AM

And just how much of that "leading in industrial and technological development" was done by European intellectuals who fled to US before and during WWII.

Which actually would validate Muldur's point about American greatness (there was a reason they fled to US, after all), except for US' failure to grow/nurture adequate replacements to these intellectuals, and increasing hostility over last few decades to the notion that the rest of the world has anything to teach us.

What saddens me most about American politics today is that no politician on either side of the isle is willing to say (or perhaps it never occurs to them): "Let's take a look which countries handled this latest recession with least disruption, and figure out what they are doing right!"

Germany and Denmark, in case you did not know. As in, the concept of industrial policy, among other things.

Mark6

8th August 2011, 11:35 AM

To put it bluntly, American Exceptionalism is past its sell-by date. When US was first established, it was very different from the rest of the world, and truly exceptional. Problem is, over past 50-60 years most of the world caught up -- and not only US is not so exceptional any more, it is now one of the oldest continuous governments, thus one of the most ossified. For a hundred years Americans prided themselves on being example to the rest of the world. Guess what -- the rest of the world paid attention, and copied (some of) American institutions, and started beating US in its own game.

My parents came to US because at the time it really had best opportunities. My children already see better opportunities elsewhere.

excaza

8th August 2011, 11:40 AM

germany and denmark, in case you did not know. As in, the concept of industrial policy, among other things.

BLOODY SOCIALISTS!1

/caps

excaza

8th August 2011, 11:43 AM

Which actually would validate Muldur's point about American greatness (there was a reason they fled to US, after all), except for US' failure to grow/nurture adequate replacements to these intellectuals, and increasing hostility over last few decades to the notion that the rest of the world has anything to teach us.

When you strip away the tinted glasses and tone down the rhetoric, Muldur does have a valid point. Foreign policy gaffes and ridiculous politics aside, the US was, and still remains, a great country.

However, to turn around and say that past and present policies (e.g. Manifest Destiny) were all rosy and flowery is absurd, for reasons already pointed out.

Relax

10th August 2011, 01:39 PM

The U.S. has an educational system? I would hardly call it educational at all, I would know, I lived through it.

excaza

11th August 2011, 01:55 PM

The U.S. has an educational system? I would hardly call it educational at all, I would know, I lived through it.

Could you be more vague please? Thanks.

daenku32

15th August 2011, 03:11 PM

Here's my thesis:
US schooling has gone down ever since they removed prayer from class rooms.

Now before you foam, here is what it resulted in: massive animosity from the American conservatives towards the public school idea. Ever since then conservatives have attempted to chip away public schools are a matter of political ideology. They continue to get elected to school boards and chosen to lead educational initiatives and school systems by other conservatives. Except that they aren't looking into fixing the public school system. They have long ago, and for other reasons as well, allied with the profit seeking institutions that wish to make profits in the education of the country. This has had the effect of destroying the public education in this country, and the test scores show it.

excaza

16th August 2011, 04:23 AM

If that was your attempt to get one to follow the other, you're going to have to do a little better than that.

Graham2001

4th September 2011, 05:10 AM

Three words:

Equality Of Outcome

bikerdruid

4th September 2011, 12:13 PM

What happened to the US education system?

.........conservatives.
..........people who believe that the idiom 'a liberal education' is a political thing.

Dancing David

6th September 2011, 07:45 AM

Three words:

Equality Of Outcome

Which is helped by

Equity of Funding

:)

The Shrike

6th September 2011, 08:21 AM

JippyJay

7th September 2011, 10:00 PM

College professor's viewpoint:

The problem is multi-faceted, but I think the biggest facet is societal: the vast majority of Americans are lazy ignoramuses who do not hold scientists, mathematicians, and engineers in any great esteem. We value sports and fitness over science and math. We value real estate moguls and entertainers over teachers and authors.

Why is "egghead" is a pejorative in this country? Is there an equivalent pejorative in India or China? Do children in other countries get teased for being too smart?

The result? My classes are filled with 1) lazy ignoramuses, 2) average students who'll just get by, and 3) really bright students who were never really pushed to excel in their youth, and will ultimately have a difficult time reaching their full potential.

In America, smart kids worry about being perceived as too serious about their studies and their parents don't push them hard enough. Schoolwork is seen as on par with an American wonderkid's many other activities: dance, sports, music, etc. We spend an inordinate amount of time on these extracurricular activities that most likely will NOT have relevance to their chosen profession as adults. Meantime, we seldom invest more than a "did you finish your homework?" on the things that will actually determine their lot in life.

Saying students that value sports and a social life are a bunch of lazy ingoramuses is a bit harsh and misguided. I didn't even play sports in school, but I can tell you that I don't fault kids for realizing that a NFL star will make more money within a couple of games than most careers will make within several years. For that matter, I don't fault high school students for realizing that it'll likely be easier for them to pick up a sport's scholarship than an academic one! That's hardly a new concept though, as societies throughout history have paid the same level of respect to sports.

Knowledge on its own is next to worthless. It's how that knowledge is applied that makes it useful. I know more honor students from high school that ended up working warehouse jobs than I do jocks. Why? Because somewhere in there plenty of the honor students forgot to learn how to exist in a social world. Bad attitudes will get a person tossed out of a decent job before the kid can say "hi."

Frankly, we need our nation's kids to value fitness. If you're a teacher, then you know good and well that a person's mental capabilities is affected heavily by aspects of nutrition and fitness. What good is a engineer that's going to die of a heart attack the second he has to walk uphill?

I'm all for increasing the academic abilities of our youth but not at the expense of their health and sanity. I certainly agree that students are being forced to spend too much time learning things that don't apply to their future, but I think the majority of that comes in the form of useless facts that they can always look up when needed. In my opinion our students need to spend more time developing an actual understanding of important principles.

Muldur

7th September 2011, 11:50 PM

And here we see the dangers of not teaching world history in a neutral fashion.

On the contrary...everything I said was entirely objectively and true and any truly neutral history will support that.

The US, even with it's flaws (which I admit it has) is the greatest expression of freedom and human achievement in the history of the world. No other nation has given more, done more for human advancement than we have, nor has any asked so little in return.

Who would you submit has done better?

Muldur

7th September 2011, 11:58 PM

What saddens me most about American politics today is that no politician on either side of the isle is willing to say (or perhaps it never occurs to them): "Let's take a look which countries handled this latest recession with least disruption, and figure out what they are doing right!"

Germany and Denmark, in case you did not know. As in, the concept of industrial policy, among other things.

I can't deny that. It's a good point. Places like Europe have better social safety nets and we need to learn from that.

On the other hand, Europe has no spine when it comes to standing up to evil forces either within (as two world wars shows), or without (it's abysmal showing against Militant Islam both within the ME and without)..

Remember the Cold War (to use another example)? Europe constantly nagged at the US for it's strong opposition to the Soviets (while conveniently sheltered under the US organized and led NATO nuclear umbrella).

Muldur

8th September 2011, 12:04 AM

However, to turn around and say that past and present policies (e.g. Manifest Destiny) were all rosy and flowery is absurd, for reasons already pointed out.

Laws, sausages and international affairs...don't watch them in progress if you don't have the stomach for it.

There is a saying: Who must do the hard things?

Answer: Those who can.

America can, and has, and continues to where others can not or will not. Even when it is to our detriment to do so.

Muldur

8th September 2011, 12:09 AM

I can tell you that I don't fault kids for realizing that a NFL star will make more money within a couple of games than most careers will make within several years.

IF they're one of the fortunate few who make it to the pros.

For that matter, I don't fault high school students for realizing that it'll likely be easier for them to pick up a sport's scholarship than an academic one!

Not true. Academic scholarships are widely available to millions of people. Athletic scholarships are available to at most a few thousand spread across all sports.

I'm all for increasing the academic abilities of our youth but not at the expense of their health and sanity. I certainly agree that students are being forced to spend too much time learning things that don't apply to their future, but I think the majority of that comes in the form of useless facts that they can always look up when needed. In my opinion our students need to spend more time developing an actual understanding of important principles.

That is true to a limited extent, but our educational system is turning out "graduates" who cannot read, write, speak well or do maths at age appropriate levels.

This is unacceptable, and must be fixed.

MarkCorrigan

8th September 2011, 04:15 AM

On the other hand, Europe has no spine when it comes to standing up to evil forces either within (as two world wars shows)

You mean the First World War that, aside from sending vital supplies, the US weren't involved in until German industry had already begun to collapse? Yes, the US were an absolute godsend in making sure the Western Entente powers didn't starve, but in terms of military assistance, you shortened the war, you didn't win it.

~Or did you mean the Second World War, that was almost entirely won by the Europeans, with the US assistance only resulting in half of Germany being taken by the USSR?

Do...do you know anything about the world wars? Or military history in general?

Remember the Cold War (to use another example)?...that you know apparently nothing about.

Europe constantly nagged at the US for it's strong opposition to the Soviets (while conveniently sheltered under the US organized and led NATO nuclear umbrella).

Um, not exactly. Europe constantly nagged the US for antagonising the USSR. The opposition part was considered by most people to be a great help, especially given the rebuilding efforts the US were assisting in, and we wanted things like Radio Free Europe to continue. Anti-Soviet propaganda drowned out almost all pro-Soviet propaganda in Western Europe, and aside from a small subset, this was either not noticed, or considered a good thing. Given the prevailing Anti-Soviet feeling in the West during the 50's after the Communist parties made substantial gains, I would say it's rather idiotic to make the claim that we were arguing with the US for opposing the Soviets.

On the other hand, the constant military build-up and nuclear stockpiling by the US was a major concern to Western Europe. We didn't want to become involved in another massive continental war given that we were only just recovering from the last one we had, and knew that it would cripple us financially beyond repair. Being major allies to the US in all things, western Europe strongly opposed the USSR's attempts to force it's sphere of influence further, but at the same time were not willing to get involved in a land war. Even more frightening to Europe was the possibility of a nuclear war, especially given the fact that while the US would have a 4 minute warning for Soviet nuclear attacks, most of western Europe would have 2 minutes, if they were lucky. We had, between the UK and France, enough nukes late in the cold war to seriously damage the USSR, but we would have been completely wiped out. The governments were not stupid, and knew that a nuclear war would result in the US, USSR and Europe being totally wiped out, to all intents and purposes, and were desperate to stop anything that could escalate the war beyond an exchange of propaganda.

It amuses me that you mention NATO as well. Do you know anything about the founding of NATO? I can't imagine you do, since your ignorance is staggering in it's vastness, only overshadowed by your arrogance in thinking you know what you're talking about, but I'll clue you in. NATO wasn't just formed by, or at the behest of the US. Wow! Isn't that something? NATO was actually... A political association of all Western allied powers. The actual founding of NATO was based upon the signing of the Treaty of Brussels, by Belgium, the UK, France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, all of whom wanted to hold back against the USSR after the creation of the Berlin Blockade, the precursor to the Berlin Wall.

These five nations realised that they, after the crippling effect the war had had on both their economic and military power, would not be able to hold off the USSR without major assistance and asked the US to join them. The following year, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, bringing not only the US and Canada into the fold, but also the European nations of Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Norway and, despite opposition from some elements, Iceland. Indeed, Iceland was the only nation to experience large scale unrest at the alliance, wishing instead for a totally neutral status.

Not only does this blow your claim out of the water somewhat, it's also useful to point out that the retaliation to an attack on any of the nations of the treaty is not specified in the North Atlantic Treaty, and does not have to be a military response. On the other hand, the Treaty of Brussels, and forerunner of NATO, insisted on a military response to such an attack.

Hey Muldur, you know the Korean War? The first actual war in the Cold War?

Yeah, the US fought it with UN assistance, including NATO. If we were so against it, why did 7 NATO countries (5 European) provide military assistance (the UK, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, plus the US and Canada) 3 provide medical assistance (Denmark, Italy and Norway) and one (Iceland) provide supplies to help fight the war?

Yeah, really looks like we were against the US actions in the Cold War, huh? :rolleyes:

As for fighting against those terrorists in the Middle East how come the UK, Italy; Denmark; Luxembourg; Norway; Iceland; Portugal, and France (NATO founder countries) plus Poland; Romania; Estonia; Greece; Croatia; the Czech Republic; Bulgaria; Albania; Hungary; Lithuania; Germany; Spain; Turkey; Slovakia; Slovenia and Latvia (current European NATO countries) still have troops in Afghanistan? the Netherlands also had troops from 2002-2010 but have pulled out.

Really looks like we're unwilling to fight in the Middle East huh? Plus, you know, we contribute massive amounts of aid to Israel, a nation I assume you support. Indeed Germany is the largest contributor to Israel in the world, and France and the UK are also high contributors. In addition the EU gives Israel favourable trading status, with almost the same tax breaks and charge reductions given on trade between members of the EU.

Let's now look at the war in Iraq. Oh, I know, a lot of nations were against it, but let's just see who went with the US shall we?

Iceland; Spain; the Netherlands; Portugal; Lithuania; Hungary; Italy; Slovakia and Norway all sent troops after the invasion and pulled out some time before 2008. The European NATO countries of the Czech Republic; Denmark; Latvia; Albania; Romania; Estonia and Bulgaria plus the non NATO European countries Bosnia/Herzegovina; Macedonia; Georgia; Moldova and Ukraine all sent troops after the invasion and remained, withdrawing sometime between 2008-2010 inclusive. The UK and Poland (both NATO members) were part of the invasion force alongside the US.

Oh dear. That rather looks like many European countries are willing to fight in the Middle East afterall.

Would you like to retract your obscenely inaccurate, derogatory and laughably stupid statements, or are you going to pretend I didn't just destroy them and claim I'm wrong because you somehow know it to be so?

Be careful, this stuff is what I got a degree in, so I actually have prior knowledge to bring to the table.

L.Y.S.

8th September 2011, 07:41 AM

America's education is the best in the WORLD!

Get a brain MORANS!!! :D

excaza

8th September 2011, 07:47 AM

On the contrary...everything I said was entirely objectively and true and any truly neutral history will support that.
No, it wasn't. No, it won't. Even US History books written and published in the US don't agree with you.

The US, even with it's flaws (which I admit it has) is the greatest expression of freedom and human achievement in the history of the world. No other nation has given more, done more for human advancement than we have, nor has any asked so little in return.

Who would you submit has done better?

Spare me the rhetoric. "Better" is a subjective term, and a discussion I don't care to get into, as it was not the point of my objection.

L.Y.S.

8th September 2011, 08:18 AM

No, it wasn't. No, it won't. Even US History books written and published in the US don't agree with you.

Spare me the rhetoric. "Better" is a subjective term, and a discussion I don't care to get into, as it was not the point of my objection.

I second this post

Btw I might know a little about education. I learned something wayyyy back in Advance Placement U.S. Based on what my history teacher told me, the decline in U.S. education was a result of Nixon defederalizing education funds to states and allowing the states to choose how to specifically fund education. At one point in time, from the end of WWII till the early 70s, education, schools, libraries, museums, and institutes (trade schools) were all directly funded by the federal government. After the Nixon administration reforms the federal government would dump money onto states and states choose how the money was to be spent. Many times states would neglect schools and libraries and pursue pet projects.

States often did not use the federal money given for scholastic projects and funding for schools began to decrease. Educational institutions began to fall into disrepair, and states often neglected their own local education systems. The decrease in funding marked the turning point in American education. From thereon out schools had to fight to get funding and education greatly suffered. Classroom sizes increased in cities, many schools used outdated text books, and in low income areas schools went into disarray.

Most of American education is paid for by local property taxes now instead of federal government subsidies. Therefore, if an area had a large amount of available property to tax fairly well, schools tended to do fairly well. However, if a municipality was composed mostly for public housing or low income property taxes schools suffered. Traditionally the areas with higher property tax returns yielded better education. Whereas areas with lower property taxes, or few property taxes (in the case of public housing) were almost completely enable to pay for upgrading schools. As a result these areas were almost solely dependent on federal, state, and local funding to improve the schools.

bikerdruid

8th September 2011, 08:49 AM

On the contrary...everything I said was entirely objectively and true and any truly neutral history will support that.

The US, even with it's flaws (which I admit it has) is the greatest expression of freedom and human achievement in the history of the world. No other nation has given more, done more for human advancement than we have, nor has any asked so little in return.

Who would you submit has done better?

wow....
obviously you believe in manifest destiny.
like i said....."wow".

Startz

8th September 2011, 09:18 AM

I second this post

Btw I might know a little about education. I learned something wayyyy back in Advance Placement U.S. Based on what my history teacher told me, the decline in U.S. education was a result of Nixon defederalizing education funds to states and allowing the states to choose how to specifically fund education. At one point in time, from the end of WWII till the early 70s, education, schools, libraries, museums, and institutes (trade schools) were all directly funded by the federal government. After the Nixon administration reforms the federal government would dump money onto states and states choose how the money was to be spent. Many times states would neglect schools and libraries and pursue pet projects.

Just not true. In the late 1940's Federal funds provided about 3 percent of K-12 funding. Under Johnson, the fraction rose to 7~9 percent where it stayed under Nixon. It's stayed roughly in that range since.

L.Y.S.

8th September 2011, 11:21 AM

Just not true. In the late 1940's Federal funds provided about 3 percent of K-12 funding. Under Johnson, the fraction rose to 7~9 percent where it stayed under Nixon. It's stayed roughly in that range since.

Hmmm, must've been misinformed then :boggled:.

Cayvmann

8th September 2011, 11:42 AM

Startz

8th September 2011, 11:48 AM

Hmmm, must've been misinformed then :boggled:.

But the second part of what you said is right on the mark. The range of funding between wealthy districts and poor districts is enormous. (Although less so in the few states with state-wide funding.)

Cayvmann

8th September 2011, 11:52 AM

Saying students that value sports and a social life are a bunch of lazy ingoramuses is a bit harsh and misguided. I didn't even play sports in school, but I can tell you that I don't fault kids for realizing that a NFL star will make more money within a couple of games than most careers will make within several years. For that matter, I don't fault high school students for realizing that it'll likely be easier for them to pick up a sport's scholarship than an academic one! That's hardly a new concept though, as societies throughout history have paid the same level of respect to sports.

If they had any education, they would know that they are just as likely to win the lottery, as get that big NFL contract. Probably more so.

You really think a sports scholarship is easier to get than an academic one? Really?

L.Y.S.

8th September 2011, 12:25 PM

But the second part of what you said is right on the mark. The range of funding between wealthy districts and poor districts is enormous. (Although less so in the few states with state-wide funding.)

Yeah I heard most of the stuff I said in a lecture. I'll have to ask my old teacher whether or not its true. He's a principal now, so I don't know how much time he'll have to answer the question :/.

Startz

8th September 2011, 01:19 PM

Yeah I heard most of the stuff I said in a lecture. I'll have to ask my old teacher whether or not its true. He's a principal now, so I don't know how much time he'll have to answer the question :/.

If you're curious, you can look at the Digest of Education Statistics Table 180.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_180.asp

L.Y.S.

9th September 2011, 01:46 AM

If you're curious, you can look at the Digest of Education Statistics Table 180.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_180.asp

Thanks a lot! Now I can ask time saving specific questions :).

JippyJay

9th September 2011, 04:04 AM

IF they're one of the fortunate few who make it to the pros...

...Not true. Academic scholarships are widely available to millions of people. Athletic scholarships are available to at most a few thousand spread across all sports.

Sorry Muldur, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the students that chose to focus on the sports. Basically, I feel that the best path through school for a student is based on their individual capabilities. In many cases, pursuing a sports scholarship is a more realistic goal than pursuing an academic one.

I'm not even a large sports fan but I can tell you more people make it to the pros than most people think. There are plenty of pro players that don't ever even play i a public game but are kept on the payroll for skirmishing, training camps, and such. However, the same logic can be applied to the academic world as well.

JippyJay

9th September 2011, 04:26 AM

If they had any education, they would know that they are just as likely to win the lottery, as get that big NFL contract. Probably more so.

You really think a sports scholarship is easier to get than an academic one? Really?

The last I checked, the academic world is just as guilty as the sports for using the rare positions to spur on a kid's dream. I don't remember a single teacher, commercial, or poster telling me to "You can be anything you want to be! You can be an accountant!" Nope, but I do remember being told I can I could be the president. I put the odds of my becoming a NFL star at a retirement age over that one.

Yes, I think it is much easier for some individuals to get a sports scholarship. I think some people posting on this topic are forgetting a very realistic concept; some people are going to be kept from being successful in the academic world due to honest physiological limitations. Much like how physical handicaps would hinder the pursuit of a sports scholarship to many.

That's actually another factor that could possibly be related to decline of the US educational test scores. There is more of an opportunity for students that do have mental handicaps to stay in school these days.

Don't get me wrong, I personally value academics over sports. I just don't think that it's acceptable to start negatively labeling students who value sports and having a social life. Plus, I think ignoring the topic of fitness within school is simply a bad idea. I might think giving out credits in college for bowling is foolish, but I see benefits in giving credits for track, weight lifting, and many other fitness courses as long as there is an educational aspect to them as well.

excaza

9th September 2011, 04:31 AM

That's actually another factor that could possibly be related to decline of the US educational test scores. There is more of an opportunity for students that do have mental handicaps to stay in school these days.

Do you have anything that actually supports this notion?

Cayvmann

9th September 2011, 05:19 AM

The last I checked, the academic world is just as guilty as the sports for using the rare positions to spur on a kid's dream. I don't remember a single teacher, commercial, or poster telling me to "You can be anything you want to be! You can be an accountant!" Nope, but I do remember being told I can I could be the president. I put the odds of my becoming a NFL star at a retirement age over that one.

Yes, I think it is much easier for some individuals to get a sports scholarship. I think some people posting on this topic are forgetting a very realistic concept; some people are going to be kept from being successful in the academic world due to honest physiological limitations. Much like how physical handicaps would hinder the pursuit of a sports scholarship to many.

That's actually another factor that could possibly be related to decline of the US educational test scores. There is more of an opportunity for students that do have mental handicaps to stay in school these days.

Don't get me wrong, I personally value academics over sports. I just don't think that it's acceptable to start negatively labeling students who value sports and having a social life. Plus, I think ignoring the topic of fitness within school is simply a bad idea. I might think giving out credits in college for bowling is foolish, but I see benefits in giving credits for track, weight lifting, and many other fitness courses as long as there is an educational aspect to them as well.

Here's a scenario.

Bob takes the academic route. He studies hard, does his homework, pursuing that big academic scholarship. He does this to the extent that he doesn't go to parties, or play team sports. He may or may not be physically fit. ( statistics are that intelligent people generally stay fit, but we can ignore that ). To be competitive, Bob takes extra classes and gets mentoring, etc. Bob doesn't get the scholarship. He was deemed not as competitive as the other candidates.

John takes the athletic route. He practices daily. He works on his game, and learns everything about the skills he needs to compete in that game. He does this to the exclusion of a social life, like Bob. To be competitive John takes steroids ( in the real world ) or whatever he or his coach thinks is necessary. He does just enough academic work, with fluff courses that he passes, so he is eligible for athletic scholarships. After all this work, he doesn't get the scholarship. He just wasn't competitive with the other guys.

Let's pretend that both of these guys started out as average guys. Which one of these people will be able to go on and get into college ( the real reason to get a scholarship ), and then get a good job? John's hard earned skills are probably not much good for anything else but his sport, sorry. John needs to go ahead and buy lottery tickets.

Prometheus

9th September 2011, 09:29 AM

Here's a scenario.

Bob takes the academic route. He studies hard, does his homework, pursuing that big academic scholarship. He does this to the extent that he doesn't go to parties, or play team sports. He may or may not be physically fit. ( statistics are that intelligent people generally stay fit, but we can ignore that ). To be competitive, Bob takes extra classes and gets mentoring, etc. Bob doesn't get the scholarship. He was deemed not as competitive as the other candidates.

John takes the athletic route. He practices daily. He works on his game, and learns everything about the skills he needs to compete in that game. He does this to the exclusion of a social life, like Bob. To be competitive John takes steroids ( in the real world ) or whatever he or his coach thinks is necessary. He does just enough academic work, with fluff courses that he passes, so he is eligible for athletic scholarships. After all this work, he doesn't get the scholarship. He just wasn't competitive with the other guys.

Let's pretend that both of these guys started out as average guys. Which one of these people will be able to go on and get into college ( the real reason to get a scholarship ), and then get a good job? John's hard earned skills are probably not much good for anything else but his sport, sorry. John needs to go ahead and buy lottery tickets.

In my experience, John would then become a plumber or some other trade laborer, make $150 an hour and eventually start his own business and buy a boat to spend weekends on, while Bob would have to take low-paying jobs to work his way through college, which would prevent him from giving full attention to his studies. He'd graduate in the middle of his class and become a middle-management grunt who can barely afford to pay John to fix his toilet. :p

Dancing David

10th September 2011, 05:22 AM

Basically, I feel that the best path through school for a student is based on their individual capabilities.

Yay, many students are not inclined to go to college, maybe a two year cert ( I am hoping to get one on top of my BS)

The goal of K-12 is to provide students with the skills to function as adults, I do not mind students focusing on sports. The 'social' learning is just as important as teh academics, and not all students should be encouraged to go to college.

I dislike the disproportionate funding allowance placed on sports. My son's marching band program has more students than all the sports teams combined. If you consider all the music students at his high school ( of 1500) they are larger than all the other programs combined (drama, sports, etc...)

Yet they do not recieve the funding and supposrt that sports does, go figure

Dancing David

10th September 2011, 05:26 AM

Do you have anything that actually supports this notion?

Well it is a requirement tehse days, they don't encourage dropping out like they used to.

This is the law now, all students must be educated, most states won't let students drop out now.

Are you aware of these changes?

It does not have to be a mental handicap, it can be low SES, it can be learning disability, if can be an f.u.-ed family, it can be slow learner, it can be anything.

When I went to school they encouraged those kids to drop out.

L.Y.S.

10th September 2011, 06:07 AM

Prometheus your avatar scares the living hell out of me.

/threadderail

Startz

10th September 2011, 09:59 AM

Well it is a requirement tehse days, they don't encourage dropping out like they used to.

This is the law now, all students must be educated, most states won't let students drop out now.

Are you aware of these changes?

It does not have to be a mental handicap, it can be low SES, it can be learning disability, if can be an f.u.-ed family, it can be slow learner, it can be anything.

When I went to school they encouraged those kids to drop out.

I'm curious about this. Can you name one state that "won't let students drop out."

Admittedly, calculations of high school graduation rates are notably flakey. But the overall U.S. nongraduation rate appears to be about 25 percent. In th last data I saw, no state had a dropout rate under 10 percent.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

10th September 2011, 06:38 PM

...Based on what my history teacher told me, the decline in U.S. education was a result of Nixon defederalizing education funds to states and allowing the states to choose how to specifically fund education.S/he misled you. See this table (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_180.asp?referrer=list)from NCES. ... At one point in time, from the end of WWII till the early 70s, education, schools, libraries, museums, and institutes (trade schools) were all directly funded by the federal government. After the Nixon administration reforms the federal government would dump money onto states and states choose how the money was to be spent. Many times states would neglect schools and libraries and pursue pet projects.The Federal share grew during most of the Nixon administration. So also did the State share. The local share declined. ...States often did not use the federal money given for scholastic projects and funding for schools began to decrease. Educational institutions began to fall into disrepair, and states often neglected their own local education systems. The decrease in funding marked the turning point in American education.Until the recent downturn in tax receipts, there has not been a downturn in revenues to K-12 schooling. ...From thereon out schools had to fight to get funding and education greatly suffered. Classroom sizes increased in cities, many schools used outdated text books, and in low income areas schools went into disarray.Maybe so, but this is not a consequence of reduced funding. ...Most of American education is paid for by local property taxes now instead of federal government subsidies.False. The local share has been declining and the combined Federal+tate has been increasing for decades. ...Therefore, if an area had a large amount of available property to tax fairly well, schools tended to do fairly well. However, if a municipality was composed mostly for public housing or low income property taxes schools suffered. Traditionally the areas with higher property tax returns yielded better education. Whereas areas with lower property taxes, or few property taxes (in the case of public housing) were almost completely enable to pay for upgrading schools.This is Jonathan (__Savage Inequalities__)Kozol's thesis, and it is false. Across the US, the correlation ($/pupil. %minority enrollment) is positive. The correlation (enrollment, $/pupil) is positive. Those large, inner-city minority districts get more money per pupil than sburban districts. Tightfsted taxpayers do not cause dilapidated buildings and obsolete textbooks. School bureaucrats steal taxpayers' money and poor kids' life chances. ...As a result these areas were almost solely dependent on federal, state, and local funding to improve the schools.As opposed to...? What?

Prometheus

10th September 2011, 06:49 PM

Well it is a requirement tehse days, they don't encourage dropping out like they used to.

This is the law now, all students must be educated, most states won't let students drop out now.

Are you aware of these changes?

It does not have to be a mental handicap, it can be low SES, it can be learning disability, if can be an f.u.-ed family, it can be slow learner, it can be anything.

When I went to school they encouraged those kids to drop out.

No Child Left Behind created a huge uptick in low-performing kids being encouraged (by their 'guidance counselors' no less! :mad: ) to drop out of school before they took required exit tests and brought the school average down. Disability accomodations requirements did the same for special needs kids. I hope that recent changes will reverse this trend, but I haven't seen it happen yet.

Prometheus your avatar scares the living hell out of me.

/threadderail

Don't drop out of school, or I'll come looking for you. ;)

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

10th September 2011, 06:54 PM

I'm curious about this. Can you name one state that "won't let students drop out."Visit the NCES site a d search "compulsory attendance". One result here (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_166.asp). It does not reveal that, for example, the State of Hawaii makes several exceptions. People between 6 and 18 must attend a government-operated indoctrination center unless: (1) their paents pay ransom to a private or parochial school, (2) their parents file to homeschool, (3) the minor cannot attend school for medical reasons, (4) the minor is over 15, has a full-time job, and has authorization from the principal of the school the minor would attend and the permission of a judge, (5) the minor is a high school graduate (the GED will do but the Hawaii DOE will not recognize the GED below age 17).

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

10th September 2011, 07:20 PM

I'm curious about this. Can you name one state that "won't let students drop out.".
You'll fina a better table here (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp).

Startz

10th September 2011, 08:45 PM

You'll fina a better table here (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp).

You're right of course. I shouldn't have used the words "drop out." What I meant was that "This is the law now, all students must be educated" is wrong. Many students don't graduate high school (and some graduate high school without being educated.) As you correctly point out, all states require (almost) all students to attend school through some age.

In fact, over the last 30 years the percentage of the population of 16-17 year olds in school has risen a little. In 1980 it was 89 percent. In 2009 it was 95 percent.

L.Y.S.

11th September 2011, 08:11 AM

Don't drop out of school, or I'll come looking for you. ;)

Ha-ha I'll keep that in mind the next time I put down one of my textbooks :D.

L.Y.S.

11th September 2011, 08:33 AM

S/he misled you. See this table (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_180.asp?referrer=list)from NCES. The Federal share grew during most of the Nixon administration. So also did the State share. The local share declined. Until the recent downturn in tax receipts, there has not been a downturn in revenues to K-12 schooling. Maybe so, but this is not a consequence of reduced funding. False. The local share has been declining and the combined Federal+tate has been increasing for decades. This is Jonathan (__Savage Inequalities__)Kozol's thesis, and it is false. Across the US, the correlation ($/pupil. %minority enrollment) is positive. The correlation (enrollment, $/pupil) is positive. Those large, inner-city minority districts get more money per pupil than sburban districts. Tightfsted taxpayers do not cause dilapidated buildings and obsolete textbooks. School bureaucrats steal taxpayers' money and poor kids' life chances. As opposed to...? What?

I'll have to ask my teacher for the information again. I know in my own school district nearly 51% of our school is funded by property taxes, not by federal or state subsidies. Our state share has actually decreased, but this might be unique to my own state and not be endemic across America.

ETA: I'm starting to think that property taxes are added on top of federal and state grants. I'll have to double check this idea.

Dancing David

11th September 2011, 09:19 AM

I'm curious about this. Can you name one state that "won't let students drop out."

Admittedly, calculations of high school graduation rates are notably flakey. But the overall U.S. nongraduation rate appears to be about 25 percent. In th last data I saw, no state had a dropout rate under 10 percent.

I will have to do some research, I believe it is now 17 in Illinois, as opposed to 13-14 in the 1970s...

My point is that most states require schools to serve all students and to have most students attend.

Dancing David

11th September 2011, 09:22 AM

You're right of course. I shouldn't have used the words "drop out." What I meant was that "This is the law now, all students must be educated" is wrong. Many students don't graduate high school (and some graduate high school without being educated.) As you correctly point out, all states require (almost) all students to attend school through some age.

In fact, over the last 30 years the percentage of the population of 16-17 year olds in school has risen a little. In 1980 it was 89 percent. In 2009 it was 95 percent.

I did not mean educated succesfully, that is a seperate issue, I did state it over broadly. The main point being that students are not allowed to drop out in sixth grade anymore.

Which was actively encouraged in the past.

Startz

11th September 2011, 09:35 AM

No real disagreement then.

I was able to find a 1977 list of compulsory schooling rules. Even back about 35 years ago, most states had compulsory schooling until 16. One state, Mississippi, had compulsory schooling only until age 13.

Minoosh

11th September 2011, 09:56 AM

In my state there have been numerous lawsuits aimed at equalizing education funding and things have definitely shifted away from local funding. Local districts still collect property taxes and hold bond/override elections but money gets sent to the state, mixed with a federal contribution, sent back to the districts and it's hard to get a handle on.

I have no idea how much these corrections have helped or hurt academic outcomes.

In my very limited experience as a classroom teacher I have been struck by several things. (I'm not very good yet, which explains some of it). There seem to be a lot more distractions. They're not passing notes, they're surfing the Net or furtively texting. The cure supposedly should be engaging lessons with hands-on activities. I was always racking my brain for ideas. It seems simple enough to have an activity involving Popsicle sticks but then you realize you need 150 of them (and it's Sunday night). I wasn't quick enough on my feet to direct everyone to bring a Popsicle stick and then deal with all the kids who hadn't done it.

In future I'll have a better repertoire and not be scrambling to plan things as I go along.

There was a huge range of aptitudes and prior knowledge. I'd aim for the middle and lose the top and bottom.

Attention spans in general seemed pretty short.

I hate to lament things on a generational basis ("In my day ...") but I'll allow myself the luxury. In my day the default was to come in, sit down and more or less follow along as the teacher talked or did stuff at the board. Except in art classes and science labs you didn't really expect anything else.

Now it seems to me that you have to keep them entertained or at least occupied minute-by-minute or chaos starts to set in.

I'm an aide in a different district now. The kids seem much mellower. And I get a chance to observe how veteran teachers manage the crowd. I haven't grown to hate NCLB because having some bar for high school graduation seems reasonable enough. I'm not sure "teaching to the test" is such a bad thing.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

11th September 2011, 11:31 AM

I'll have to ask my teacher for the information again.I regret the confrontational tone of my response. I expect your AP teacher believed what s/he said. There's a larger lesson in that: we tell ourselves stories which account for our observations and interpolate (invent) data points which fill the gaps and conect the dots. I suggest that this is in itself a strong argument for a competitive market in education services, as such a market provides a defense against intellectual monoculture. I know in my own school district nearly 51% of our school is funded by property taxes, not by federal or state subsidies. Our state share has actually decreased, but this might be unique to my own state and not be endemic across America.

ETA: I'm starting to think that property taxes are added on top of federal and state grants. I'll have to double check this idea.Eric Hanushek wrote that school system performance des not respond much to changes in funding levels. I expect that system performance does respond to the location of decisionmaking, with overall system performance falling as control receeds from individual parents. Hawaii supports its State-wide school district from the State general fund. This avoids arguments about property tax variations as a cause of unequal funding. It does not prevent large variations in per pupil funding between schools.

I would like to know if "property tax" refers only to residential property taxes. Seems to me, if "property tax" refers to all property, then there would be some small district in East Texas or Louisiana with 300 students and a budget of $250,000 per pupil adjacent to an oil refinery.