What is wrong with American public education? [Archive]

athon

2nd October 2005, 05:56 AM

I'd imagine the problems with the American system are much the same in any system. Or at least, they stem from the same issues.

Education Systems are a little like the Penal System. Everybody knows that we need one, but nobody can agree on what it is exactly for. We can't imagine modern society without it but what is it's real purpose?

The best that anybody can agree on is that education should aim to produce competent citizens out of the community's youth. Competent citizens need skills with which they can cope with the stresses that society provides, and with which they contribute efficiently. The problem is, society is a fluid entity. It evolves over generations, stresses change and the skills a competent citizen needs evolves with it.

Governments, on the other hand, don't evolve like the rest of society. Party systems develop on the basis of their nominated policies. Governments are elected on a relatively short term basis and have no real ability or drive to change an educational system that has appeared in the past to work. In addition, there needs to be the impression that they have been effective. The public has to be satisfied that the system looks like it has worked.

This is most efficiently done with facts and figures. People can only relate to that which they have experience in themselves. Therefore, the education system in many countries does not necessarily have to address the needs of society. It simply needs to look like it does. For example, if you occupy a student's time with teaching them facts that appear to reflect what the voting public themselves learned, then test them with a central exam, you can use a mix of the passing figures and the admission of students into further education to show your government has been successful. Whether these graduates truly have skills that can a) help them, b) help society and c) help society to advance in some way is debatable.

Education systems must reflect the needs of a changing society while being stable enough to not become a major factor for social change themselves. Funding is only the small part. Many schools have good funding, but have no real idea of how to efficiently spend it. Most use the funding to try to get more students in (because, ironically, it means more funding...a useless and depressing cycle).

The solution? I have my own opinions, but not in the least countries need to consider devolution of power to the community (while retaining national standards). This is a small start, but significant.

Athon

bigred

2nd October 2005, 06:10 AM

Foster a passion for learning at an early age.

Inspire parents to think of themselves as lifelong learners & teachers, and provide help to keep them informed and involved.

Recognize different learning styles. Don't try to treat everyone the same. Make lessons meaningful.

Make sure that 'being a professional teacher' means being well paid and respected: Someone who knows the subject being taught, and has the skill to teach, and cares about student's success.

Involve businesses more, especially at upper grades. Make students more aware of the needs of the world.

I am an advocate of charter and magnet schools as part of the public school system.

Standard testing requirements hold the system accountable.
A most excellent post.

I would add:

- First and foremost, RESTORE DISCIPLINE...ie give back true, no-kidding authority to teachers and faculty. No more of this BS w/the kids running the show and threats of being sued because a child is disciplined (etc). I know a number of teachers at all levels and most if not all would tell you this is THE biggest problem with schools nowdays, by far.

- Formally mandate (or provide strong incentives...perhaps monetarily?) parental involvement in their children's education via PTA or some such.

bigred

2nd October 2005, 06:13 AM

Zep

2nd October 2005, 06:42 AM

athon

2nd October 2005, 06:59 AM

Wow, interesting post, although I disagree with almost everything you said...

However I won't go further as I don't want to digress/sidetrack into a big political/"change the gov't" thing, which I think a reply would quickly do. No offense meant.

Hey, no offence taken at all. In fact, I'd be happy to debate it if you want to create a new thread about it. It's obviously a field I'm pretty passionate about.

I'd seriously love to hear your opinion on it.

Cheers,

Athon

athon

2nd October 2005, 07:13 AM

There needs to be an agreement on what constitutes a core set of knowledge that EVERY child MUST know before they leave school. That will basically be the three R's, taught to a level that will allow the child to be able to live and work in society without being disadvantaged. That's the MINIMUM I would want to see allowed.[/b]

I agree.

In addition to this, I think all children need to learn the ability of how to judge information. Face it, society is both becoming more global and more informed. With the internet, information is at the fingertips. How one judges the value of this information is a different matter, and something I'm yet to see taught efficiently as a result of a national or state syllubus.

As for discipline, that's tricky. Everyone of whatever age remembers the guys (and girls!) who disrupted classes, fought the system, were bullies, and even were petty criminals, etc. Back then, they were kicked out. Today, it seems somehow "better" to try by hook or by crook to keep them mainstreamed. I would lower the tolerance level - perpetually negative disruptive influences would get short shift from me.

Passing the buck doesn't work. 'Kicking out' trouble-makers just makes uneducated trouble-makers, which are still a burdon the wider system. However, when such individuals remain in school with other students, the latter can be affected negatively by it.

Personally I think there needs to a three tier system. One, specialised secondary sector, with 'traditional' academia secondary system assisting students to endeavour to move on to further education. Two, vocational educational colleges, where skills are not as academic but are taught with non-academia in mind. I guarentee you that this would reduce discipline problems by a substantial degree. Thirdly, colleges which are responsible for those who refuse to fit into either system. The real hardcore students, where the level of education aims at providing the minimum standards as well as classes on citizenship skills.

This approach sort of exists in some ways. Specialisation of schools is happening in Australia and UK, to some extent, with schools focussing on single academic, vocational or sporting areas to market their resources.

Lastly, I would change the grading system. For too long most countries' education systems have concentrated on children of a certain age going up from year to year all together doing the same sorts of subjects. In doing so, you persist with the laggards (who drop even further behind each year), and bore the arse off the bright ones (who then find other ways to "amuse" themselves). Some kids simply need more hours teaching to learn stuff than others.

The change I suggest would be that children would proceed through their subjects at their own pace, being promoted when they satisfactorily complete the previous module, [B]not necessarily at the end of a school year. This could mean, for example, that one single student could be doing advanced maths years ahead of the others of his age, while still coping with basic English studies, and not being penalised by being held up or back due to actual age. The intention of "school" would be for the student to complete all their chosen courses to their desired level, no matter what their age, nor how long it takes them to complete the work.

I fully agree, however such a system still needs to remain managable.

I hate the grading systems here. It's honestly meaningless. An outcomes based system which says 'Billy can now do these things according to our tests...he has these skills...' etc would be much better, and have meaning.

A differential system which allows for students to succeed in their own time also benefits students greatly. The problem is, civil rights wankers have this absurd notion that kids feel stigmatised as 'stupid' by being associated with lesser ability students. I can tell you, while kids do like to stigmatise themselves, they do appreciate this approach a lot better. They like to feel that they have achieved something. Systems that just process them through feel pointless, and they stop trying after a while as they know they'll come out the other end anyway.

Athon

Pyrrho

2nd October 2005, 07:23 AM

Fundamentally, I would vote to remove politicians from the educational system, and turn it all over to educators. School boards are primarily occupied by politicians, and that's the fundamental problem with education in the USA. These people are either appointed (meaning they are beholden to some other politician) or elected (meaning that they had the best campaign, not that they are good educators). It's all become political patronage, and that's no way to run a school system.

Turn it over to the teachers for a change. Get the politicians out of the system.

Larry Barrieau

2nd October 2005, 07:43 AM

Some very good ideas but in order to initiate them,money (and a lot of it), is necessary. Trying to cope with 30 different learning styles in one class is of course impossible. That's why the middle is the target area and the brighter and slower students suffer. The same goes for the idea of letting kids advance in each subject when they are ready to advance. More classrooms, more teachers.

Big Red, discipline is important. When I have to kick someone out of my class, I can't worry about his feelings or what the office will do with him. I just need to allow the other 29 kids the opportunity to learn. And we can't force parents to become involved. I would not want my tax money paying money to a parent to do what he is supposed to do anyway. Unfortunately the kids and their parents usually overturn a teacher's attempt at discipline. In my experience it's because the administration finds it easier to make the parents happy than to acknowledge that a classroom teacher knows what's best for his students.

bigred

2nd October 2005, 08:20 AM

we can't force parents to become involved. pf - sure we can. The proper incentive is all that's needed. Of course there are always the hard-core extreme exceptions, but I'm talking maybe a 95%ish solution or so, not 100%.

I would not want my tax money paying money to a parent to do what he is supposed to do anyway. I agree but don't think much if any extra $ is necessarily needed - maybe charge them a fee if they don't get involved, so if anything it could create MORE $.

Unfortunately the kids and their parents usually overturn a teacher's attempt at discipline. In my experience it's because the administration finds it easier to make the parents happy than to acknowledge that a classroom teacher knows what's best for his students.Then we need to attack the administration.

bigred

2nd October 2005, 08:21 AM

bigred

2nd October 2005, 08:23 AM

Hey, no offence taken at all. In fact, I'd be happy to debate it if you want to create a new thread about it. It's obviously a field I'm pretty passionate about.

I'd seriously love to hear your opinion on it.
Thanks, appreciate it - I'm not much for gov't/political threads really, but will keep in mind. :)

bigred

2nd October 2005, 08:25 AM

The change I suggest would be that children would proceed through their subjects at their own pace, being promoted when they satisfactorily complete the previous module, not necessarily at the end of a school year. This could mean, for example, that one single student could be doing advanced maths years ahead of the others of his age, while still coping with basic English studies, and not being penalised by being held up or back due to actual age. The intention of "school" would be for the student to complete all their chosen courses to their desired level, no matter what their age, nor how long it takes them to complete the work.Hey Zep!

This makes sense from an academic perspective, but not a social one....and the social aspects/learning of schools are IMO at least if not more important than the studies themselves. ie basically don't muck up everything for the sake of a few not-so-smart ones or really brilliant ones.

athon

2nd October 2005, 08:37 AM

In my opinion, a competent citizen should possess the following skills;

- Be able to communicate with fellow citizens using various means that are common without that community
- Be able to interpret information from various sources
- Be able to judge the value of that information in terms of appropriate usefulness
- Understand and appreciate the values of their society
- Understand the roles different individuals and different collectives play in society
- Have skills that are flexible enough to adapt to these various roles
- Understand the role they play in their community and the responsibilities one has in sharing the community's resources

I'm sure I could come up with more, but these are immediately off the top of my head. Note, however, that as the world changes, the contents of each of the above will change with it. For example, community could be considered local, but is rapidly taking on a more global involvement.

Schools should play a role in producing members of the community who fit the above framework. And, in my opinion, this includes breaking cycles established by family groups. This means schools should become more community focussed efforts. But as Larry said, this cannot be done without adequate budgeting (and adequate direction).

Athon

bigred

2nd October 2005, 10:52 AM

In my opinion, a competent citizen should possess the following skills;

- Be able to communicate with fellow citizens using various means that are common without that community
- Be able to interpret information from various sources
- Be able to judge the value of that information in terms of appropriate usefulness
- Understand and appreciate the values of their society
- Understand the roles different individuals and different collectives play in society
- Have skills that are flexible enough to adapt to these various roles
- Understand the role they play in their community and the responsibilities one has in sharing the community's resources
I agree, although there is some major subjectivity involved in most of these.

Schools should play a role in producing members of the community who fit the above framework. And, in my opinion, this includes breaking cycles established by family groups. This means schools should become more community focussed efforts. But as Larry said, this cannot be done without adequate budgeting (and adequate direction).
I semi-agree on the first part, very much so on the rest.

But keep in mind the primary goal of schools is to educate people academically, not socially....although I think both are and should be part of school.

athon

2nd October 2005, 11:16 AM

I agree, although there is some major subjectivity involved in most of these.[/b]

Indeed. The particulars are subjective to the society in question, however. There is no way you could have a set of objectives that would be unflexible and applicative to all cultures.

[b]I semi-agree on the first part, very much so on the rest.

But keep in mind the primary goal of schools is to educate people academically, not socially....although I think both are and should be part of school.

This is the problem. Schools should not just be adacemic institutes. Schools should have various resources at hand to be better equipped to be many different things.

Teachers often play numerous roles such as educator, social worker, parent, healthcare worker, disciplinarian... with minimal resources and minimal powers.

Communities are becoming less and less personal, and more and more liberal. It is often claimed that the family is responsible for teaching children social values, sex education...hell, even how to eat properly, however it is apparent that a lot of cycles exist where such values are non-existent. How are these kids supposed to learn how to be valuable members of society if they don't learn it at home. All well and good to shake fingers at the parents, but it does nothing to break the cycle. Schools as they stand cannot be responsible for instilling these values. So how do we break cycles of unemployment, teenage pregnancy, poor health and nutrition?

An education system needs to be thoroughly community active. I'm not talking about there being academic classes imposing values through classroom teaching. I am saying that the system needs to broaden its aims and actively promote places of education in order to create competent citizens.

Athon

bigred

2nd October 2005, 11:24 AM

Agree on all counts!

jay gw

2nd October 2005, 11:49 AM

There needs to be an agreement on what constitutes a core set of knowledge that EVERY child MUST know before they leave school.

That would be hard in the decentralized system of the United States. The ultimate authority is really the school district and the state, not the federal level. Who would create a single set of standards or single curriculum??

Yahweh

2nd October 2005, 06:25 PM

Minor suggestion:

Try to encourage students to learn more about world events, foreign governments, and international issues. I notice nearly every non-USian I know can tell me about the president, the three branches of government, name most of the 50 states, and perhaps outsmart me in knowledge of my own country... but I cant name the leaders of any foreign countries or identify a single legislative event from those countries. The only thing I can possibly guess about any UK country is that its filled to the brink with hundreds of effeminate socialist snobs, but I suppose they could be effeminate socialists without necessarily being snobby (how close am I?).

I think that contributes to a problem of inadvertantly alienating American students from the rest of the world. It takes the focus on real problems like poverty and predatory corporations preying on third-world nations, and shifts it over to trivial issues like legislating against two dudes kissing in the park. Perhaps if schools are supposed to equip students in participating in the real world, then it makes sense to encourage world-wide thinking than America-centric ideas.

Zep

2nd October 2005, 06:54 PM

Hey Zep!

This makes sense from an academic perspective, but not a social one....and the social aspects/learning of schools are IMO at least if not more important than the studies themselves. ie basically don't muck up everything for the sake of a few not-so-smart ones or really brilliant ones.I certainly understand the point you are making, and agree to a good extent. "Learning to live with others" is a skill that also needs to be inculcated during school life (which is why I have bias against home-schooling apart from exceptional circumstances...but that's another subject).

However the reality is that a child's social life at school does not happen solely in the classroom. The classroom situation is aimed more at personal skill acquisition. And as we are pack animals essentially, social skills are learned more in a social environment, i.e. outside the classroom. This means extra-curricula stuff like sports, theatre, politics, etc. And also the very basic interaction skills such as friendship, politeness, respect for others, self-respect and esteem, etc. The involvement of parents and educators needs to be fully understood in this situation, and personally I think both need to work together more and not palm the responsibility off on each other, as has been the case more recently.

To that extent, streamed education (which I described above) may not have that great an impact on social skills. In fact, if a child is able to feel good about their learning ability, it should enhance their self-esteem socially.

Zep

2nd October 2005, 07:00 PM

TriangleMan

3rd October 2005, 05:31 AM

Since the thread is about public education in America I have a question. I've just finished reading Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol, which highlights the great discrepancy in funding in the public school system, primarily due to schools being funded by the local property tax rather than on a state/federal level (as well as numerous other reasons). His description of the conditions in the schools in the poor neighbourhoods was absolutely frightening. No money for books or paper, no computers, overcrowded, etc. However the book was written in 1991, has much changed since then? If not, no amount of standard setting is going to make a significant impact on the lives of children when their school doesn't even have the resources to buy textbooks.

cbish

3rd October 2005, 03:22 PM

I pretty much agree with everything said here. However, some of the desired goals are a little "pie in the sky". They are certainly desireable but I don't know how realistic they are. Remember, schools are nothing more than microcosm of the community they are in. Many of the goals of education are really nothing more than what we wish of our society. And, they're not being met there either.

If I were in charge of the world, what changes would I make? I'd make it harder to become a teacher. I realize this is impossible and comes with a bazillion logistical problems, but that's what I would do if I were in charge.........and I'm not!

CBL4

3rd October 2005, 06:10 PM

Make teaching and education a lucrative and respected profession.

If we double the salaries for teachers over the next 20 years, I guarantee that students would be fighting to get into the education department. Schools would have their pick of the best and brightest.

We pay teachers a mediocre salary and, not surprisingly, we get mediocre teachers. I understand that there are some truly outstanding teacher out there (and on this forum) but I would bet that few of us seriously considered teaching as a profession.

CBL

kittynh

3rd October 2005, 06:25 PM

well, that depends. Many of the best teachers I know choose lower salary over higher by teaching in the private school system. Smaller class sizes, and a decent work environment, plus more motivated parents, win out over money time and again.

Also, you would need to make teacher a year round profession. If you are going to pay the big bucks, you need to attract more than people who go into it so they can "work the same hours as their kids".

You need accountablility. Every school has one or two bad teachers that are protected by a union. They are borderline stinkers, who know well how fine a line they can walk to keep their jobs.

Also, if you treat children with respect, they will treat you with respect. If you involve them in the community, they will respect the community. And a lot of these kids are just treading water in families that are barely hanging on. My neighbor works with kids at risk at the high school. One of her students has a baby (and her father is the father of the baby). She is living in a car right now. You see, when her father got out of prison (for getting her pregnant at age 13) they got kicked out of their housing (as it does not allowed convicted sex offenders. The family can't go to a homeless shelter as they don't allow convicted sex offenders. Mom wont' leave dad, and my neighbor is stuck trying to convince the powers that be, that perhaps SOMETHING should be done for this young woman.

Part of the problem is that once a child gets a program or something that starts to work the child changes grades and teachers! For children at risk, staying with a good teacher for several years is very good. The school where I work has all children with the same teaching team for 3 years. Team teaching is also very good. It spreads out the "worry" and let's them brainstorm.

Anti_Hypeman

4th October 2005, 09:26 AM

They hate our freedom

wunky

4th October 2005, 10:34 AM

I was in grad school working towards a Masters in Secondary Education at a private university in DC. I was aghast by the lack of basic knowledge that some of the other students in my grad school classes had- they were mostly current teachers in DC.I am not blaming them, but as a society we are not doing enough to get the right people in classrooms. The latest craze was to take professionals (retired) and put them in classrooms to teach. Yes they may know how to do profession X, but do they know how to teach others to be competent in that same profession. The most glaring example of this is the "Arabic Instructors" in classrooms- at all levels, including college. Being able to speak a language is not the same as being able to teach someone else to speak, read, write and comprehend in another language.

gnome

4th October 2005, 01:17 PM

Effective discipline is a must, but one need not return to the days when teachers could administer corporal punishment at their own discretion, for example. What is needed are sensible guidelines for discipline and the ability and willingnessfor teachers and school boards to defend themselves when they are sued... if the teachers find their hands tied from necessary discipline due to lawsuits, I'd say it's because the school board is caving too easily.

bigred

4th October 2005, 03:26 PM

I certainly understand the point you are making, and agree to a good extent. "Learning to live with others" is a skill that also needs to be inculcated during school life (which is why I have bias against home-schooling apart from exceptional circumstances...but that's another subject).Right on. :)

However the reality is that a child's social life at school does not happen solely in the classroom. ? No one is saying it is. But it is quite easily the MAIN part of a child's social life.

The classroom situation is aimed more at personal skill acquisition. ?? Social life, personal skill acquisition....we're talking about the same things here..

And as we are pack animals essentially, social skills are learned more in a social environment, i.e. outside the classroom. OK I think I see a misunderstanding here....I'm talking SCHOOL, which is much more than just the classroom itself, ie talking outside in the hall, right before/after school, lunchtime, recess, extra-curricular activities, etc etc.

The involvement of parents and educators needs to be fully understood in this situation, and personally I think both need to work together more and not palm the responsibility off on each other, as has been the case more recently.Certainly....

To that extent, streamed education (which I described above) may not have that great an impact on social skills. You kidding me? A bright 8 yr old hanging out with say 12/13 yr olds vs his own age group won't impact him? You're completely ignoring the emotional aspects....

In fact, if a child is able to feel good about their learning ability, it should enhance their self-esteem socially.But social skills are about a LOT LOT LOT more than just self-esteem.

bigred

4th October 2005, 03:29 PM

If I were in charge of the world, what changes would I make? I'd make it harder to become a teacher. I realize this is impossible and comes with a bazillion logistical problems, but that's what I would do if I were in charge.........and I'm not!
I can't imagine why, frankly. The problem is not bad teachers (although there are some of course). That would be like throwing gas on the fire.

Teachers should get paid more, conditions of schools should be better, and again most of all teachers/school should be given back REAL authority over kids.

cbish

4th October 2005, 03:50 PM

kittynh

4th October 2005, 05:21 PM

totally true! Most of the public school teachers I know don't consider their job the "main" job in the family.

At the school where I work, most of the teachers are the primary support of their families. There is a real difference, in terms of people considering their job a profession and others "something to put the kids through college".

One way to judge, who takes a day off when the kids are sick?

Zep

4th October 2005, 06:48 PM

No one is saying it [classroom social life] is. But it is quite easily the MAIN part of a child's social life.It MAY be. But my feeling is that it should NOT be. If a child has no social structure outside of the classroom or schoolyard then I'm wondering what they do with their time.

?? Social life, personal skill acquisition....we're talking about the same things here..Perhaps not quite!

OK I think I see a misunderstanding here....I'm talking SCHOOL, which is much more than just the classroom itself, ie talking outside in the hall, right before/after school, lunchtime, recess, extra-curricular activities, etc etc.Yes, exactly so. However while it might be considered a microcosm of real life society, it is really a limited subset. Children mixing with other children and supervised by adults is not the same as "real life". It's actually closer to a prison society!

You kidding me? A bright 8 yr old hanging out with say 12/13 yr olds vs his own age group won't impact him? You're completely ignoring the emotional aspects....Not at all! Yes, that will impact him (or her). But is that for the worse? Consider the same advanced 8yo being restricted to associating with less bright and advanced children of the same physical age. I've been there, and so have a number of children I know. Some kids have much older heads than their bodies...

And then again, some are the opposite - at certain ages they have yet to acquire social skills expected of that age. Perhaps having to mix with children of older and more accomplished social skills will help them learn.

But social skills are about a LOT LOT LOT more than just self-esteem.Oh, agree totally! The issue I was referring to was the ability to absorb such skills and use them - this occurs at differing ages for different kids (and some never actually acquire them, even as adults!).

drkitten

5th October 2005, 07:15 AM

I can't imagine why, frankly. The problem is not bad teachers (although there are some of course). That would be like throwing gas on the fire.

Part of the problem is not necessarily with actively incompetent teachers, but with teachers who barely achieve the ranks of competence. There may not be bad teachers -- but there are also not enough good teachers, in part because teaching is not taken seriously as a profession.

Look, for example, at the incoming SAT scores of any large American university, broken down by college/school. Here's an example, from the University of Oklahoma:

http://www.ou.edu/provost/ir/Factbook_2001/01_28.html

The School of Education has the single lowest average SAT score in verbal skills, and the second-lowest in math.

Good students do not go into education. The profession is neither well-paid nor respected. Good students are smart enough to recognize that.

Making teaching a prestigious occupation -- making it difficult to get into, and therefore a badge of honor, might well help address this.

athon

5th October 2005, 08:10 AM

Agreed. And it's hard to comment on this topic because there are so many forms of the educational system that are completely different. So, what affects one level may be irrelevent to another.

From my personal experience, I find many teachers enter the profession for what I would consider the wrong reasons. Some of those reasons include but are not limited to: they preceive it as being easy, it's a way to pay the bills while I pursue my real passions (i.e: writing, acting, coaching), it's the families second income (the put the kids through school/vacation money).

From my experiences, when these are the motives, the job is always secondary (or tertiery, etc, etc). When the job is secondary, often times you get secondary effort and secondary results. My hope would be to make it more of a personal investment to eliminate those people.

(I also think it will never happen)

I agree 100%. I even admit myself that on hearing other's opinions, was influenced into perceiving teaching as an opportunity to write more before I took it up. Indeed, the holidays are great for that, but during the term I'm lucky to have a moment to scratch myself, let alone do a lot of serious writing work.

It is not a career for the undisciplined, that's for sure. I've worked with teachers who find it far too easy to come in at 8:30 and leave right on 3:00, almost battling students to make it to the door.

Bad teachers make a bad system even worse. But they are not the cause or reason for a poor education system.

Athon

cbish

5th October 2005, 10:26 AM

[QUOTEMaking teaching a prestigious occupation -- making it difficult to get into, and therefore a badge of honor, might well help address this.[/QUOTE]
dr newkitten, athon, kittynh, I completely agree. Now, let me play devil's advocate and say why it won't work.

It's been reported (and I'm confident it's similar everywhere) that we need 10,000 teachers right now in California. With a deficet such as this, how can we be choosy? When I was in the credential program (mid-late 80's), I actually had to apply and sweat it out a little. Now, we have teachers here at my school that are still finishing their B.A. I also had to attend a University. Today, most of our credential candidates attend what I call a "correspondence school" i.e.: National University, University of Phoenix, some "on-line" school. In my opinion, those are Cliff Note universities that attract Cliff Note people. I refuse to hire someone from there.

drkitten

5th October 2005, 10:39 AM

It's been reported (and I'm confident it's similar everywhere) that we need 10,000 teachers right now in California. With a deficet such as this, how can we be choosy?

Make the job better.

Better job equates to more applicants (and better quality applicants), so there's a larger and better
pool to draw from.

There are lots of ways to make the job better, and unfortunately most of them are politically impractical. For example, paying teachers a living wage -- a lot of the people holding the purse strings think of teaching as a nine-month job, and offer nine-months' salary. I regard this policy as penny-wise and pound-foolish. If I can't afford to work full-time at my job, I will not work full-time at my job. If I have to be a teacher in the winter and a writer in the summer, I am more likely to try to be a full-time writer than a full-time teacher.

Improving working conditions would help as well. For example, university-level instructors (especially tenure-track ones) usually have complete freedom and authority over their curriculum. There is no "State Board of Education" that dictates what a math teacher needs to cover in first-year calculus or what books incoming freshmen should read in their English classes. (This decision will often be made at the department level, but the faculty are part of that decision.) By contrast, agencies and school boards routinely make curriculum decisions and impose them upon secondary-school teachers. Even the selection of textbooks -- an integral part of college teaching -- is handled on a school-, district-, or sometimes state-wide basis. Look at the ID currently happening in Dover, PA (where the district opted to choose a textbook and mandate the content of teaching over the objections of the science teachers), or the "No Child Left Behind" mandatory content upon which students are tested.

College teachers are not typically required to prepare lesson plans, to attend any fixed set of hours beyond their scheduled classes, or to follow any of the innumerable administrivia that plague public school teachers. I've seen public school districts with dress codes! In post-secondary education, outside of military academies, dress codes are almost unheard-of.

Just as a simple exampl e-- can you leave the campus for a better lunch than you get in the school cafeteria? If the answer is "no," then I don't want your job.

When I was in the credential program (mid-late 80's), I actually had to apply and sweat it out a little. Now, we have teachers here at my school that are still finishing their B.A. I also had to attend a University. Today, most of our credential candidates attend what I call a "correspondence school" i.e.: National University, University of Phoenix, some "on-line" school. In my opinion, those are Cliff Note universities that attract Cliff Note people. I refuse to hire someone from there.

The reason you get Cliff Note people is because the people who are willing to sweat are working jobs with better environments.

cbish

5th October 2005, 12:41 PM

No arguement here. Just a couple of comments.

About the curriculum. One difference is that, with the exception of lower division basics, most college courses are pretty specialized compared to, say, high school curriculum. So, naturally, the curriculum will be at the discretion of the professor. High school curriculum (for example Chemistry, which is what I teach) has to be pretty consistant from school to school & state to state so that the students are prepared to enter freshman college chem where the curriculum is also "canned". When they get into upper division and then graduate courses then the scenario you describe applies.

In California, we have State Content Standards for each course. At least in my situation, they are pretty plain-Jane basic. In fact, I've had to make no changes to my curriculum because it was what I was already doing. However, it could be different for other disciplines. The SCS's just outline what topics to cover. It allows teachers flexibility in how they actually do that. Incidently, I write all of my own curriculum.

The SCS's have actually been very helpful in dealing with the nutbar crowds. So far, when confronted with an IDer, our ""out has been "it's not in the content standards". end of story. So far, so good.

cbish

5th October 2005, 01:33 PM

Just as a simple exampl e-- can you leave the campus for a better lunch than you get in the school cafeteria? If the answer is "no," then I don't want your job.
Yes & no. We are not bound or obligated to stay on campus for lunch. However, our lunch periods are only about 30 minutes so leaving is pretty tight.

The last three years, however, I've had my prep and lunch back-to-back, so I could go out to lunch, home for a nooner, etc. It was sweet!

drkitten

5th October 2005, 01:41 PM

About the curriculum. One difference is that, with the exception of lower division basics, most college courses are pretty specialized compared to, say, high school curriculum.

Is this a cause, or an effect?

Your chemistry curriculum is set for you so that students are prepared to take (college) freshman chem. On the other hand, there is an expectation at the graduate level that incoming graduate students will not have a uniform background. In my experience, I can often count on incoming graduate students having a more uniform background than incoming undergraduates, because, although the curriculum for high school studies may be uniform within a state, the
different states will set different curricula -- and because so many incoming freshmen have no background whatsoever. (I've never seen, for example, a university where "high school chemistry" was a prerequisite for chem 101.) So the effect is that you have to be able to teach incoming freshmen from a variety of backgrounds regardless of the uniformity (or lack thereof) of what kind of preparation they had in high school.

The other issue, of course, is that professors who are responsible for course content are still responsible for uniformity issues. If I were to teach something totally off-the-wall and inappropriate, my department chair would have words with me precisely because I was failing my duties to the students to prepare them for later classes. But the ultimate judgement about what I need to prepare them for falls on my shoulders, as it should. There's still a substantive difference between being told "I don't think you're preparing your students well enough on subject X, and you may be spending too much time on subject Y" (an approach that still leaves curricular issues mostly in my hands) and "this is a list of the subjects you should teach and how much time you need to spend on them" (an approach that strips me of most of my autonomy).

Even if you agree with most of the content standards, there's still that loss of autonomy issue to deal with. People like being autonomous and like being in control, even when they end up doing what you would have told them to do anyway. (That's one of the hardest lessons for a manager to learn, but also one of the most important.)

And from my understanding of teachers at all levels, this kind of autonomy is one of the most substantial differences in the job environment.

drkitten

5th October 2005, 01:49 PM

Yes & no. We are not bound or obligated to stay on campus for lunch. However, our lunch periods are only about 30 minutes so leaving is pretty tight.

The last three years, however, I've had my prep and lunch back-to-back, so I could go out to lunch, home for a nooner, etc. It was sweet!

At some level, I think that proves my point for me. I've been able to have lunch with my sweetie at least once a week more or less since I started my current position.

Granted, it's a small perk. But a perk nonetheless. What you call "sweet" I call "routine." But perks like that are part of the reason that I don't want to give up my cushy university position to teach high school. Sometime, back in the mid-Paleolithic, I was offered a chance to teach high school (or, implicitly, to continue with graduate education and an eventual, hoped-for, university teaching position). I assume that I'm not unique in facing that choice, nor am I unique in the way I chose. But if 10,000 people facing that identical choice today were to decide that working conditions as California high school teachers didn't suck dead rat through a straw, the shortage would vanish. And if 20,000 people made that decision, you could even start being picky about whom you accepted.

cbish

7th October 2005, 06:47 PM

"But if 10,000 people facing that identical choice today were to decide that working conditions as California high school teachers didn't suck dead rat through a straw,

And if 20,000 people made that decision, you could even start being picky about whom you accepted."

It's as simple as "supply side economics" We need X amount of teachers RIGHT NOW!! TODAY!!

How do we attract better people? You say make the job better. I agree. How?

sorry, I'm still trying to figure out how to quote.

Math Maniac

7th October 2005, 07:23 PM

Please read next post.

Math Maniac

7th October 2005, 07:29 PM

I post very little and read a lot. This thread hits home...I have been teaching high school mathematics for the past three years and will no longer be teaching next year due to many of the negative aspects of teaching.

My perspective is concise: A person's willingness/desire plays an important role in education. Since willingness/desire cannot be forced or required successfully at all times, problems will always exist. Both troublemakers and the brightest students are affected, sometimes in positive ways and sometimes in negative. The solution is neither simple or straightforward. When put in generalized terms, any "fix" will lack the necessary specificity and oversimplify the complexity and overwhelmingly dynamic process of education.

As Forrest Gump so aptly stated, "That's all I have to say about that."

Math Maniac

7th October 2005, 07:34 PM

Accident!

AGENT-ADAIR

8th October 2005, 04:18 AM

I go to a public high school, and many have pointed out my bad english, on this forum, no doubt.

Mephisto

8th October 2005, 07:17 AM

I agree with nearly everything Kopji said, but I also think that a rearrangement of American thinking is in order. For too long our priorities have been skewed by popular culture, and the wrong people are making the money AND teaching our kids behavior best left to simple minds.

Something is wrong when people can make multi-millions of dollars playing a game. I don't care whether the game is football, hockey, basketball or baseball - it's still just a game! Why do sports stars get paid so much for doing so little? Their contributions aren't worth any more than those of popular movie stars (who also get paid too much). It is ENTERTAINMENT and we seem to have bought into the idea that entertainers deserve top dollar while teachers are required to pay for their teaching supplies and, in many cases, hold two jobs.

Our priorities regarding the influence held by most sports stars and movie stars are also askew. How many sports stars and movie stars are arrested or fired for using drugs every year? Yet, modern culture still holds these people in high regard. How many rap stars have shot each other on city streets over petty arguments? How many teachers have done the same thing?

I feel our edu-macation system will continue to put out students who are barely able to scratch their names in the dirt with a stick if we don't set new priorities. Unfortunately, that isn't the trend and the introduction of "Intelligent Design" as a viable science introduces yet another blow to learning.

Think about it - ONE football star, basketball star or movie star could pay the annual salary of ten teachers for a year on his annual salary, and for what? To play a game and to piss test clean. Is THAT what we need to teach our children, because they DO look up to them you know.

Mephisto

8th October 2005, 07:28 AM

I post very little and read a lot. This thread hits home...I have been teaching high school mathematics for the past three years and will no longer be teaching next year due to many of the negative aspects of teaching.

You have my sympathies, MM. That is precisely my complaint regarding education in America. Teachers are on the lowest rung of the "professional" ladder. They get no respect, they get blamed for the stupidity and laziness of their students, they get blamed for the crime in the schools, the inadequacies of the education system (which is now pushing Intelligent Design as an equal to science), and generally everything the parents or legislatures don't want to take responsibility for.

I live next door to a middle school math teacher and her math professor husband and they've both said that, "leave no child behind" is proving detrimental to our education system. The middle school teacher has told me that one consequence to Bush's program is that everyone (who can afford it) has flocked to the best schools in the city (the richer schools) while the already poor, understaffed schools with no modern equipment are being neglected. Consequently, the better schools are now overcrowded and the bus system is overworked.

I wish I could convince you to stay the course, MM, but until school teachers get paid at least ONE TENTH what football players make annually, I don't see your chosen profession as the road to prestige, enlightenment OR respect.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

8th October 2005, 09:40 AM

I wonder how much the "gotta graduate from high school and go to college" mentality has to do with it? Used to be that a kid had lots of options: skip school and work on the family farm; go to school through 8th grade and work on the family farm; quit high school early and become a mechanic; attend a vocational high school; drop out of high school and return later for an equivalency; etc. These options are all still available to some extent, but now they are considered fall-back options for lame-o's.

The more the options become constrained, the more kids will have trouble, because the concept that one option works for everyone is nonsense.

I'm certainly not suggesting this is the only problem. What happened to phonics? What happened to learning the multiplication table in school? What happened to suspending a kid for misbehaving?

~~ Paul

Math Maniac

8th October 2005, 10:39 AM

You have my sympathies, MM.

I wish I could convince you to stay the course, ...

Thanks for the nice thoughts Mephisto. I will stay involved; I just don't know how as of yet.

Rather than simply propose a solution, I would ecourage everyone to find a school than needs help (there are plenty!) and give your ideas a try. Not to be disrespectful but there are a lot of "armchair teachers" in society and when it comes to action, there is little to be found.

cbish

10th October 2005, 11:32 AM

I wonder how much the "gotta graduate from high school and go to college" mentality has to do with it? Used to be that a kid had lots of options: skip school and work on the family farm; go to school through 8th grade and work on the family farm; quit high school early and become a mechanic; attend a vocational high school; drop out of high school and return later for an equivalency; etc. These options are all still available to some extent, but now they are considered fall-back options for lame-o's.

The more the options become constrained, the more kids will have trouble, because the concept that one option works for everyone is nonsense.

~~ Paul
IMO this is huge. I've said that it's not so much of a system failing, it's more that the demands on that system have never been greater. Look back at the generations in the past century and the role education has played and the options available to them if they left school.

tboard

16th January 2007, 07:27 AM

bigred

16th January 2007, 07:56 AM

Roswell-Perseis

17th January 2007, 12:56 AM

. . .Good students do not go into education. The profession is neither well-paid nor respected. Good students are smart enough to recognize that.

Making teaching a prestigious occupation -- making it difficult to get into, and therefore a badge of honor, might well help address this.

I agree with you that good students do not go into education. I don't know if I fight into this category but . . . I thought about teaching high school and even had a practicum. My host teacher was awesome and used my idea (and gave me credit w/ my prof) and the students did a project. It felt rewarding, but it didn't feel like a career. It felt like a stop. I'm hoping I'll feel better about teaching college.

I take a slight issue with second part of the quote based on the following:

1. I'm not sure that prestige won't go to teachers heads and make matters worse. I believe that today, while bad teachers need to go, there are not hordes of them making idiots out of kids. Would the same be true if the teachers are now given power (prestige+money+education+wealth=power)? Certainly, oversight would help, but I wonder . . . What do you think? (no sarcasm, serious question).

2. At least in Michigan, many types of teaching are difficult to get into. While it is easy to teach special ed or high-school calculus, everything else doesn't have good odds for future employment (with in five years of graduating) In fact, for something that seems more job than career, I really wonder why people do it. I knew some who were committed, and it made a difference, but even these teachers seemed to think that when their kids aged they would go back for a PhD and teach college because that was their dream.

However, I realize that overabundance is the opposite of prestige, and perhaps someone else could argue that is part of the problem. My argument is an amalgamation of what I've seen, what teachers have said, and what I learned in EDUC 101 (FYI).

IMO, using standardized tests as diagnostic tools is wise. Noticing an effort by a school to not have better results is horrible, but to say that schools must make x amount of progess in y amount of time or else?

I might never vote for a republican after the No Child Left Behind Act.

Roswell-Perseis

17th January 2007, 01:10 AM

drkitten

17th January 2007, 12:10 PM

1. I'm not sure that prestige won't go to teachers heads and make matters worse. I believe that today, while bad teachers need to go, there are not hordes of them making idiots out of kids. Would the same be true if the teachers are now given power (prestige+money+education+wealth=power)? Certainly, oversight would help, but I wonder . . . What do you think? (no sarcasm, serious question).

I see no reason why this should happen.

2. At least in Michigan, many types of teaching are difficult to get into. While it is easy to teach special ed or high-school calculus, everything else doesn't have good odds for future employment (with in five years of graduating) In fact, for something that seems more job than career, I really wonder why people do it. I knew some who were committed, and it made a difference, but even these teachers seemed to think that when their kids aged they would go back for a PhD and teach college because that was their dream.

However, I realize that overabundance is the opposite of prestige, and perhaps someone else could argue that is part of the problem.

Overabundance is not necessarily either a sign or an anti-sign of prestige. There's an overabundance of high school quarterbacks who want to play for the NFL (a very prestigious job), but there are also an overabundance of Wal-Mart clerks, which is why they are paid and treated so badly. The difference is that people want to quarterback, but are forced (by circumstance) to clerk.

That's kind of my point. As you put it, "I really wonder why people do it." I think there are (relatively) few people who really want to teach, and most of those seem to want to teach at the post-secondary level, since conditions are so much better.

Thanz

17th January 2007, 01:04 PM

Something is wrong when people can make multi-millions of dollars playing a game. I don't care whether the game is football, hockey, basketball or baseball - it's still just a game! Why do sports stars get paid so much for doing so little? Their contributions aren't worth any more than those of popular movie stars (who also get paid too much). It is ENTERTAINMENT and we seem to have bought into the idea that entertainers deserve top dollar while teachers are required to pay for their teaching supplies and, in many cases, hold two jobs.
It is actually worse than that. In many places in the US the highest paid person at a school is not a teacher, or even an administrator, but rather the football coach.

The highest paid public employee in the United States is the football coach of the Army academy. He makes about $700,000. That's right, the football coach makes more than any 5 star general or the Commander in Chief, who makes $400,000. How screwed up is it when the Football Coach makes more than the President?

bigred

17th January 2007, 01:46 PM

How screwed up is it when the Football Coach makes more than the President?Welcome to America. What a country...

bigred

17th January 2007, 01:48 PM

Good students do not go into education. The profession is neither well-paid nor respected. Sad but true. But I think you're neglecting the "supply and demand" thing. ie there are a lot of people who want to be teachers, so schools can get away with paying them unimpressive salaries.

Making teaching a prestigious occupation -- making it difficult to get into, and therefore a badge of honor, might well help address this. I wish so, but IMO no way. You make it harder to get into and you'll end up with a weaker group of teachers. Also making it harder to get into won't necessarily make it a "badge of honor." Nice thought though, wish that could happen.

drkitten

17th January 2007, 01:57 PM

I wish so, but IMO no way. You make it harder to get into and you'll end up with a weaker group of teachers. Also making it harder to get into won't necessarily make it a "badge of honor."

Well, rather obviously making it harder to get into isn't the only step to making it a more prestigious occupation.

But part of the problem with the current group is that teaching is too easy to get into, and as a result, most of the people who "want" to teach are really only teaching faut de mieux. This is the "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." For example, "real" biologists have little interest in biology education or in the students who study "biology education." If you have the capacity to do biology, you can have more prestige, better pay, and better working conditions in a laboratory than in a (high school) classroom.

What is necessary, then, is not just to enlarge or reduce the number of teacher candidates, but actually to do a wholesale replacement of the pool -- many of the current "education" majors should unfortunately not be in education at all. At the same time, the people who should be in education aren't interested, in part because of the conditions and co-workers.

wisefool

17th January 2007, 02:03 PM

I agree with tboard's information regarding the basics. There are too many bells and whistles designed to create positive PR in education. However, one of the main problems is bad administration. I'm reading a book called "Breaking the Silence: Overcoming the Problem of Principal Mistreatment of Teachers", by Joseph Blase and Jo Blase. It is a well-done example of survey research, but I digress. The authors indicate that principals intentionally encourage chaos as a way of controlling teachers. Control, for a principal, is even more important than learning. Until we can get rid of the "command and control" culture, nothing will change.

I have been in business for 30 years as a consultant, 6 years as a high school teacher and now teaching at a university- trust me, teachers are not underpaid
Having said that, paying a PE teacher the same as a math teacher is absolutely ridiculous, but that is the public school system as we know it
The US public school system is the "bus depot" of the 21st century.

As to determining what classes to take to get an adequate level of learning in high school - forget it. Give them the basics and let the colleges sort out the students
Give a primary and secondary student the basics and good training on how to dress, how to respect authority, how to get to work on time , how to do math without a calculator , and how to write a reasonable paper and you are 90% on the way to a quality worker. The other 10 % will be sorted out by the employer.

wisefool

17th January 2007, 02:11 PM

Good job, Big Red. I agree 100%. For what teachers do, they are not underpaid. I have worn many hats (soldier, Army nurse, teacher and college instructor). The easiest profession to master was teacher. Note: I was twice nominated to "Who's Who Among America's Teachers." That's not to say that teachers aren't important. But, the working conditions and the lack of autonomy are killing the profession. With No Child Left Behind, teachers are increasingly being told (a) what to teach, and (b) how to teach it. Innovation is being squelched from the top-down.

This is one of the best posts I have ever read anywhere, esp that last part. BRAVO. This should be "stickied" up front somewhere and made a required mantra (or something) for school administrators, decision-makers, etc etc

drkitten

17th January 2007, 02:16 PM

As to determining what classes to take to get an adequate level of learning in high school - forget it. Give them the basics and let the colleges sort out the students

Speaking as a college instructor --- thanks *****' lots. What's the matter, the job's too difficult for you, so you want to wash your hands of it?

Give a primary and secondary student the basics and good training on how to dress, how to respect authority, how to get to work on time , how to do math without a calculator , and how to write a reasonable paper and you are 90% on the way to a quality worker.

Well, that's good -- except that I'm not in the business of producing "quality workers." And if you really think that's all you need to be a "quality worker," why are you bothering to pay for college tuition in the first place?

I have higher expectations of my incoming students. I have to, because I have to place them in fields where simply showing up on time and respecting authority, while valuable, won't even get you an interview. Many of my students go on to Ph.D.'s at relatively good schools, the others tend to get highly competitive jobs in in-demand fields. But I need a good foundation to achieve that. To be honest, I don't even care much whether you can do arithmetic without a calculator (although my students usually can); I'm more concerned about their ability to read a story problem and extract what the relevant information is. I'm more concerned about their ability to make reasonable assumptions in solving Fermi problems (Quick -- is Mt. Fuji 300m tall, 3000m, or 30000m?) I need them to be able to read a paper and tell me what the author didn't say, or what might have biased the author's conclusion (and therefore needs to be double-checked). I need them to be able to tell me why Wikipedia isn't as good a source for health information as the Lancet.

If you can do that, I'll give you the calculator. I keep three or four in my desk drawer just in case. Because I need my students to be able to do stuff that the computer can't do for them -- which is why I put them in jobs where they are in charge of the computers instead of the computers being in charge of them.

wisefool

17th January 2007, 02:17 PM

I absolutely agree with that. And, I believe the lack of control is driving teachers out of the classroom at the high school level. I have only taught at the post-secondary level for one semester, but I am sure that what this author says does occur (i.e. control freak department chairs mandating certain instructional topics and methods).

Even if you agree with most of the content standards, there's still that loss of autonomy issue to deal with. People like being autonomous and like being in control, even when they end up doing what you would have told them to do anyway. (That's one of the hardest lessons for a manager to learn, but also one of the most important.)

And from my understanding of teachers at all levels, this kind of autonomy is one of the most substantial differences in the job environment.[/quote]

bigred

17th January 2007, 02:55 PM

Well, rather obviously making it harder to get into isn't the only step to making it a more prestigious occupation.

But part of the problem with the current group is that teaching is too easy to get into, and as a result, most of the people who "want" to teach are really only teaching faut de mieux. This is the "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." For example, "real" biologists have little interest in biology education or in the students who study "biology education." If you have the capacity to do biology, you can have more prestige, better pay, and better working conditions in a laboratory than in a (high school) classroom.

What is necessary, then, is not just to enlarge or reduce the number of teacher candidates, but actually to do a wholesale replacement of the pool -- many of the current "education" majors should unfortunately not be in education at all. At the same time, the people who should be in education aren't interested, in part because of the conditions and co-workers.
....and the pay. True enough, thx for the post.

UserGoogol

17th January 2007, 06:01 PM

Hey Zep!

This makes sense from an academic perspective, but not a social one....and the social aspects/learning of schools are IMO at least if not more important than the studies themselves. ie basically don't muck up everything for the sake of a few not-so-smart ones or really brilliant ones.

I might not be the best person to comment because I have always been a profoundly introverted person, (and thus the social aspects of school kind of went over my head to a significant degree) but I don't see how that would be a factor. People don't socialize in class, they listen to the teacher and/or work on whatever. (At leasy in theory.) Actual socialization goes on in the time between classes, at lunch or reccess or whatever. The "academic" and the "social" aspects of school therefore seem to be seperable components: kids can advance academically at whatever pace they want and still remain social with their friends.

Of course, maybe I'm missing some of the subtle social interaction that goes on in the academic setting, since after all, K-12 education is often not taught in a lecture format, but still, it seems like a valid point.

drkitten

17th January 2007, 06:17 PM

I might not be the best person to comment because I have always been a profoundly introverted person, (and thus the social aspects of school kind of went over my head to a significant degree) but I don't see how that would be a factor. People don't socialize in class, they listen to the teacher and/or work on whatever.

Um, you've using too narrow a definition of "socialization."

Socialization is learning about what to do in social situations. A classroom is a social situation, and many of the lessons from school carry over to the larger world, and the corporate environment in particular.

For example, don't interrupt the teacher. In general, don't interrupt any authority figure.

Your deskis yours and your responsibility; keep it neat -- and don't mess with other people's desks. This applies to your desk and your boss's corner office as well.

Stay on-task and at your desk.

Do work that is assigned to you, competently and on-deadline. If necessary, turn in acceptable work on-time rather than brilliant work late.

Wear appropriate clothing.

Don't throw erasers at fellow students. In fact, don't throw anything at anyone.

Et cetera.

UserGoogol

17th January 2007, 06:33 PM

Ah yes. But still, I would think that aquiring such skills would be a requirement for passing through classes, so it would be accomodated by such a system.

drkitten

17th January 2007, 06:57 PM

Ah yes. But still, I would think that aquiring such skills would be a requirement for passing through classes, so it would be accomodated by such a system.

Depends upon how Zep's modular programs are implemented. I could see, for example, doting but ill-advised parents trying to "manage" Suzy's educational experience by trying to do her elementary school via distance education -- she comes in once every two weeks to drop off the old module, possibly be quizzed by the teacher to make sure she understands the work, then pick up the new module and take it home and work on it.

Heck, that's a model that I have successfully used for education at the university level myself. I believe they call it the "tutorial system" at Oxbridge.

But I can't imagine "tutorials" working for third graders, even if they can manage the "academic" stuff. And I think that part of the reason why they wouldn't work is because of the "socialization" aspects such as I described above.

thatguywhojuggles

17th January 2007, 07:28 PM

What kinds of reforms, if any, would you make of the American public education system?

My solution to the problem is simple. Pay teachers $100,000 a year minimum. Make being a teacher both lucrative and coveted profession.

Nothing like a little competition to bring out the best of the best.

bigred

17th January 2007, 08:42 PM

Um, you've using too narrow a definition of "socialization."

Socialization is learning about what to do in social situations. A classroom is a social situation, and many of the lessons from school carry over to the larger world, and the corporate environment in particular.

For example, don't interrupt the teacher. In general, don't interrupt any authority figure.

Your deskis yours and your responsibility; keep it neat -- and don't mess with other people's desks. This applies to your desk and your boss's corner office as well.

Stay on-task and at your desk.

Do work that is assigned to you, competently and on-deadline. If necessary, turn in acceptable work on-time rather than brilliant work late.

Wear appropriate clothing.

Don't throw erasers at fellow students. In fact, don't throw anything at anyone.

Et cetera.
BINGO, exactly, somebody gets it, thank you very much and very well said. I'm not reading any more posts, I think it's best to end on this note. :)

Ah yes. But still, I would think that aquiring such skills would be a requirement for passing through classes, so it would be accomodated :confused: :boggled:

How on earth in home schooling would this be a de facto requirement? Even for parents smart enough to address this and not "dote on" (spoil) their kids in this way, it's generally just not do-able effectively w/o the added factor of being around peers in a "work environment."

bigred

17th January 2007, 08:43 PM

edit dupe post

UserGoogol

17th January 2007, 10:34 PM

How on earth in home schooling would this be a de facto requirement? Even for parents smart enough to address this and not "dote on" (spoil) their kids in this way, it's generally just not do-able effectively w/o the added factor of being around peers in a "work environment."

Maybe I skimmed through this thread too much, but I didn't see anyone mention home schooling. Of course they'd have to be in schools (in a work environment) for Zep's idea to work. Children would simply "move from classroom to classroom" at a different pace.

(Of course, how the hell it is possible to teach students moving through the curriculum at different speeds is a profoundly difficult matter.)

bigred

18th January 2007, 08:35 AM

Maybe I skimmed through this thread too much, but I didn't see anyone mention home schooling. I'm too lazy to confirm/deny, but maybe I mixed up my threads. Pardon if so.

Miss Anthrope

18th January 2007, 12:26 PM

:)

:confused: :boggled:

How on earth in home schooling would this be a de facto requirement? Even for parents smart enough to address this and not "dote on" (spoil) their kids in this way, it's generally just not do-able effectively w/o the added factor of being around peers in a "work environment."

Jeesh you guys. Broad strokes are too often painted here of homeschooling.

Roswell-Perseis

18th January 2007, 11:35 PM

I see no reason why this should happen.

Overabundance is not necessarily either a sign or an anti-sign of prestige. There's an overabundance of high school quarterbacks who want to play for the NFL (a very prestigious job), but there are also an overabundance of Wal-Mart clerks, which is why they are paid and treated so badly. The difference is that people want to quarterback, but are forced (by circumstance) to clerk.

That's kind of my point. As you put it, "I really wonder why people do it." I think there are (relatively) few people who really want to teach, and most of those seem to want to teach at the post-secondary level, since conditions are so much better.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. :)

Roswell-Perseis

19th January 2007, 12:06 AM

I have taken quite a few classes online at my Community College. Last semester I took Introductory Astronomy, Introduction to Literature and Introduction to Sociology. I carried twelve academic credits all online I got a 4.0 (4.0 system) in every class. I studied nonstop, did tons of assignments, and took tests and wrote more papers than ever before in my life. I easily spent six to eight hours a day on those classes.

I had to keep on a specific schedule, but I was not listening to a lecture or participating in group work. I read everything and that is how I learned it. I still had rough patches at the age of 23. I just don't think an eight year old could do this because actually learning the material requires self-discipline.

Would it be nice if, say, a truly gifted kid took a college level online class to challenge themselves? absolutely. At my old public school (Charlotte, MI) high schoolers could go to college. This could easily be used to add another avenue for these kids. Also, online courses would decrease parental anxiety over a child's physical presence on a college campus (though I cannot speak to their Internet related concerns).

Also, children who have fallen behind could discretely take courses to supplement/ catch-up, without having to go through the shame of tracking. Students may be allowed to use a "study hour" as a disguise and check in with teachers/ advisors/ a knowledgable tutor.

I know I haven't done a program exactly like Zep's, but I think it might be as close as one can get for that many credits. I think it is awesome and would love to take every class online and force myself to such an extreme level of work for comprehension. However, I don't think the majority of youngsters could handle it. I guess, until I finish my next courses in my sequence, I don't even know how well I really retained it vs. how well I remembered data and learned the professor's teaching style (worth half a grade everytime).

JSMaxwell

21st January 2007, 04:37 PM

What kinds of reforms, if any, would you make of the American public education system?

As a 4th grade math and science teacher in a public school, here are my thoughts on American education...

1.) Pay varies widely from district to district, and there are no doubt teachers being underpaid. However, in my district starting salary for a teacher is $40,000 a year. Not bad for 2 full months off in the summer, a week off at Thanksgiving, a week or more at Christmas, a week at Spring Break, etc. I have worked many jobs in the past (retail, government, sales), and teaching is by far the best pay for hours worked. I am amazed at how unappreciative those people are that have been teaching all their lives. They wouldn't last 6 months in a retail management position pulling 18 hour days 7 days a week.

2.) As far as "fixing the problems," I believe the biggest thing that needs to happen is that responsibility for raising children needs to be shifted back to the parents. Every day I am held responsible for more and more things that should be parental duties. Teaching right from wrong and how to get along with others are lessons that should be taught by parents. Teachers should be teaching math, science, reading, writing, and history. I have a girl that is constantly getting into fights and can't get along with anyone. Every time I talk with her aunt (mom and dad are in jail) the aunt says we (the school) aren't doing enough to teach the student how to resolve conflicts. I am often criticized for my thoughts...told that I am lazy and simply don't want to put forth the effort. It is not that. I just do not think it is possible. I have a total of 43 students over the course of the day. One group of 24, one group of 19. I have each group for only 2 and 1/2 hours. I am supposed to help them master the math and science curriculum, teach them how to get along with others, master all of the other social skills a well adjusted human being needs, and undo all of the other negative things they get from their home lives? Not possible. How often has it worked to replace a small, family unit with a government institution? I recently attended a workshop in which the presenter stated that in 10 years he believes school will last all day. Students will arrive at 6 in the morning, eat all 3 meals, and go home at 8 at night. In effect, replacing the family/home entirely. I think he is right, and I find it horrifying.

3.) Continuing with the personal responsibility thing, we need to stop letting people get away with all of the bullsh!! We are classified as a Title 1 school. 66% of our students qualify for the government free/reduced lunch program. It is amazing to watch the lunch line and see all of the kids waiting for their free lunches while wearing $200.00 sneakers. I kid you not. One student actually told me about his new Playstation 3 while handing me his reduced lunch application.

4.) We need to stop promoting students based on age. I have several students (remember, I teach 4th grade) that failed math every six weeks in 3rd grade, and failed the 3rd grade TAKS test (our state assessment). These students demonstrated NO competence on 3rd grade skills, yet here they sit in my 4th grade class. I routinely sit in meetings with my administrators and am asked what I am going to do to get these students "up to speed." When I ask how I am supposed to teach long division to a student that has trouble with basic addition I am met with a shrug of the shoulders and told things like, "this is the hand you have been dealt...what are you going to do with it?" I think students should be on individual tracks based on subject. It is therefore possible to be on a level/grade 6 in reading if a student has demonstrated that level of mastery, but only a level 3 in math if that is where they are at.

Just my thoughts as they came to me. Do with them what you will.

Alt+F4

21st January 2007, 05:37 PM

tboard

22nd January 2007, 06:01 AM

Speaking as a college instructor --- thanks *****' lots. What's the matter, the job's too difficult for you, so you want to wash your hands of it?

Well, that's good -- except that I'm not in the business of producing "quality workers." And if you really think that's all you need to be a "quality worker," why are you bothering to pay for college tuition in the first place?

I have higher expectations of my incoming students. I have to, because I have to place them in fields where simply showing up on time and respecting authority, while valuable, won't even get you an interview. Many of my students go on to Ph.D.'s at relatively good schools, the others tend to get highly competitive jobs in in-demand fields. But I need a good foundation to achieve that. To be honest, I don't even care much whether you can do arithmetic without a calculator (although my students usually can); I'm more concerned about their ability to read a story problem and extract what the relevant information is. I'm more concerned about their ability to make reasonable assumptions in solving Fermi problems (Quick -- is Mt. Fuji 300m tall, 3000m, or 30000m?) I need them to be able to read a paper and tell me what the author didn't say, or what might have biased the author's conclusion (and therefore needs to be double-checked). I need them to be able to tell me why Wikipedia isn't as good a source for health information as the Lancet.

If you can do that, I'll give you the calculator. I keep three or four in my desk drawer just in case. Because I need my students to be able to do stuff that the computer can't do for them -- which is why I put them in jobs where they are in charge of the computers instead of the computers being in charge of them.

dr kitten- seems as if the first quote is a little personal - "wash your hands"
I didn't insult anybody- why have you?

on the second issue
I did not live in a university job most of my working life- I really do not care about Fremi's problems- I care about "quality workers"
I am more concerned that our students get employed and are moving thru life in a constructive manner- which means a quality job- for we all should know that an unemployable worker is a massive strain on our social order.
Thats the realistic approach to an education in our primary and secondary schools- the public school system- which I thought was the issue here
thank you

timhau

22nd January 2007, 06:05 AM

I met my former home room teacher (or Finnish equivalent thereof) from high school in an outdoor pub on one of the sunnier, warmer days of last summer. She had retired just this spring -- a few years ahead of schedule -- and seemed very happy about her situation.

We chatted for quite a while, and she said that the main difference between the way things were when I was there (about a quarter of a century ago, I'm 40 now) and the way things are now is this:

In the early- to mid-80s, if a student was behaving badly and she called the parents, usually the kid had a serious talking-to at home.

Today, if a student is behaving badly and she calls the parents, more often than not the parents go ballistic on her.

So yes, you need parental involvement, but the *kind* of involvement you get is also important.

wisefool

22nd January 2007, 08:38 AM

I have 13 years on the job and I couldn't agree with you more.

I agree, but only to a point. What about the kids who are unfortunate enough to have parents who really don't care? Most of the kids who created discipline problems in my classroom had one or more of the following: (a) an absent father or mother, (b) an abusive father or mother, (c) a situation in which they were being raised by another relative (older brother) or simply a friend of the family.

In some situations, we need to create a "standardized foster home" for these kids. When I was in the Army, I saw a lot of kids from broken homes who became functional responsible adult soldiers. Why? The Army provided the "home" they never had as a child--regular meals, structure, soap and water, a warm dry barracks, etc. If we could remove these kids from a toxic environment earlier, we might be able to make a significant difference in their future.

wisefool

22nd January 2007, 08:45 AM

drkitten

22nd January 2007, 09:17 AM

I did not live in a university job most of my working life- I really do not care about Fremi's problems- I care about "quality workers"

Fair enough. But why are you pushing your concern about "quality workers" onto the educational system?

That is, not to put too fine a point on it, not the job of education or the school system.

If nothing else, the employment projections bear that out. For example, of the jobs created in the United States in the next ten years, 70% are not expected to require any education beyond the "work-related." If what your job requires is the ability to show up on time -- that's not something that you need "education" to achieve.

It's the other 30% of the jobs that the education system needs to address, the jobs that require not just good manners, but actual knowledge and skills.

Dancing David

22nd January 2007, 09:29 AM

the second issue
I did not live in a university job most of my working life- I really do not care about Fremi's problems- I care about "quality workers"
I am more concerned that our students get employed and are moving thru life in a constructive manner- which means a quality job- for we all should know that an unemployable worker is a massive strain on our social order.
Thats the realistic approach to an education in our primary and secondary schools- the public school system- which I thought was the issue here
thank you

The original intention of public schools was to have an informed citizenry. While creating "quality workers" is an admirable goal and certainly part of being a good citizen, in K-12 there are many outside issues that lead to problems in education.

Dancing David

22nd January 2007, 09:35 AM

In the early- to mid-80s, if a student was behaving badly and she called the parents, usually the kid had a serious talking-to at home.

Today, if a student is behaving badly and she calls the parents, more often than not the parents go ballistic on her.

That is truely pathetic, I work with the 'emotional disturbed" kids at my middle school. And they and the rest of the parents are glad for the phone calls. And those who go ballistic usualy will get in trouble for that behavior, especialy if they make threats.

So yes, you need parental involvement, but the *kind* of involvement you get is also important.

Most assuredly!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd January 2007, 09:37 AM

I wonder what would happen if we stopped running schools under the assumption that the sole purpose of middle and high school is to prepare kids for college?

~~ Paul

tboard

22nd January 2007, 09:37 AM

The original intention of public schools was to have an informed citizenry. While creating "quality workers" is an admirable goal and certainly part of being a good citizen, in K-12 there are many outside issues that lead to problems in education.

sorry, the original intent of the public schools was to keep the kids busy, out of the manufacturing jobs, the streets and bedrooms and at the same time give them some education so they could read and write. Informed citizenry was never a part of the equation.

tboard

22nd January 2007, 09:39 AM

I wonder what would happen if we stopped running schools under the assumption that the sole purpose of middle and high school is to prepare kids for college?

~~ Paul

we would have a better school system, not everybody needs to know algebra to be a productive person

tboard

22nd January 2007, 09:43 AM

Fair enough. But why are you pushing your concern about "quality workers" onto the educational system?

That is, not to put too fine a point on it, not the job of education or the school system.

If nothing else, the employment projections bear that out. For example, of the jobs created in the United States in the next ten years, 70% are not expected to require any education beyond the "work-related." If what your job requires is the ability to show up on time -- that's not something that you need "education" to achieve.

It's the other 30% of the jobs that the education system needs to address, the jobs that require not just good manners, but actual knowledge and skills.

A President of a very successful bank told me after my son graduated from the university in spanish and is doing very well in the banking world

"we do not care what degree they graduated with, we want kids that have shown the determination to get thru 4 years of college with reasonable grades- we will train them from that point for our company"

drkitten

22nd January 2007, 09:53 AM

A President of a very successful bank told me after my son graduated from the university in spanish and is doing very well in the banking world

"we do not care what degree they graduated with, we want kids that have shown the determination to get thru 4 years of college with reasonable grades- we will train them from that point for our company"

Yes, and I'm fairly confident that your President is rather out of touch. Very few presidents make hiring and firing decisions. And while he may not care what degree his new employees get, HR almost certainly does.

This statement -- or similar statements -- have been made since the 1950s (check William Whyte's research for example citations). And they've been uniformly proven to be inaccurate, precisely because the people making them don't actually know what kind of hiring decisions are being made.

bigred

22nd January 2007, 09:56 AM

As far as "fixing the problems," I believe the biggest thing that needs to happen is that responsibility for raising children needs to be shifted back to the parents. Every day I am held responsible for more and more things that should be parental duties. Teaching right from wrong and how to get along with others are lessons that should be taught by parents. Teachers should be teaching math, science, reading, writing, and history.

we need to stop letting people get away with all of the bullsh!!

We need to stop promoting students based on age.

Now that's just crazy talk. I'd keep these thoughts to yourself or you'll be locked away as some kind of nut job.

bigred

22nd January 2007, 10:02 AM

I wonder what would happen if we stopped running schools under the assumption that the sole purpose of middle and high school is to prepare kids for college?

~~ Paul
I think lot of alleged "parents" would then lean on schools even more heavily to do their job as a kind of foster parent - meanwhile our brilliant legal system would continue to ensure that schools don't have the authority to do so.

:boggled: :boxedin:

Sometimes I'm amazed our country/world has even made it this far.

drkitten

22nd January 2007, 10:11 AM

we would have a better school system, not everybody needs to know algebra to be a productive person

Not everyone needs to go to school to be a productive person. In fact, 70% of the jobs out there don't need it.

How about we teach algebra at school and we tell parents that schools are for algebra, not for babysitting, charm, and deportment?

bigred

22nd January 2007, 10:15 AM

Fair enough. But why are you pushing your concern about "quality workers" onto the educational system?

That is, not to put too fine a point on it, not the job of education or the school system.

If nothing else, the employment projections bear that out. For example, of the jobs created in the United States in the next ten years, 70% are not expected to require any education beyond the "work-related." If what your job requires is the ability to show up on time -- that's not something that you need "education" to achieve.

It's the other 30% of the jobs that the education system needs to address, the jobs that require not just good manners, but actual knowledge and skills.
I think you are both over-simplifying this somewhat. Getting specific knowledge (math, science, language skills, humanities etc) is obviously important....but general "how to be a worthwhile human being" stuff is too.....course the latter should be focused on more at younger ages, and as kids get older, more focus should be on the former.

In fact that's how it was when I went thru - is that a thing of the past?

PS while I agree the latter is by far the parents' job, even in the best of circumstances and with the best of parents this will be required at least a little.

bigred

22nd January 2007, 10:23 AM

Not everyone needs to go to school to be a productive person. In fact, 70% of the jobs out there don't need it.Again I think I know what you mean but this is a broad brushstroke - even bus boys and ditch diggers (etc) - which are nowhere near 70% of the jobs out there anyway - need SOME schooling.

drkitten

22nd January 2007, 10:33 AM

I think you are both over-simplifying this somewhat. Getting specific knowledge (math, science, language skills, humanities etc) is obviously important....but general "how to be a worthwhile human being" stuff is too.....course the latter should be focused on more at younger ages, and as kids get older, more focus should be on the former.

In fact that's how it was when I went thru - is that a thing of the past?

Well, it's becoming more and more a thing of the past -- for example, the mandatory testing required by the No Child Left Behind act dictates standards that must be achieved in reading, math, et cetera,.... but not in "being a worthwhile human being."

But you seem to be agreeing with my central point, which is that the role of education is to educate, not simply to socialize. Producing "productive workers" is not the job of schools and never has been.

drkitten

22nd January 2007, 10:35 AM

Again I think I know what you mean but this is a broad brushstroke - even bus boys and ditch diggers (etc) - which are nowhere near 70% of the jobs out there anyway - need SOME schooling.

The official classification that the Labor Department uses for this category of work is "no education required beyond work-related." While they may need "education" in a rather broad sense, the official judgement is that they don't need "schooling" in a narrower sense.

bigred

22nd January 2007, 10:42 AM

Well, it's becoming more and more a thing of the past -- for example, the mandatory testing required by the No Child Left Behind act dictates standards that must be achieved in reading, math, et cetera,.... but not in "being a worthwhile human being."

But you seem to be agreeing with my central point, which is that the role of education is to educate, not simply to socialize. Producing "productive workers" is not the job of schools and never has been.
What I'm saying is you're both right, to an extent. Both are important.

The official classification that the Labor Department uses for this category of work is "no education required beyond work-related." While they may need "education" in a rather broad sense, the official judgement is that they don't need "schooling" in a narrower sense.
got it, thx for clarification...

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd January 2007, 10:57 AM

I wonder what would happen if not every assignment in English and History was about some politically correct topic?

~~ Paul

tboard

22nd January 2007, 12:02 PM

Yes, and I'm fairly confident that your President is rather out of touch. Very few presidents make hiring and firing decisions. And while he may not care what degree his new employees get, HR almost certainly does.

This statement -- or similar statements -- have been made since the 1950s (check William Whyte's research for example citations). And they've been uniformly proven to be inaccurate, precisely because the people making them don't actually know what kind of hiring decisions are being made.

trust me he knows- regardless, I have hired a large number of people in my life and I concur with his logic

How many have you hired?- just curious- also curious about your background- have you worked out of the university setting?

I like to know where your ideas are coming from- the books or experience?

drkitten

22nd January 2007, 12:16 PM

trust me he knows- regardless, I have hired a large number of people in my life and I concur with his logic

I see no reason to believe your anecdote over literally thousands of social-science surveys.

How many have you hired?

Couple of dozen, over the years.

justcurious- also curious about your background- have you worked out of the university setting?

Yes.

I like to know where your ideas are coming from- the books or experience?

Both.

tboard

22nd January 2007, 12:46 PM

here is the short and sweet solution to what I perceive is a poor public school situation

It is not perfect- but what we have now is turning into an "educational bus terminal"

vouchers are the answer- it would allow choice ( by lottery,if necessary),
minimize the white /black school segregation issue- where you live would not be where you go to school, allow for administrative control- you do not like it here, go to a different school here is your remaining voucher back, etc.

oh voucher have problems, some of which I would not even know, but it has got to be better than what I have seen in the public schools- poor management ,incompetent tenured teachers (expert non the less), unruly students, massive politics both in and out of the school and a general mess in school administration by school boards.

alas it will not happen and we will go down the road with those who have going to the better schools and those who don't going to other schools

so long to this tread

bigred

22nd January 2007, 12:48 PM

I wonder what would happen if not every assignment in English and History was about some politically correct topic?

~~ Paul
The world would undoubtedly come to an end.

The more I hear about our schools, the scarier it gets.

Dancing David

22nd January 2007, 12:53 PM

sorry, the original intent of the public schools was to keep the kids busy, out of the manufacturing jobs, the streets and bedrooms and at the same time give them some education so they could read and write. Informed citizenry was never a part of the equation.

Hmm, you seem to use a later date than I do, manufacturing was still more hand craft apprentice at the time, and public education sure didn't keep kids out of the factories or off the streets. I agree to the reading and ciphering. I think it was to get them out of the farmhouse in the winter.

Dancing David

22nd January 2007, 12:57 PM

I wonder what would happen if not every assignment in English and History was about some politically correct topic?

~~ Paul

The committees that appove textbooks would get upset and the school districts would get some crap about the curriculum.

Take the Bluford High School series of books, they are great, they are gritty, they are characters and situatioins most low income students can identify with, the kids love to read them. But due to the content of gun violence, domestic violence and rape I doubt they would get curriculum approval. However if the teachers assigns realistic fiction then the student can choose them in the library.

tboard

24th January 2007, 09:38 AM

Hmm, you seem to use a later date than I do, manufacturing was still more hand craft apprentice at the time, and public education sure didn't keep kids out of the factories or off the streets. I agree to the reading and ciphering. I think it was to get them out of the farmhouse in the winter.

I think you are talking about elementary, not secondary schools.

"From 1900 to 1996 the percentage of teenagers who graduated from high school increased from about 6 percent to about 85 percent."

High schools are our biggest education sinkhole right now. big bucks- little return

attribution for quote is to Deeptha Thattai , "A History of Public Education in the United States " as my less than 15 posts have not made me a credible tie-in to web sites where this was found.

Dancing David

24th January 2007, 10:22 AM

There are many 'sink holes' as you call them, but if you workered in school, and maybe you do, the issues are not usualy the education being provided. You say there is little return, what would make it better. I would say an end to social premotion. But when you have poor districts with many poor and trauma threatened students it makes education harder.
From my experience most schools have smaller administrative staffs than your usual corporation. My school has 700 students, we have one principal, two vice pricipals, one of whom is a dean of students and another deam who also teaches. We then have four office staff. So I think that people who blame the schools maybe are uninformed, there are many reasons that students don't succede at school, and the school is usualy a small one.
Like the transitory nature of population, we get students from out of district all the time, but they will show on our NCLB scores. Even though we are not the ones who did thier past education. Then there is the neighborhood and family where the kids learn, many of our students are the parent at home because thier parents work two jobs, it makes it harder to study when you raise younger children. Then , for anyone who hasn't been in schools a while, the standards are more advanced than they used to be in the past, the level of writing, reading and math is higher than it was twenty years ago. Many parents can't help thier kids with thier homework because they don't understand it. Then there are the chaotic home enviroments where life is disruptive and education may have a high priority but the chaos makes the learning at school harder.

skeptifem

24th January 2007, 09:01 PM

What kinds of reforms, if any, would you make of the American public education system?

probably being one of the freshest ones out of it- critical thinking skills NEED to be taught in school. Even things labelled 'critical thinking' questions are really light. Teach a man to fish, and whatnot.

PE classes need to be centered around finding activities the students like. I have just now started to realize that working out can be enjoyable, because I never got to try activities outside of competitive sports and the presidential fitness challenge. This would seriously help cut down on obesity.

Requiring that teachers studied the subjects they teach. A suprising amount of teachers never took college classes in the subject they teach and it is detrimental to the students. If there are errors in textbooks there is no way for the teacher to know of it without previous study. How many of us were told blood is blue without oxygen??? These types of things should not happen.

American history needs to be taught past ww2. When 9/11 happened I realized how little I knew about this countries history, and how the chapters twards the end of american history books are never used.

Sexual education needs to be complete with information on birth control. Education on drugs and pre marital sex need to be realistic and not sensationalized. I know many of my friends lost faith in everything schools taught about life after realizing that smoking pot wont turn you into a homeless heroin addict.

Classes on how to get a job should be MANDITORY. Ditto for life management. These are the things that are actually useful to learn. When i filled out my first job app I had no idea what I was doing.

I know many people will disagree with me, but I think there should be some womens issues/gender education in middle school. This is the period of time where eating disorders and abuse of girls runs rampant and nothing is said. I think there is a horrible lack of education for boys on what constitutes sexual assault and the myths surrounding it. A class about gender as a whole and not women specifically would be fine with me. I just see that regular violence gets a lot of attention from schools but sexual violence is never spoken of. This could be a part of sexual education too.

No money for sports outside of PE. It eats up way too many resources and it doesnt benefit the majority. If people want their kids to play football they should pay for it, not me or any other tax payers. I see no educational value to after school football.

no more long state tests. for ****s sake, i remember spending months preparing for our states tests, and we didnt learn much of anything besides how to pass that one specific test. It was a lot of wasted time, trying to coach kids into making themselves look as though they progressed without actually teaching them anything.

Smart children are punished in school and not allowed to flourish. Everywhere i have gone no one can move on until the slowest kid catches up. More of a self guided learning style where students decide their own level of involvement (and of course smaller class sizes) is what worked well in my experience.

i cant think of much else right now. i will probably be back later.

athon

25th January 2007, 07:58 AM

I have been in business for 30 years as a consultant, 6 years as a high school teacher and now teaching at a university- trust me, teachers are not underpaid
Having said that, paying a PE teacher the same as a math teacher is absolutely ridiculous, but that is the public school system as we know it
The US public school system is the "bus depot" of the 21st century.

As to determining what classes to take to get an adequate level of learning in high school - forget it. Give them the basics and let the colleges sort out the students
Give a primary and secondary student the basics and good training on how to dress, how to respect authority, how to get to work on time , how to do math without a calculator , and how to write a reasonable paper and you are 90% on the way to a quality worker. The other 10 % will be sorted out by the employer.

Sorry but...holy snapping duck s**t! I'm not surprised that a teacher wrote this, as I've met so many who share these sentiments. But it still saddens me, none-the-less.

Firstly, I agree that teachers get paid better than most people think. However, the training and recognition of adequate skills which contribute to a good educator are not recognized. And the level of skills and expertise required of a good teacher deserve better salaries than that which is given in most post-industrial nations.

Secondly, I'm actually kind of pleased that you decided to give up seconday education, as you clearly lack any understanding of how education works or how it serves the community. Your 'give 'em the basics and send 'em out into the real world' mentality is frighteningly simplistic and rather vulgar, to say the least. The education of multiple 'learning skills' for citizens of tomorrow requires more than a 'teach them to dress themselves and use a calculator' attitude.

Education suffers because there is lack of a clear direction within the greater community in what is to be expected of an adequate system. There is no single cause behind why an education system does not meet with expectations; it's a mix of funding, academic disinterest in outcomes, a lack of consensus on what constitutes foundational skills and knowledge, a need for a government to demonstrate to the public in clear terms that its particular version of education is successful... I could go on.

But thank you for demonstrating that lazy, ignorant teachers also contribute to the overall problem. I wish I knew a solution to that issue.

Athon

athon

25th January 2007, 08:01 AM

The original intention of public schools was to have an informed citizenry. While creating "quality workers" is an admirable goal and certainly part of being a good citizen, in K-12 there are many outside issues that lead to problems in education.

That's it. And it continues to be the goal of educational systems. To produce competent citizens who can interact, contribute to and exist within their future community. While employment plays a valuable role, there is much more to it.

Athon

DiskoVilante

25th January 2007, 12:32 PM

There are rather simple problems with complicated solutions.

1. Teachers on the most part don't care about teaching. Heck, they don't even KNOW what it means to teach.

2. The students don't care about learning. They don't KNOW how to learn either.

3. The society is more focused on materialism than knowledge.

4. THERE IS NO QUALITY CONTROL. And if there is, it doesn't work. It's horrible.

Actually, the purpose of the school system is not really to form an informed citizenry but to actually do two things: 1. To mass produce people who will be subservient to the government/the status quo. 2. (In the case for higher education) Keep people from flooding the job market by having them take 4 more years of schooling.

drkitten

25th January 2007, 12:47 PM

bigred

25th January 2007, 12:54 PM

There are rather simple problems with complicated solutions.

1. Teachers on the most part don't care about teaching. Heck, they don't even KNOW what it means to teach.That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Actually, the purpose of the school system is not really to form an informed citizenry but to actually do two things: 1. To mass produce people who will be subservient to the government/the status quo. 2. (In the case for higher education) Keep people from flooding the job market by having them take 4 more years of schooling.That's the second. Dude! It's a conspiracy! 1984!! :rolleyes:

bigred

25th January 2007, 01:18 PM

Secondly, I'm actually kind of pleased that you decided to give up seconday education, as you clearly lack any understanding of how education works or how it serves the community.
Clearly you are wrong. Please tell me you've left the profession also.

Your 'give 'em the basics and send 'em out into the real world' mentality is frighteningly simplisticWell duh, of course; it's an oversimplification, and I think the OP knew that. I think he/she was making a point - which apparently flew right by you.

and rather vulgar, to say the least. :rolleyes: OK I'll go with "the least" part.

The education of multiple 'learning skills' for citizens of tomorrow requires more than a 'teach them to dress themselves and use a calculator' attitude.Of course. But I think the point was ensure the basics (some very important ones) are addressed before you try to teach little Johnny the finer points of WW I, integral calc, Shakespeare, or string theory. This doesn't seem to be getting done as much or well as it should.

Education suffers because there is lack of a clear direction within the greater community in what is to be expected of an adequate system. There is no single cause behind why an education system does not meet with expectations; it's a mix of funding, academic disinterest in outcomes, a lack of consensus on what constitutes foundational skills and knowledge, a need for a government to demonstrate to the public in clear terms that its particular version of education is successful... I could go on.All valid points, although I think you left out the biggest, ie the stripping of teacher authority and lack of parents/a system that backs them, to say nothing of the growing lack of discipline and poor attitudes in general.

But thank you for demonstrating that lazy, ignorant teachers also contribute to the overall problem. oh yeah?? Well I know you are but what is he - nyahh nyahhh etc

Thanks for demonstrating that arrogant, narrow-minded ones aren't much help either.

ERGONER

25th January 2007, 02:18 PM

The original intention of public schools was to have an informed citizenry...

No, the original intent of public ('government') schools was to "Americanize & Protestantize" the disparate groups (..especially immigrants & Catholics) who made up the United States population in the mid-19th & early-20th Centuries..... to create 'Good Citizens', who trusted and obeyed their noble government rulers.

American government {"public"} schools were not originally established to cure any deficiency in the prevailing system of private education for children.

In American colonial times thru the early 19th Century -- 'private' education was the rule. Schooling in that early period was plentiful, innovative, and well within the reach of the common people. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at how well educated the common American people were.

"Common" {compulsory, public-- but religion-based} schools were the exception, located mostly in the New England region. Massachusetts later spearheaded the compulsory-education movement, establishing the first modern government schooling system in 1852. Most citizens resisted, but the Massachusetts militia was eventually used to persuade all parents to give up their children to government control.

By 1900, nearly every state had government schools and compulsory attendance. At first, only elementary education was mandated by the state ... then high school. (...and nowadays, the many public school enthusiasts want government Day-Care for toddlers, plus year-round schooling). The trend is obvious, but America did not start out and prosper that way.

Throughout history rulers aspired to use the educational system to shape their nations. Unsurprisingly, mid-19th Century American rulers and intellectuals jumped at the chance to make schools a mill for the creation of 'Good Citizens'.
Their critical tool for that purpose was years of 'compulsory attendance' in the government's indoctrination program.

Architects of government public schooling believed they knew better than parents how to raise children. They presumed the free growth of civil society was inferior to the social-engineering blueprints they composed & imposed upon their fellow citizens.

_________

drkitten

25th January 2007, 02:38 PM

No, the original intent of public ('government') schools was to "Americanize & Protestantize" the disparate groups (..especially immigrants & Catholics) who made up the United States population in the mid-19th & early-20th Centuries..... to create 'Good Citizens', who trusted and obeyed their noble government rulers.

[...]

"Common" {compulsory, public-- but religion-based} schools were the exception, located mostly in the New England region. Massachusetts later spearheaded the compulsory-education movement, establishing the first modern government schooling system in 1852. Most citizens resisted, but the Massachusetts militia was eventually used to persuade all parents to give up their children to government control.

This is disingenuous to the point of being an outright lie.

What changed in 1852 was that education was no longer optional, but mandatory. Public schools have a history extending well back into the early Colonial period, and the very first settlements outside of the original thirteen colonies made it obvious that public education was a high priority for the Federal Government. For example, when the Northwest territories were surveyed (starting in 1787), section 16 of every township was, by Federal law, given to the relevant State/Territory specifically for the purposes of establishing public schools. In 1848, that was increased to sections 16 and 36, and the Utah territory extended this to four sections of the thirty-six in each township.

If you really think that public education started in 1852, then what was "section 16" of every township in Ohio funding for more than sixty years prior to that?

Your historical analysis is almost entirely incorrect and without merit.

Basically, :notm:

ERGONER

25th January 2007, 03:19 PM

This is disingenuous to the point of being an outright lie... Your historical analysis is almost entirely incorrect and without merit.

I correctly noted that the "first modern government schooling system" originated in 1852 Massachusetts.

I also correctly noted that various 'compulsory' public/common schools existed before that time, primarily in New England.

You offered no facts disproving the above.

My historical analysis is quite correct, despite your emotional reaction.

Private elementary education was the American norm from Colonial times to the early 19th Century... and was effective.

__________________

{ ...and if , as you assert, ".. public education was a high priority for the Federal Government", in the late 18th Century -- why are the words 'education' & 'school' not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, written at that time ?? }

__________________

drkitten

25th January 2007, 03:33 PM

I correctly noted that the "first modern government schooling system" originated in 1852 Massachusetts.

Which is wrong. Modern government schooling systems existed in 1787.

{ ...and if , as you assert, ".. public education was a high priority for the Federal Government", in the late 18th Century -- why are the words 'education' & 'school' not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, written at that time ?? }

For approximately the same reason that police and local zoning authorities are not.

The US Constitution is a document that defines the powers of the Federal Government and its relationships to the State. The States, at that time, had their own individual systems of public education, and the framers of the Constitution did not see fit to disturb them.

However, as soon as lands came under Federal Control (basically, with the annexation of the Northwest Territory and the establishment of Federal rule via the Northwest Ordinance), the Fed was obliged to provide for the day to day adminstration of the territory that would ordinarily be left to the State.

And one of the first directives passed was essentially a "local" zoning ordinance demanding that section 16 be reserved for public education in each township.

BayAreaGuy

25th January 2007, 05:24 PM

I've always been of the mind that a country's education system is a reflection of its inherent intellectual curiosity and overall attitude toward the value of education.

It's nice to ask that teachers and professors take an active role, but the responsibility is ultimately in the hands of parents and students themselves. The U.S. (like many countries who are less often in the limelight) has a general sense of anti-intellectualism that sometimes prevents progress. For the most part, though, we still have a wonderful educational system. If we didn't, people wouldn't come here from all over the world

One of my favorite books is "The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on America's Public Schools" by Berliner and Biddle. They do a great job of sorting through the statistics and interpreting them without all the politically charged hype.

I also read an article a while back (I'll look for it and post it later) whose author stated that EVERY country in the world declares itself to have an "educational crisis" each year. In India, for instance, too many degrees in Computer Science and Engineering are awarded each year, and not enough in Philosophy or Social Science. In fact, the U.S. will award more degrees to those majoring in Sanscrit than will India...and their entire culture is based on Sanscrit! Similarly, Japan is worried about a dirth of doctors and an overabundance of business majors. Etc., etc., etc.

SirPhilip

25th January 2007, 06:02 PM

What kinds of reforms, if any, would you make of the American public education system? Schools simply do not teach skills such as psychology, sociology, and especially critical thinking, as primary life skills at an early age. They teach canned, generalized academics to completely uninterested students who find no practical relevance in them. The peril of this is that what does is consumer entertainment media. So what do you expect to happen. Nobody cares about the irrelevant education public schools provide, or their "benefits". We all thought public schools were a joke in the 90's, and it's even worse today. It's simply a place to congregate and socialize. Universities aren't much more highly regarded; for most young people, they are simply places to get secure, relatively high-paying jobs. Let's do a little associative thinking though: a public school is a public institution. It's purpose is to acclimate young people to society and basic life skills required, and by extension, benefit society as a whole. How is this accomplished by simply teaching academics, when academic subjects, with the exception of language, math and writing/typing skills, are not relevant at all. Yet the folly of not understanding basic human psychology and critical thinking skills have vast consequences.

Dancing David

26th January 2007, 05:45 AM

But thank you for demonstrating that lazy, ignorant teachers also contribute to the overall problem. I wish I knew a solution to that issue.

Athon

Thanks Athon, in most failing schools the main issues are not the school, there are bad teachers but the reasons students don't get the skills they need are usualy outside the school. I think adequate safe shelter would go a long way to helping students, and the ability to seek shelter when you have abusive parents.

Dancing David

26th January 2007, 05:47 AM

Dancing David

26th January 2007, 06:03 AM

Schools simply do not teach skills such as psychology, sociology, and especially critical thinking, as primary life skills at an early age.

Evidence, data?
have you been to a school recently? But then you live in Florida, maybe that is part of your perception, a state issue?

They teach canned, generalized academics to completely uninterested students who find no practical relevance in them.

So when was the last time you were in scholl, most of the kids do find the material interesting, maybe you need to get involved in your schoopls are you a mentor?

The peril of this is that what does is consumer entertainment media.

the evils of video games, my son like them and gets As as did my daughter.

So what do you expect to happen. Nobody cares about the irrelevant education public schools provide, or their "benefits".

More delusional politics, what data , what evidence, just watching Fox News?

We all thought public schools were a joke in the 90's, and it's even worse today.

Uh, huh, noy where I work, where do you work in svhool and what have you done about it. Going to teach them to mediatate and pretend to get in touch with thier emotions. There are a lot of social skills aquaired in schools. And some relevant life skills, but hey matbe you need to clean the lens on the telescope in the Ivory Tower.

It's simply a place to congregate and socialize.

Uh, huh, Data, evidence, I work with the trouble kids in the troubled class with about thirty% LD and other special ed. kids. Guess what they are the exception most classes are quiet and well mannered. In a school of seven hundred about 25 are the main discipline problems.

Universities aren't much more highly regarded; for most young people, they are simply places to get secure, relatively high-paying jobs.

Uh, climb down from the Ivory Tower dude, what secure job are you talking about, most professionals are as at risk of loosing employment as any one else.

Let's do a little associative thinking though: a public school is a public institution. It's purpose is to acclimate young people to society and basic life skills required, and by extension, benefit society as a whole.

Lets be a little more concrete, when was the last time you went to a school and worked there?

How is this accomplished by simply teaching academics, when academic subjects, with the exception of language, math and writing/typing skills, are not relevant at all.

Lets see, when was the last time you went to a scholl?
In grade school children are modeled in attention and the begginings of social behavior, I suppose the relevance of a general knowledge base doesn't matter. Then in middle school they learn to manage thier time and academic skills, lots of sccountability and social skills, and consequences.

Yet the folly of not understanding basic human psychology and critical thinking skills have vast consequences.

And so you havren't beed to a school either, maybe it is because you live in Jeb's State, but critical thinking is taught and i suppose your understanding of psychology is based upon behaviorism. Sounds like you want 'moral education', and who determines that.

I will give you a clue, critical thinking is taught, but the culture at home is more important.

Jeff Corey

26th January 2007, 06:41 AM

... i suppose your understanding of psychology is based upon behaviorism. Sounds like you want 'moral education', and who determines that...
Where did that come from?
Not that I agree with Sir P, but those two statements form a non sequitur.

Dancing David

26th January 2007, 10:05 AM

Where did that come from?
Not that I agree with Sir P, but those two statements form a non sequitur.

It was sarcasm, I was in a flaming mode this morning.

Jeff Corey

26th January 2007, 09:14 PM

Sorry, I have eversomuch difficulty discerning the difference between sarcasm and uninformed opinions. I shall make every attempt to hone my feeble powers of discrimination to do so.

BayAreaGuy

27th January 2007, 12:03 AM

I'm very curious to know the background and expertise of the people posting on this topic. It seems that everyone has strong opinions on it, but I see only a very few actually professing having worked in education or done any serious research. If you rely upon urban myth and personal anecdotes (or, heaven forbid, the media!) to form your opinions, you're going to end up believing things that just aren't true.

SirPhilip

27th January 2007, 05:59 AM

I'm very curious to know the background and expertise of the people posting on this topic. I unfortunately, attended public school in Broward county, one of the largest and worst school districts in the country, and saw how utterly unconsequential a role teachers and parents actually play in what motivates youth culture.

It seems that everyone has strong opinions on it, but I see only a very few actually professing having worked in education or done any serious research. It varies with state. But the same social stratification mechanics apply.

If you rely upon urban myth and personal anecdotes (or, heaven forbid, the media!) to form your opinions, you're going to end up believing things that just aren't true. The issue in a nutshell is, public education, due to political correctness, is constrained against subjects like religious beliefs, human psychology, and critical thinking skills. There are no laws or political concerns against using any manner of psychological conditioning or coersion to sell 'products' to kids. In the United States, these tidal forces influence values and behavior. In a opportunist culture that is largely motivated by consumption, overstimulation, and distraction, what would you expect the collective intellectual interest to be?

SirPhilip

27th January 2007, 06:07 AM

It was sarcasm, I was in a flaming mode this morning. I couldn't tell from the look of it. Thanks for clarifying.

Dancing David

27th January 2007, 06:12 AM

Sorry, I have eversomuch difficulty discerning the difference between sarcasm and uninformed opinions. I shall make every attempt to hone my feeble powers of discrimination to do so.

Yeah well, it isn't wise for me to engage in it either, I usualy regret it. And it contributes to more unhealthy behaviors. One of those areas to avoid rough speech.
Most likely I apologise to anyone who calls me on it.

SirPhilip

27th January 2007, 06:13 AM

Where did that come from?
Not that I agree with Sir P, but those two statements form a non sequitur. By all means, elaborate. I enjoy well thought-out rebuttals. Especially those that force a concession on my part and get me thinking. My harsh cynicism of what stands as 'public education' is something I'd love to see change. But alas...

Dancing David

27th January 2007, 06:23 AM

I couldn't tell from the look of it. Thanks for clarifying.

I apologise, my behavior was rude.

I see critical thinking taught every day, and I am not sure about psychology unless you mean CBT. It is a common model for intervention in most schools here in Illinois. The second focus in education does seem to be on the socialization of children and young adults. At least localy, I am sure that there are places in Illinois where the Mr Garrison style of teaching evolution occurs.

But I would not blame the schools system for the local politics that effect it. The main issue that i see with american education is that it is grossly underfunded, if we want better educated citizens we are going to spend more money, or give more supports. People usualy don't hack on the school breakfast and lunch program, but poverty is the greatest obstacle to students learning in school, followed by home enviroments that are not supportive(intentinaly or not) of the education process, then there are the myriad of social ,cultural and family issues that lead to student not learning.

I may be very wrong but the education system seems to do well given the resources it has, changing the other issues will cost money.

Political correctedness is a bugaboo. It is hard to get the kid's to not refer to everything they think as stupid as either 'gay' or 'retarded'. we can ecourage the litter ones and the bigger ones to be tolerant and ready to learn, but thier family and friends will always be more influential.

ERGONER

27th January 2007, 07:23 AM

What kinds of reforms, if any, would you make of the American public education system?

Get the government out of the educational process. The government has attempted to indoctrinate and mould the nation's youth through the public school system, and to mould the future leaders through State operation and control of higher education. Abolition of compulsory attendance laws would end the schools' role as prison custodians of the nation's youth, and would free all those better off outside the schools for independence and for productive work. The abolition of the public schools would end the crippling property tax burden and provide a vast range of education to satisfy all the freely exercised needs and demands of our diverse and varied population.

(--Murray N. Rothbard)________

A general state education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation. In proportion as it is efficient, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.

(-- John Stuart Mill)_________

The public schools have a sort of sacred character in America. In the mainstream of acceptable political opinion, even those who sharply criticize the failings of the existing system do not criticize the idea of the public school system, only failings of implementation. The schools themselves are sacrosanct, temples of the civic religion.

(-- John Markley)________________________

SirPhilip

27th January 2007, 08:00 AM

Double post.

SirPhilip

27th January 2007, 08:07 AM

Yeah well, it isn't wise for me to engage in it either, I usualy regret it. You certainly could have this time around. Look what happened (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/44616925_114a12788a.jpg?v=0) to Gumboot and his cohorts when they tried to undermine brother Philip with a confluence of rationality with rationalizations.

And it contributes to more unhealthy behaviors. One of those areas to avoid rough speech. Most likely I apologise to anyone who calls me on it. The key is using soft speech to convey rough things, like Chamberlain, Britney Spears, or Bush (and by Bush, I mean not Cheney) attempt.

SirPhilip

27th January 2007, 08:14 AM

Evidence, data?
have you been to a school recently? But then you live in Florida, maybe that is part of your perception, a state issue? You could say that.

So when was the last time you were in scholl, most of the kids do find me barely interestingthe material interesting, maybe you need to get involved in your schoopls are you a mentor? No. They wouldn't let anyone who's read any of Robert Anton Wilson's books near kids anyway.

More delusional politics, what data , what evidence, just watching Fox News? I only watch the O'Reiley Factor, which is so fair and balanced, it's displayed in large CG print before he begins trying in futility to turn Nancy Grace on talking.

Uh, huh, noy where I work, where do you work in svhool and what have you done about it. Going to teach them to mediatate and pretend to get in touch with thier emotions. Hell no, there would be bodies everywhere within hours (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Emos). Then Nancy Grace would have her way with me.

There are a lot of social skills aquaired in schools. And some relevant life skills, but hey matbe you need to clean the lens on the telescope in the Ivory Tower. Ivory Tower. What Ivory Tower. I haven't sat in an Ivory Tower since I was an atheist with hedonistic abandonist tendencies; then I was like a cat, complacent, inherdable and indifferent. But then I got into Robert Jordan, then Robert Anton Wilson, then Cintra Wilson.

Uh, huh, Data, evidence, There's no way in hell I'm going to one of those zoos to collect evidence. Not until I'm mocked properly first, anyway.

I work with the trouble kids sometimes over the head with a 2x4, and if that doesn't work, subject them to my wit in the troubled class with about thirty% LD and other special ed. kids. Guess what they are the exception most classes are bored and disenfranchised quiet and well mannered. In a school of seven hundred about 25 are properly on contraceptives the main discipline problems. Come down to Broward county. Average middle school population exceeds 4500, average class size 52, average attention span, 3 minutes. Bring your own tazer, and word to the wise, meditate before you arrive.

Lets see, when was the last time you went to a scholl? In grade school children are taught about how drugs work, modeled in attention deficit management and the begginings of socially unacceptable, but rewarding behavior social behavior. They've got them trained like rats.

I suppose the relevance of a general knowledge base doesn't matter. Then in middle school they learn what they were taught about drugs was propaganda, which instills distrust in authority ironically the same time they are taught how their reproductive organs work to manage thier time and academic skills, lots of cutting, concerts, and confusion sccountability and social skills, and learning that blowing your load is a lot more difficult to control during uncoordinated sex while stoned, despite your bragging and can have unpleasant financial consequences And so you havren't beed to a school either, maybe it is because you live in Jeb's State, but critical thinking is taught and i suppose your understanding of psychology is based upon behaviorism. Sounds like you want 'moral education', and who determines that. It's taught in your class, although not irony, one hopes.

I will give you a clue, ..the bare necessities of school life will come to you.

...critical thinking is taught, but the culture at home is more important. So just try and relax, yeah cool it. Try not to fall apart in my backyard. 'Cause let me tell you something about the little b-tches. If you act like that bee acts. Uh, uh, you're working too hard..

SirPhilip

27th January 2007, 09:07 AM

I apologise, my behavior was rude. Again, I couldn't tell.

I see critical thinking taught every day, and I am not sure about psychology unless you mean CBT. A lot of people see things that aren't there.

It is a common model for intervention in most schools here in Illinois. The second focus in education does seem to be on the socialization of children and young adults. Which is completely laughed off, after class. Social trends, values, and motivations of youth are driven by cultural forces, which in turn are driven by entertainers, and at the lowest level, people using psychology to market it to them, regardless of whether it is degenerate. It's freely legal to influence kids and older youth, as long as you pull, not push.

At least localy, I am sure that there are places in Illinois where the Mr Garrison style (http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/n/T/garrison_Death_Camp_400.jpg) of teaching evolution occurs. I'll take your word on it.

But I would not blame the schools system for the local politics that effect it. The main issue that i see with american education is that it is grossly underfunded, if we want better educated citizens we are going to spend more money, or give more supports. I wouldn't blame teachers, schools, funding, or parents. I would blame political correctness and relativism.

People usualy don't hack on the school breakfast and lunch program, Hacking on the school lunch was a lot of fun. But hacking really isn't an apt term; it was the peasants who ate them who often hacked at it. Which was especially amusing while having Lunchables and expensive tea drinks and glancing from your Ivory Tower at them.

I may be very wrong but the education system seems to do well given the resources it has, changing the other issues will cost money. Good grades and self-effort are dependent upon student motivation. What the student wants. The word "want", I emphasize strongly here, as "want" is precisely where public education ends and consumer culture and conditioning begins. Students don't value education per-se, as having intrinistic value. It has intrinisc value in the context of the possibility of income. This, of course, does not apply to everyone. Most students, if they aren't fixated on decadence, try to strike a balance between income potential and actual interest. A far smaller minority go on to study and take on truly constructive and interesting careers.

Political correctedness is a bugaboo. It is hard to get the kid's to not refer to everything they think as stupid as either 'gay' or 'retarded'. No, it is hard for you to get kids to not refer to everything as gay and retarded. This is because you don't meditate, and have not attained the white beard, a state where rationality and b-llshit occupy the same context, and both can take on interesting, sensible argument. An essential skill for a public school teacher, especially if tasked with teaching sex education, the political process, or D.A.R.E.

..we can ecourage the litter ones and the bigger ones to be tolerant and ready to learn, but thier family and friends will always be more influential. Most youth's social lives and habits, from the 1980's, 1990's, and especially today, have nothing to do with their parents. It never fails to surprise me how many baby boomers fail to grasp this.

SirPhilip

27th January 2007, 10:17 AM

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. That's the second. Dude! It's a conspiracy! 1984!! :rolleyes: It's rather worse, statistically speaking.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2007, 05:30 PM

Say, what makes us think that the education system is worse today than, say, 50 years ago?

~~ Paul

ERGONER

28th January 2007, 06:55 AM

Say, what makes us think that the education system is worse today than, say, 50 years ago?

~~ Paul

....well, The federal National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows no improvement in reading for students in grades 4 and 8 since 1992, and a downturn for students in grade 12.

Improvements in reading have been flat since the early 1971, when the NAEP first started measuring the wonderful success of the government school system.

Now 40% of America's 4th-graders can't even read at a basic 4th -grade level -- with no improvement in sight.

At least the American public elementary schools of the 1940s & 1950s taught all the kids how to read (including minorities in segregated schools).

The system is much worse ... and much more expensive & intrusive.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th January 2007, 06:28 PM

Huh? If there has been no improvement in reading since 1971, how are things worse? Does "no improvement" mean something other than "stayed the same"?

That said, I agree that the Whole Language reading curriculum is a crock.

~~ Paul

tboard

29th January 2007, 06:35 AM

[quote=athon;2284964]Sorry but...holy snapping duck s**t! I'm not surprised that a teacher wrote this, as I've met so many who share these sentiments. But it still saddens me, none-the-less.

Firstly, I agree that teachers get paid better than most people think. However, the training and recognition of adequate skills which contribute to a good educator are not recognized. And the level of skills and expertise required of a good teacher deserve better salaries than that which is given in most post-industrial nations.

nonsence- every profession feels that they are "not recognized"- that is nothing but whining- and it saddens me also. teachers are paid very well by most standards- unless of course they want to work 11 and a half months a year- be on the road away from their family a couple nights a week,be at risk for a layoff etc. etc.Because, you see, my friend, what you gat paid is for more than what you know- it is for the sacrifices you make to get the job done.

Secondly, I'm actually kind of pleased that you decided to give up seconday education, as you clearly lack any understanding of how education works or how it serves the community. Your 'give 'em the basics and send 'em out into the real world' mentality is frighteningly simplistic and rather vulgar, to say the least. The education of multiple 'learning skills' for citizens of tomorrow requires more than a 'teach them to dress themselves and use a calculator' attitude.

Try teaching in an inner city like I did and you tell me. I really do not care if you are pleased or not. Maybe you should see and be subjected to some of the classes I had and then you can talk. I would love to compare my teaching experiences with yours and see where you come from- Fourteen year olds pregnant ( 4 in my classes two years ago- one for the second time) and you tell me how much more simply you can be.

Education suffers because there is lack of a clear direction within the greater community in what is to be expected of an adequate system. There is no single cause behind why an education system does not meet with expectations; it's a mix of funding, academic disinterest in outcomes, a lack of consensus on what constitutes foundational skills and knowledge, a need for a government to demonstrate to the public in clear terms that its particular version of education is successful... I could go on.

But thank you for demonstrating that lazy, ignorant teachers also contribute to the overall problem. I wish I knew a solution to that issue.

speaking for yourself? are you?

tboard

wisefool

29th January 2007, 07:53 AM

sorry, the original intent of the public schools was to keep the kids busy, out of the manufacturing jobs, the streets and bedrooms and at the same time give them some education so they could read and write. Informed citizenry was never a part of the equation.
This is true. There was a large union-related influence to have students in schools starting around the turn of the century. This created an artificial shortage of workers, thus raising the wages for working adults. Also, there is a tremendous emphasis on work-related education at the secondary level. This started with the Smith-Hughes Act of 1918, which created Home Economics and other trades courses, moving through the Dean Acts of the 1930s, which started Secretarial Skills Ed and Marketing Ed.

wisefool

29th January 2007, 08:01 AM

Yes, and I'm fairly confident that your President is rather out of touch. Very few presidents make hiring and firing decisions. And while he may not care what degree his new employees get, HR almost certainly does.

This statement -- or similar statements -- have been made since the 1950s (check William Whyte's research for example citations). And they've been uniformly proven to be inaccurate, precisely because the people making them don't actually know what kind of hiring decisions are being made.

A certain degree of skill is necessary in some trades, including banking. If the skill is not there, it becomes easier to lay a person off. A person with a Spanish degree may be a good bank employee. But, he is easier to let go during economic downturns. A trade (such as Bachelor's of Science in Nursing) provides some degree of protection from this. The nurse has a specific skill set that can't be performed by someone with a Spanish degree or a History degree.

wisefool

29th January 2007, 08:15 AM

No, the original intent of public ('government') schools was to "Americanize & Protestantize" the disparate groups (..especially immigrants & Catholics) who made up the United States population in the mid-19th & early-20th Centuries..... to create 'Good Citizens', who trusted and obeyed their noble government rulers.

American government {"public"} schools were not originally established to cure any deficiency in the prevailing system of private education for children.

In American colonial times thru the early 19th Century -- 'private' education was the rule. Schooling in that early period was plentiful, innovative, and well within the reach of the common people. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at how well educated the common American people were.

"Common" {compulsory, public-- but religion-based} schools were the exception, located mostly in the New England region. Massachusetts later spearheaded the compulsory-education movement, establishing the first modern government schooling system in 1852. Most citizens resisted, but the Massachusetts militia was eventually used to persuade all parents to give up their children to government control.

By 1900, nearly every state had government schools and compulsory attendance. At first, only elementary education was mandated by the state ... then high school. (...and nowadays, the many public school enthusiasts want government Day-Care for toddlers, plus year-round schooling). The trend is obvious, but America did not start out and prosper that way.

Throughout history rulers aspired to use the educational system to shape their nations. Unsurprisingly, mid-19th Century American rulers and intellectuals jumped at the chance to make schools a mill for the creation of 'Good Citizens'.
Their critical tool for that purpose was years of 'compulsory attendance' in the government's indoctrination program.

Architects of government public schooling believed they knew better than parents how to raise children. They presumed the free growth of civil society was inferior to the social-engineering blueprints they composed & imposed upon their fellow citizens.

_________

He does have a point concerning "Protestantization" of schools. I believe that the first laws requiring public education in the colonies were called the "Deluder Satan" laws. Regardless, around 1918, we do see that schools' purpose changed somewhat, to include vocational education.

wisefool

29th January 2007, 08:23 AM

Which is wrong. Modern government schooling systems existed in 1787.

For approximately the same reason that police and local zoning authorities are not.

The US Constitution is a document that defines the powers of the Federal Government and its relationships to the State. The States, at that time, had their own individual systems of public education, and the framers of the Constitution did not see fit to disturb them.

However, as soon as lands came under Federal Control (basically, with the annexation of the Northwest Territory and the establishment of Federal rule via the Northwest Ordinance), the Fed was obliged to provide for the day to day adminstration of the territory that would ordinarily be left to the State.

And one of the first directives passed was essentially a "local" zoning ordinance demanding that section 16 be reserved for public education in each township.

True, but compulsory education for all, under religious purposes, goes back even further. Massachusetts, I believe, required education for all around 1647, under the Deluder Satan laws. It wasn't public education as we now know it. And, its main purpose was to create a citizenry that could read well enough to interpret the bible. I doubt that they even placed much emphasis on mathematical skill, but I could be wrong.

Dancing David

29th January 2007, 12:28 PM

You could say that.

No. They wouldn't let anyone who's read any of Robert Anton Wilson's books near kids anyway.

I only watch the O'Reiley Factor, which is so fair and balanced, it's displayed in large CG print before he begins trying in futility to turn Nancy Grace on talking.

Hell no, there would be bodies everywhere within hours (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Emos). Then Nancy Grace would have her way with me.

Ivory Tower. What Ivory Tower. I haven't sat in an Ivory Tower since I was an atheist with hedonistic abandonist tendencies; then I was like a cat, complacent, inherdable and indifferent. But then I got into Robert Jordan, then Robert Anton Wilson, then Cintra Wilson.

There's no way in hell I'm going to one of those zoos to collect evidence. Not until I'm mocked properly first, anyway.

Come down to Broward county. Average middle school population exceeds 4500, average class size 52, average attention span, 3 minutes. Bring your own tazer, and word to the wise, meditate before you arrive.

They've got them trained like rats.

It's taught in your class, although not irony, one hopes.

..the bare necessities of school life will come to you.

So just try and relax, yeah cool it. Try not to fall apart in my backyard. 'Cause let me tell you something about the little b-tches. If you act like that bee acts. Uh, uh, you're working too hard..

Very funny response, I agree with most of things that kids learn in school that aren't taught by the teachers.

Sounds like the system there is all jebbed up!

All hail Eris!
All hail Discordia!

Dancing David

29th January 2007, 12:32 PM

....well, The federal National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows no improvement in reading for students in grades 4 and 8 since 1992, and a downturn for students in grade 12.

Improvements in reading have been flat since the early 1971, when the NAEP first started measuring the wonderful success of the government school system.

Now 40% of America's 4th-graders can't even read at a basic 4th -grade level -- with no improvement in sight.

At least the American public elementary schools of the 1940s & 1950s taught all the kids how to read (including minorities in segregated schools).

Evidence, data?

Any proof?

How many started, how many never graduated? How many dropped out and at what grade levels?

The system is much worse ... and much more expensive & intrusive.

Please back your assertions with data of some sort. Yeah schools were great in the 1940's except for all the kids that weren't there and never learned to read or write.

Adjusted economic data where? How do you get that? Is the per capita higher when adjusted for inflation or when taken as percentage of GDP? Data please?

Roboramma

29th January 2007, 06:39 PM

Because so far no one is offering any actual data I thought I'd try to look something up. Forgive me for not being so interested in this as to do anything more than a quick web search.

Anyway, regarding literacy rates, this site (http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/growthstages/) gives some figures: (Note, I know nothing about this website, it's just the first thing my search turned up)
US 1970 99% US 1960 98% United States 97% US 1950 97% US 1930 95% US 1920 94%US 191092% US 190089%
Those are male rates. Note that "United States" means current rates.

One thing that makes me uncertain about this data is that the site's listing for female literacy rates shows the exact same numbers for all those US categories. It just seems strange that even in 1900 both the male and female literacy rate would be 89%, and that both would climb at exactly the same rate. But I don't know enough about the history of education to say that it's impossible.

Anyway, if the figures are right, it shows a steady increase in literacy rates until 1970, then a small decline since. For all those armchair sociologists out there, please note that neither the rise nor the decline is necessarily due to education, or changes in education policies, though it wouldn't be surprising if they were related. But just because it seems reasonable that something might be the cause doesn't mean you've shown that it actually is.
Another point is that I don't know the error bars on the data here - it's possible that it's just not accurate to within the 2 percentage points that it seems to have dropped since the '70s. That seems like a quite high degree of error, but until someone can tell me more about the accuracy of these kinds of data collection, I just don't know enough.

I wanted to try to find something else, but I can't bring myself to read some of the webpages that are turing up. I found this (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/p23-08.pdf), which seems to show the same figures up to the 60's (I only did a very quick look at it), but I notice that it's one of the sources listed on the first site, so that's no so surprising.

Anyway, maybe someone else can find something. At least we've got some data to talk about now.

Tmy

2nd February 2007, 06:30 PM

What kinds of reforms, if any, would you make of the American public education system?

Im tired of everyone bashing our schools. Are system works pretty damn good. While every system can be improved, that doesnt mean the current system is "wrong".

Wavicle

2nd February 2007, 09:39 PM

Are system works pretty damn good.

You think our system works pretty damned well? I would say you are satisfied with mediocrity. I think the current system is broken and completely inadequate for producing the volume of intellectual capital that is needed to carry our economy for the next generation.

Tmy

3rd February 2007, 11:54 AM

I think the current system is broken and completely inadequate for producing the volume of intellectual capital that is needed to carry our economy for the next generation.

This has been the mantra for generations. The sky is falling!! What exactly is the basis for your theory? Is the US is still a world leader DEPSITE out education system? How does that happen?

Ill tell you what the biggest issue is with our education $ystem. No one benefits from having the perfect school. Adminstrators + teacher unions will invent something to bitch about so they can demand more funding. You can hand your local school a billion dollars, and the next year they'd ask for a billion and one.

Tmy

3rd February 2007, 11:56 AM

You think our system works pretty damned well.

Please excuse the grammer. I was educated at a private school. :p

kev

3rd February 2007, 06:02 PM

Stumbled on to this (and a few other sites) today. Quite interesting. I have been in the process of updating my curriculum in the hopes of including a greater emphasis on critical thinking skills - Thinking in a scientific manner. I teach HS Biology, Anatomy and an occassional English class - and have primarily relied on the texts I was supplied with when I started. I have been less than satisfied with the concept of "Let me tell you what I want you to say back to me" teaching. As luck would have it, we are doing a complete overhaul of our curriculum, and I have free reign to design as I please. As such, I am quite happy to find this site as well as a few others, that seem to exemplify some of the components I hope to impart in my classes.
As I was looking at various threads, this one obviously caught my eye - as I teach in a public school. Many of the things mentioned have a great deal of merit. However, in my experience (which is small town Iowa), I don't think "teachers not caring" is the problem. The current problem with education, in my opinion, is not that teachers do not want to make it exciting, meaningful and relevant - I think a large portion of the problem comes from two areas:

1.) Society and Parents (by-and-large) do not think education is important - or at least they feel that it is not worth sacrificing for. Our society is more concerned about the record of the local football team, making sure prom is just right for their child, and that their kids have everything they want (not need).

2.) The education system is run by two organizations (Government and NEA Union) that are essentially concerned about two primary goals - obtaining money and obtaining power. While both use the pretense of "wanting to help the children", it is nothing more than a convenient stance to extort money, votes and support. As such, there will never be a "fix" - there is no $ or power to be had in fixing something. Rather, these entities simply hop from one new "research based finding" to the next. As teachers, we get a new plan shoved down our throat every two or three years - largely unfunded and inadequate.

Oh, I could go on forever, but as it is my first post, I will save some for later.

Kev

ERGONER

4th February 2007, 03:59 PM

Stumbled on to this (and a few other sites) today. Quite interesting. I have been in the process of updating my curriculum in the hopes of including a greater emphasis on critical thinking skills... we are doing a complete overhaul of our curriculum, and I have free reign to design as I please. As such, I am quite happy to find this site as well as a few others, that seem to exemplify some of the components I hope to impart in my classes...

Kev

...Good. The subject here is what's "wrong" with American public education. Critical thinking skills require one to think-outside-the-box and take a much broader analysis of the American government education system. Veteran public school teacher John Taylor Gatto is an excellent source for that broader view of the "school-system".

_________

It is the great triumph of schooling that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and among even the best parents, there is only a small number who can imagine a different way to do things. Yet only a very few lifetimes ago things were different in the United States: originality and variety were common currency; our freedom from regimentation made us the miracle of the world; social class boundaries were relatively easy to cross; our citizenry was marvelously confident, inventive, and able to do many things independently, to think for themselves. We were something, all by ourselves, as individuals...

How did these awful places, these "schools", come about? As we know them, they are a product of the two "Red Scares" of 1848 and 1919, when powerful interests feared a revolution among our industrial poor, and partly they are the result of the revulsion with which old-line families regarded the waves of Celtic, Slavic, and Latin immigration -- and the Catholic religion -- after 1845. And certainly a third contributing cause can be found in the revulsion with which these same families regarded the free movement of Africans through the society after the Civil War..(-- by John Taylor Gatto, New York State Teacher of the Year, 1991)

____________

See the full online text of Mr Gatto's book "Underground History of American Education" at:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

Wavicle

4th February 2007, 04:36 PM

...Good. The subject here is what's "wrong" with American public education. Critical thinking skills require one to think-outside-the-box and take a much broader analysis of the American government education system. Veteran public school teacher John Taylor Gatto is an excellent source for that broader view of the "school-system".

It may or may not be reasonable to use Gatto for a broader view of the current school system (his experience is limited to New York) but using him for a historical context of the school system is a bit dangerous because a) it isn't his field of specialty and b) he's a nutjob.

For example, from your quote:

Yet only a very few lifetimes ago things were different in the United States: originality and variety were common currency;
No they weren't. Most of the population prior to WWI lived in rural America and barely kept the mortgage on the farm paid.
our freedom from regimentation made us the miracle of the world;
Really? I don't know that I agree. My interpretations from historical study must have truly led me astray. It sure seemed to have something to do with vast natural resources and low government interference.
social class boundaries were relatively easy to cross;
I'm sorry, which fairy tale is this from? Social class boundaries have never been easier to cross than they are now. Sorry for all those folks who believe the country is slowly becoming "owned by the power-elite" but the truth is that the situation is only known more broadly to you because the death grip they held on power is becoming weaker.
our citizenry was marvelously confident, inventive, and able to do many things independently, to think for themselves.
Oh that's just crap. Sure I can cherry pick feel good stories from history too. But the truth is most of our citizenry at the time was marginally educated and lived out most of their life toiling at the same tedious job from when they were children until they died.
We were something, all by ourselves, as individuals...
No, the people who made the history books - the Thomas Edisons (who was home-schooled) and Eli Whitneys (who was born rich) - were something. Most people back then would be absolutely shocked at the liberal life we enjoy today.

So yeah, other than those items, I agree completely.

Tmy

5th February 2007, 04:59 PM

Could I see an example of a GOOD education system? Id like to hear about a country with as many shool kids as the US, that manages to educate nearly the entire population.

Sure kids in japan can do long division in their heads, but whats so impressive about that? a $2 calculator can do the same.

kev

6th February 2007, 08:08 AM

ergoner -

Perhaps I am missing your point - If so, please help me understand. You begin by stating that in order to assess what is "wrong" with American Education, one must think "outside the box." However, you seem to follow it up by saying we should somehow return to a style of education prevalent in the early 1800's.

First and foremost, it is my opinion that "thinking outside the box" is a large part of the problem with education to start with. In particular, as I stated in a previous post, the essential problem is that those who would claim to "think outside the box" for education, are not educators - they are politicians and NEA leaders and education "researchers". Their very existence depends on "thinking outside the box." As a result, those of us who teach are at the whims of the garbage they present in the name of "improving the american education system." All the while, funneling hundreds of millions of dollars away from education itself. What do they come up with when they think outside the box? Let me give you a local example.

Our school spent 3 years of inservices and "teacher training" on MISCOS reading strategies. MILLIONS of dollars went into the research of these strategies, putting on inservice presentations, building binders of material for use etc. The first inservice was actually pretty good, as it addressed some basic issues in regard to reading comprehension - which was truly a good refresher. They also provided some nice examples etc., etc. However, for the next 3 years, we essentially had the exact same inservice again, and again, and again . . . . Let me summarize the concept of "reading strategies" for you - Take one of 1000 differnt "reading tools" (ie worksheet), all of which do the same thing (tell the kids to look at the bold words in their text book) except each is set up within a different design or picture. NCLB - another brilliant concept - Lets start with the premise of "100 percent of all children will score above the 40th percentile on their tests" -super, that should work just fine.

What I am getting at is this - those in charge, those who make policy - they "think outside the box" every 3-5 years and provide us with a new plan of repackaged garbage. In a couple years, the democrats will win the presidency, and they will come up with yet new education reform - which will be the same garbage with a new name - something like "all kids are special and can learn". That way, if you are against it, you are against kids being special and learning. As a result, MILLIONS of dollars in research, time and material will be wasted on repackaging the notion that kids should be able to "compare and contrast" - however, they will give it a new name and maybe pair it with a nice picture worksheet.

Perhaps that was what you were getting at in some respect - We already had the basics of a good education system in place 200 years ago. Since that time, and particularly in the past 50 years, all that has been done in regard to improving education is to rename old concepts at a cost of billions of dollars.

You also quoted the following:

"originality and variety were common currency; our freedom from regimentation made us the miracle of the world; social class boundaries were relatively easy to cross; our citizenry was marvelously confident, inventive, and able to do many things independently, to think for themselves. We were something, all by ourselves, as individuals..."

I have to say that this is a pretty "rose colored glasses" perspective of American society 200 years ago. I would go into detail on it, but Wavicle summed it up nicely. 200 years ago, MOST people were working a full time job before they were 16. Now, we are considering legislation that would make it mandatory for all students to attend school until they are 18.

What a terrible disservice we do to children by creating a system that essentially says " you are all college bound students." There are so many GREAT jobs and skills out there that are not promoted. Instead, we lead kids to believe that learning a "trade" is a somehow a lesser skill. As a result, we attempt to educate the TRUE college bound in the same way, at the same time as those who simply are not capable of it. As a result, the truly "academic" student is taught less and the the other students are basically taught nothing - at least not anything they can use.

kev

6th February 2007, 08:48 AM

Another, separate, issue that I mentioned breifly in the previous post that I believe contributes to the decay of American education is the concept that "everyone is college material."

Somewhere between 80-90% of our(my school district) graduating seniors will leave school this spring having already earned college credits. (keep in mind, the vast majority of these students earning "college" credit will score less than 22-23 on their ACT.) Some, will have enough credits that they will enter college this fall as sophomores. Where do they get these credits? At the local community college of course. Across the nation, students are getting "dual credit" for classes they take as HS students. The problem with this is two-fold.

First, many of the classes are a joke - I know for a fact that we have many students who take chemistry and physics in the summer at the community college because it is easier than taking it in our HS. Plus, they get college credit AND high school credit. This trend follows in other courses as well.

Secondly, by offering "dual credit" courses, students circumvent the base building of related classes. The simple fact of the matter is this - If you give a 16 year old kid college credit for a composition class where he wrote papers about how the school should have "open campus" or why the "football team should get new uniforms" that student will never be a COLLEGE AGE student writing papers about more significant, and challenging, issues -because he already got his CREDIT

I don't know about you, but I took HS Chemistry and it was tough. I then took College Chemistry and we covered HS chemistry in the first week - from there - it was exceedingly challenging. There is no way in **** that most HS kids are cabable of passing a TRULY college level chemistry class without ever having taken a previous chemistry class - and yet, they do.

The irony of all of this? Not a week goes by without seeing an article where some higher education research panel from a state university proclaims "42% of college freshman are not prepared" for basic college work. NO ****. OF course that does not stop every college in the USA from having a "Record enrollment" every fall. Just once, I would love to see a college come out and say - "We had hoped for an incoming class of 2500, however, we only found 2000 with the nescessary skill level, so that is all we admitted." That will never happen - no money to be made that way. State universities now accept garbage classes from community colleges, offered for dual credit, like physics. They have to - if they don't someone else will. There are more and more colleges popping up every year - lots of money to be made on kids who don't want to grow up, and have been made to believe they are college material. However, the sad fact is, everyone is " college material" - somewhere. There is not a person alive who could not get accepted by some college, somewhere. Every student through the door is more federal money.

The end result, marginal students, plunking down $20,000 per year so they can play football or basketball at some joke of a school and pretend they are college students, all the while extending adolescence for another 4 years. At the end, they have no useful education to show for it, no specific trade or skill that they can apply in a non-academic setting, and a boatload of student loans to go with it.

Our local community college is a small example, representative of a larger problem - 15 years ago, it offered trade based training: Dairy farming, John Deere Mechanic School, Nursing, Automotive repair, Plumbing, Electrician, Carpentry, etc. Now - World Literature, Physics, Calculus . . . . That way they can get kids who could not get into a real college, give them garbage classes and send them on their way with their "transfer" credits in hand. In addition, they can "provide a service" to our local high school by offering "dual credit" classes to our kids. The classes are hard to beat - they are easier than the high school offerings, they provide college credit that transfers because the major universities and private schools would never want to scare off any busines, and in addition, it allows our high school to cut full time teachers because we can offer classes on a cheaper basis through the college. The college of course gets to count all of these kids on their rolls so that they can ask for more funding - all the while pointing to enrollment increases as evidence of the great service they provide the public.

If I could do one thing to drastically alter the american education system it would be this: I would begin to track students around the junior high level. Simply put, not everyone is cut out for a TRULY academic course. It is a disservice to funnel every single kid through the exact same system, pretending that they are just"special", but they can learn too. Not everyone is cut out for the same path. Find the kids strengths, find their skills, find their interests and provide them with training and education that will make them brilliant in a suited area. A person can be lousy in English, Biology and History, and yet be brilliant in plumbing, welding, and heavy equipment operation etc.I know that this would hurt some feelings, and it might even seem like we are l"eaving some children behind." However, the end result would be higher standards for those in academic areas, and a more valuable basic education and advanced skill set for those in other areas.

drkitten

6th February 2007, 10:20 AM

Somewhere between 80-90% of our(my school district) graduating seniors will leave school this spring having already earned college credits. (keep in mind, the vast majority of these students earning "college" credit will score less than 22-23 on their ACT.) Some, will have enough credits that they will enter college this fall as sophomores. Where do they get these credits? At the local community college of course. Across the nation, students are getting "dual credit" for classes they take as HS students. The problem with this is two-fold.

First, many of the classes are a joke - I know for a fact that we have many students who take chemistry and physics in the summer at the community college because it is easier than taking it in our HS. Plus, they get college credit AND high school credit. This trend follows in other courses as well.

Secondly, by offering "dual credit" courses, students circumvent the base building of related classes. The simple fact of the matter is this - If you give a 16 year old kid college credit for a composition class where he wrote papers about how the school should have "open campus" or why the "football team should get new uniforms" that student will never be a COLLEGE AGE student writing papers about more significant, and challenging, issues -because he already got his CREDIT

I think your blame is misplaced. You shouldn't be complaining about the high schools, but about the local community colleges. And I think you may be misunderstanding the roles of high school, "community college," and university.

Let me start at the top of the tree. Universities -- by which, of course, I really mean selective universities like UC-Berkeley, UVa, Harvard, and such -- generally offer high-end education in a specialized discipline to people who already have a good general education background. Standards for admission to such schools have actually been going up in recent decades, largely because of the options high schools have been able to offer to improve the education of their high school graduates, such as the ability to offer college-level classes to the students who can already surpass the demands of typical high school classes. This includes classes at local colleges, AP/CLEP/IB courses, and so forth. But, of course, they can only get away with this because the demand for a Harvard education ensures that every place is filled with well-qualified students, and the unqualified ones are turned away.

Community colleges cannot (by policy) turn anyone away. You don't have a high school diploma? No problem, we'll enroll you anyway. You can't do algebra? No problem, we'll offer a class in 7th grade math. You can't read? No problem, we'll offer a class in elementary literacy. The official rationale for their existence is to provide education to all, not just the best, brightest, and best-educated. But by the same token, just because the course was provided by a community college doesn't mean that it's "college level."

And contrary to your historical statement, the point of community college has typically not been to provide "trade-based education." There are and were always trade schools for that. The point of community college was to provide low-cost college-level education accessably to non-traditional students. Literature and Algebra have always been more important than auto mechanics to typical community colleges. If you wanted to learn a trade, you went to a trade school -- or simply got a job.

High schools, of course, are supposed to provide high school education. (Implicit "duh.")

So if the local community college is selling courses that are less rigorous than the local high school as "college-level" classes, it's defrauding everyone involved. The high school students who take those courses because they're easier are, of course, knowingly participating in the fraud. And I get to follow around with a bucket when I try to teach genuine "college-level" material to the c..c. "graduates."

But there's nothing wrong with the idea of college-in-high-school classes. Harvard lives and dies by them. I had a number of such classes -- Dad was a university instructor and I took some "real" courses at his university. Best thing I ever did, skipping high school biology in favor of university-level psychology and philosophy. I didn't need the "building block" of related courses, since I already knew the biology I would have been taught. But I did managed to get some of my university requirements out of the way.

The real problem is credentialing. You wrote: "Our local community college is a small example, representative of a larger problem - 15 years ago, it offered trade based training: Dairy farming, John Deere Mechanic School, Nursing, Automotive repair, Plumbing, Electrician, Carpentry, etc." It should never have been offering that training at all. What the hell do you need courses in any of that for? If you want to be a dairy famer, you don't need classes, you need cows. The local carpenter's union has apprentices precisely because carpentry is a job skill, not an academic one. But it has become more cost-effective for many employers to ask their prospective employees to get job skills and experience at their own expense, and the community colleges have naturally gravitated to that niche. Rather than paying you apprentice wages to learn how a nail gun works, I'll let you pay several thousand dollars to learn. So now you need a "degree" in "carpentry" to get a job as a framing carpenter.... and the framing carpenters need to sit through the same required classes in literature and calculus, driving the level down.

jmercer

6th February 2007, 11:36 AM

What's wrong with our schools? I can put it into one word:

"Tenure"

kev

6th February 2007, 11:56 AM

drkitten - I agree with much of what you have to say. In regard to the concept of community colleges vs. trade schools, I mispoke in not differentiating the two. I was basing what I stated on my personal example. The community college I was speaking of was once a trade school, however, to increase enrollment($$$$) they became a community college, maintained their trade programs and added "academic" courses as well. This enabled them to appeal not only to those who were seaking a specific skill set, but also to those wanting a cheaper college alternative, those who could not currently get accepted to a more rigorous college, and now, to the local HS students in the form of dual-credit classes.

Our experiences are very different - it is one thing to take an advanced Biology class at a local university as opposed to HS Biology. It is quite another for 80% of a graduating class (of 65) to take dual credit speech. In your example, you skipped HS Biology and went right on to college caliber material - great. In my example, 50 kids are being given a college credit for HS work - never to take a college speech class again, because they already received their credit.

You stated:

"But by the same token, just because the course was provided by a community college doesn't mean that it's "college level."

This is fine in theory, but the reality is that "real' universities and private colleges are accepting it as credit - therefor it is.

One area where I must strongly disagree with you is in your assertion:

"If you want to be a dairy famer, you don't need classes, you need cows."

This is an extremely simplistic view. Perhaps you did not mean anything by it, perhaps you know nothing about dairy farming, but when I read this it seemed to imply that "any idiot" can milk a cow. If I am wrong, I apologize. But, this was one of my main concerns in previous posts - Our education system seems to promote the concept that if you are not bound for a four year college and an academic-based career, you are of lesser intelligence, and somehow not worthwhile.

The trade based fields are inundated with new technology and ever increasing demands. In our particular situation, there is no "carpenters union". There is not a town of over 10,000 people within 75 miles of where we live. To imply that getting a low end job, in order to learn a trade, is the way to go is no longer accurate. For instance (and I know this may sound stupid) but the dairy program at the local community college is basically the "Harvard" of dairy programs. They don't give each kid a bucket, a stool and a cow and say "fill er up." They teach the kids how to manage a multimillion dollar dairy operation. Here is an excerpt from a dairy publication (Iowa Farmer Today) which speaks to the particular program:
"An advisory group, which includes farmers and bankers, helps the students develop the skills to run a dairy operation.

In the first year, Lawstuen says students learn about rations, breeding, genetics and how to keep the animals healthy.

The second year of the program goes more into the business and the human side of the operation, which includes marketing, business and economics.

“That by far is the hardest thing to teach a young person,” he says.

While many students have grown up on a dairy farm, they may not have seen a milk check receipt, tax return or a balance sheet, Lawstuen notes.

He says the business aspect is important because a dairy herd could generate about $1 million per year in revenue so the students need to know how to manage the revenue.

The goal is to have the student ready the age of 30 to become a partner in a dairy operation.

Looking ahead, Lawstuen says some advanced training in ultrasound, embryo transfer and computer training might be added, as well as Spanish language classes.

“Spanish is getting pretty important,” he says.

One testimonial also might be Ingvalson who concedes he didn’t get the best grades in high school. However, he is doing well in the dairy program because he is interested in the subject."

These are not skills you get "on the job." They require all the training that any decent job requires.

In the end, I think perhaps we agree on one major concept - in your final sentence you mention the disservice that is done by lumping everyone into one class - driving the level down. It would be no differnt if we took the kid who has tremendous ability in English Literature and stuck him or her in the dairy program, or the automotive repair class - they would just slow everyone else down. That is why I said what I said - I think our education system should track kids toward more specific career paths at an earlier age and in turn provide them with an opportunity to be great, inventive, successful and brilliant in the area they are best at - rather than just herding everyone toward some impossible concept of academic success for all.

drkitten

6th February 2007, 05:20 PM

"But by the same token, just because the course was provided by a community college doesn't mean that it's "college level."

This is fine in theory, but the reality is that "real' universities and private colleges are accepting it as credit - therefor it is.

Um, one of the major tasks that my college office has to take is the evaluation of transfer credit. "Real" universities may indeed take community college credits, but it's very much on a case-by-case basis and often depends not only on the course taken, but on the degree obtained and the school where it was taken. I think we reject more credits than we accept.

One area where I must strongly disagree with you is in your assertion:

"If you want to be a dairy famer, you don't need classes, you need cows."

This is an extremely simplistic view. Perhaps you did not mean anything by it, perhaps you know nothing about dairy farming, but when I read this it seemed to imply that "any idiot" can milk a cow. If I am wrong, I apologize. But, this was one of my main concerns in previous posts - Our education system seems to promote the concept that if you are not bound for a four year college and an academic-based career, you are of lesser intelligence, and somehow not worthwhile.

No, milking a cow is a skill. I couldn't do it, although I could probably learn. Figuring out whether or not a cow is healthy, and what the best diet to give a cow to make sure she stays that way is another skill, and one I don't have.

But the way to learn isn't by sitting in a college classroom looking at pictures of cows and reading books about them.

There's a tremendous amount of "book knowledge" involved in becoming a doctor, but most of the actual education in medical school is clinical. Learning by doing, or by watching done. That's why most med schools are at hospitals, not at universities. Dairy farming and carpentry are largely the same -- except that there's not nearly the amount of book learning.

kev

6th February 2007, 05:43 PM

Um, one of the major tasks that my college office has to take is the evaluation of transfer credit. "Real" universities may indeed take community college credits, but it's very much on a case-by-case basis and often depends not only on the course taken, but on the degree obtained and the school where it was taken. I think we reject more credits than we accept.

That is good to hear - I wish it were similar around here.

There's a tremendous amount of "book knowledge" involved in becoming a doctor, but most of the actual education in medical school is clinical. Learning by doing, or by watching done. That's why most med schools are at hospitals, not at universities. Dairy farming and carpentry are largely the same -- except that there's not nearly the amount of book learning.

I understand this, and that is why, in this example, the dairy school is provided in one of the most advanced dairy "farms" in the world. It is not a classroom with cow pictures, it is a working 150 head dairy farm. State of the art in every way. That is why the carpentry school at the college builds houses within the community - they aren't reading books about this and watching vcr tapes. It is actually very similar to your example of med school. I would like to see our society'seducation system move toward this model earlier, rather than later in the process.

Not to say that anyone should be denied whatever path they choose - but provide the choices sooner. By the time a mediocre, unmotivated student is 18, it is too late.

I appreciate your insights and perspective.

drkitten

7th February 2007, 09:16 AM

Not to say that anyone should be denied whatever path they choose - but provide the choices sooner. By the time a mediocre, unmotivated student is 18, it is too late.

That's not quite the experience that the societies that use tracking have had.

Just as a quick example, I believe that the Dutch have a set of exams that you sit at age twelve or so, and based on the results of your exams, you are tracked into one of three unintelligible (to English speakers) acronyms representing three different "levels" of academic performance, only the top of which typically leads to university admission. But the Dutch found it necessary to create the equivalent of community colleges in order to permit adult students to "upgrade" their track and to get the education that they hadn't been given as adolescents. The British had a somewhat similar experience with their 11+ exams (and more or less created the Open University -- another open-access, "community college"-style environment) to address this.

Again, the problem really seems to be that your "community college" shouldn't be doing what it's doing.

As far as I can tell, you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're complaining that the local community college is acting as a trade school, offering "college credit" for things like carpentry and dairy farming, credits which "real" universities are obliged to accept. As I pointed out, that's probably untrue; only under very unusual (and politically tententious) circumstances are colleges obligated to take any credit from anyone.

But more than that, I'm not clear about the nature of your objection. "Business administration" is a recognized and acknowledged academic discipline. If the course that one takes at "Dairy Farmer U." are actually courses in cash-flow management, marketing, adminsitration, taxation -- courses in the management of a multimillion dollar business operation, then I fail to see why you think there's a problem there. Managing a multimillion dollar business operation can be difficult, regardless of the nature of the operation.

The problem that I see is that the college is confusing the students about the nature of its work. The skills needed to manage a dairy farm are different than the skills needed to operate one. Which are they teaching? And why does one need a degree in management to be an operator?

It's the credentialism again. Your cited spokesman said, "[T}he business aspect is important because a dairy herd could generate about $1 million per year in revenue so the students need to know how to manage the revenue. The goal is to have the student ready the age of 30 to become a partner in a dairy operation." Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, that's an unrealistic and borderline fraudulent goal. The students who will be able to become partners are exactly the ones that are not, as you put it, "mediocre" and "unmotivated." The ones who can't handle "college level" chemistry and algebra aren't going to be able to handle "college level" marketing and accounting, while conversely, the ones who can handle the accounting courses would have little trouble with a traditional college (business school) curriculum.

Your school is overstepping its boundaries, and that's where the problem comes in. Not every dairyman is going to become a partner. But by the same token, not every partner needs to be a dairyman. (One of my students is getting his MBA in a few months. He may not know how to milk cows, but he definitely knows how to sell milk, and how to make sure that the books balance.)

As a trade school, the future dairymen need to know how to milk cows, how to feed cows, and perhaps how to repair the milking machines when they break. As a business school, the future partners need to understand balance sheets and corporate tax returns. And the problem is with credentialling, pretending that the two skill-sets are the same or that the same people need to acquire them.

So what your community college is apparently doing is teaching "math for dairymen" and pretending that that's good enough for dairy partners. It's a trade school pretending to be a college.

pgwenthold

7th February 2007, 11:39 AM

As a trade school, the future dairymen need to know how to milk cows, how to feed cows, and perhaps how to repair the milking machines when they break.

It depends what you mean by "know how to..." I know how to milk a cow. I know how to feed cows. I even know how to repair the milking machines work. These are physical activities. I am nowhere close to being a dairyman.

Your BA friend may know how to sell milk. He doesn't know how to produce milk in a cost efficient manner. He doesn't know how to manage a herd so to produce the maximum yield. He doesn't know enough about genetics or cow characteristics to produce good producing cattle. He doesn't know enough about nutrition or waste management (a huge issue in farming these days).

"[T}he business aspect is important because a dairy herd could generate about $1 million per year in revenue so the students need to know how to manage the revenue. The goal is to have the student ready the age of 30 to become a partner in a dairy operation." Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, that's an unrealistic and borderline fraudulent goal.

All that reflects is your ignorance on this issue (and I mean that as a descriptive term). There are in fact many young people in exactly that situation. These are kids who inherit their folks' dairy farm when they are 20 years old, and have been working on it since they were 4. They grew up on 100 head farms, that their fathers had. There are some content to continue to do that type of farming. However, in today's market, many are pushing ahead to larger, more productive, and more efficient operations. They go to school to learn better farming methods than they grew up using (their dad was still doing things the way he did them in 1965). Those who can demonstrate themselves to be effective farmers are absolutely able to expand their operations to the $1 mil scale by the time they are 30.

Expansion means they have to handle issues like hiring, and capital investment. So they turn into personnel management, as well (not unlike the move into academia, I will note).

The problem that I see is that the college is confusing the students about the nature of its work. The skills needed to manage a dairy farm are different than the skills needed to operate one.

And that's why they teach both. You need to have the skills to create a million dollar operation, but you also have to have the skills to run it once you have it built.

The ones who can't handle "college level" chemistry and algebra aren't going to be able to handle "college level" marketing and accounting,

Only if you insist that "marketing and accounting in the dairy industry" is not "college level" marketing and accounting. However, that is not necessarily true. Students might learn most of the same principles, although in the context of the dairy industry. No, it won't match the usual college syllabus, because the focus is that much better. And it is true that many students who couldn't handle college accounting and marketing could do very well in this class. But not because it's easier, but because it is relevant. Perhaps they don't have the interest in filling in spreadsheets for some random company selling widgets, but OTOH, have them learning accounting by working finances on a dairy farm (real or imagined), and all of a sudden they are experts in Quicken and can program an Excel spreadsheet. Come tax season, they are working tax forms for the dairy industry instead of a couch manufacturer. It's not all about the material, it is also about the context (I will note that their are others that WILL take the more academic route - Ag majors in college, for example - there are definately advantages to that type of approach, mainly in breadth - folks in these CC programs won't have to take "hog operation management," for example)

Your school is overstepping its boundaries, and that's where the problem comes in. Not every dairyman is going to become a partner. But by the same token, not every partner needs to be a dairyman.

Is a PhD program overstepping its boundaries if it says that its goal is to prepare students for a job in academia? Not every PhD is going to become a faculty member somewhere.

And, no, not every _partner_ needs to BE a dairyman, but every partnership needs one if it has any hope of being successful.

drkitten

7th February 2007, 01:11 PM

All that reflects is your ignorance on this issue (and I mean that as a descriptive term). There are in fact many young people in exactly that situation. These are kids who inherit their folks' dairy farm when they are 20 years old, and have been working on it since they were 4. They grew up on 100 head farms, that their fathers had. There are some content to continue to do that type of farming. However, in today's market, many are pushing ahead to larger, more productive, and more efficient operations. They go to school to learn better farming methods than they grew up using (their dad was still doing things the way he did them in 1965). Those who can demonstrate themselves to be effective farmers are absolutely able to expand their operations to the $1 mil scale by the time they are 30.

There are indeed. There are also people who have Olympic gold medals and/or SuperBowl rings by the time they are thirty. (There are a few who even have both.) But how many are there?

It's inappropriate for a school to try, as they say, to "have the student ready the age of 30" to have both. Because the number of people who fail to meet such a stringent goal -- who simply do not have the capacity to have that goal -- is so huge. It's setting most students up for a disappointment when they find out what their real capacities are.

And the capacity to meet that goal isn't the sort of thing that can be taught to kev's "mediocre, apathetic" 18 year old.

And, of course, this even assumes that the college is making a realistic attempt to help "mediocre" students achieve their best capacity possible. But offering watered-down classes isn't a good way to achieve that, either.

And that's why they teach both. You need to have the skills to create a million dollar operation, but you also have to have the skills to run it once you have it built.

Except that you don't. The vast majority of people who work on a dairy farm do not need the managerial skills -- and couldn't/wouldn't absorb them if you tried to teach them. The vast majority of people who run dairy farms don't need the livestock handling skills, because they've hired the necessary people to do it. Probably lots of people, because you only need one managing partner, but dozens or hundreds of farm hands.

The person who can take a 100 head farm and turn it into a multimillion dollar sprawl is an unusual person, with an unusual skill set -- and almost certainly an unusual level of motivation, perseverance, and luck. It's far from routine, and it's dishonest for the school to suggest that they can give such abilities to their students on a routine basis.

Only if you insist that "marketing and accounting in the dairy industry" is not "college level" marketing and accounting.

Quite the contrary. The students who can expand their father's 100 head farm to a multimillion dollar industry are the people who could handle college level marketing and accounting.

Is a PhD program overstepping its boundaries if it says that its goal is to prepare students for a job in academia?

Absolutely -- this is exactly the problem that I have to grapple with on a routine basis (and I'm not nearly as badly off as the various humanities departments). Precisely because there is such a glut of Ph.D.'s, one of the most important considerations for any department to make when it considers expansion is whether (and where) it will be able to place its graduates -- and many departments have been actively reducing their number of Ph.D. students and trying to become more selective in order to make sure that they can place the ones they do accept/graduate.

To suggest otherwise is to mislead the students and to accept tuition money from them under false pretenses. I helped found the graduate program in my current department. I'm proud of the program -- but the point of which I'm the most proud is the fact that we've got a 100% placement rate of our graduates.

That's the problem with the community colleges -- and as near as I can tell, with the particular unnamed school under discussion. They're letting their brochures write checks that their educational standards can't cash. They accept tuition money for "college level" classes that are nothing of the sort, and they make unreasonable statements about the level of preparation that their students will leave the program with. They may even have the occaisional student who meets those standards -- but the vast majority will leave without the education they were promised.

kev

7th February 2007, 01:22 PM

drkitten wrote
"As far as I can tell, you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're complaining that the local community college is acting as a trade school, offering "college credit" for things like carpentry and dairy farming, credits which "real" universities are obliged to accept. As I pointed out, that's probably untrue; only under very unusual (and politically tententious) circumstances are colleges obligated to take any credit from anyone."

No, this is not my complaint at all. Perhaps in speaking to several issues, I confused the whole thing. In regard to the entire "dairy farming" example, trade school etc. - This is the aspect that I think is great. This school provides high level trainging in trade areas, such as agrigulture, mechanics etc., to talented sudents, who want a true career in these areas - pgwenthold summed up the importance of these programs very well. Many of these students were not motivated students in a traditional HS setting, but in an area of specific application they immerse themselves and excel. As pointed out by pgwenthold, there is far more to some of this training (and application) than you realize.

I was NOT complaining about these trade courses being accepted by major universities. These are not kids who are trying to get credit in "dairy math" so that they can transfer it to the University of Iowa to major in medicine. In regard to this part of the discussion, I think these trade related programs represent a possible model for a more specific method of education (the whole point of the thread to start with - what could be changed about the current approach to american education.)

Secondly, I am NOT complaining about the high end student who is motivated, academically gifted and knows they will someday pursue an academic based career at a 4-year university. If these students are able to exercise ADVANCED college credit options as HS students - great.

These 2 groups, the (true) college bound, and the focused trade bound, know what they want to do, and are on a path that will eventually be likely to lead to success in their chosen path.

MY CONCERN/COMPLAINT - the average to marginal student who flounders through HS with the illusion that the only way to success is as a 4 year college student. My complaint about our specific community college is not that they are providing transfer/college credit to Dairy or Carpenter students - my complaint is that they are providing college credit in physics, chemistry, college composition, speech, psychology etc. - all of which are taught at a HS (or less) level. Students are taking these classes INSTEAD of HS courses (and they are not at a true college level) So, the end result is that Mediocre HS students are receiving college credit for a composition class and some probably could not identify a subject and a verb in a sentence.

These mediocre or worse kids then go on to other community colleges or whatever college will accept them - to major in ????? and play a sport. It is my contention that part of the blame for these students mindlessly going to a college (and paying lots of $$$) is that our education system perpetuates the myth that you must be a college bound, core curriculum student to be successful - and it isn't true. NCLB legislation - as well as other education reform tend to focus on treating everyone the same (college bound) and I feel it is a disservice to those kids who are not meant for a 4 year universtiy.

You provide insight on the problems with "tracking" students - I have no argument for that. You are right, there are problems with that as well. But, I still believe it is an area that holds promise.

pgwenthold

7th February 2007, 02:49 PM

The person who can take a 100 head farm and turn it into a multimillion dollar sprawl is an unusual person, with an unusual skill set -- and almost certainly an unusual level of motivation, perseverance, and luck. It's far from routine, and it's dishonest for the school to suggest that they can give such abilities to their students on a routine basis.

They don't promise them the motivation, perserverance, nor luck. They promise to teach them what needs to be done to get there. They will teach them that to do it, they need to be motivated. They will teach them they need to perservere in tougher times. But them can't teach them that motivation or perserverance.

However, they can teach them what to look for in a nutritional diet or other herd husbandry aspects that they can use to improve the production of their herd. These are the things that you need to do in order to maintain a million dollar operation. If you don't run a million dollar operation, then these methods will help you run better with what you have.

(btw, don't overestimate what it takes to hit a million dollar operation - with milk prices at $1.14 a gallon, and holsteins producing on average 3200 gallons a year, that means a 100 head herd produces $370K - yes, tripling your output means expansion, but it's not an order of magnitude change)

OTOH, these types of operation ARE popping up all over the place nowadays (in addition to the occasional 10K facility, but that is a different structure)

What they are doing is no different from a program that says they will teach students to start their own business, and maybe even more specific (say, run a fast food restaurant). They will focus on those aspects that are relevant to that business. Not everyone who takes the program will or even will be able to open their own fast food place, but they have been trained in that aspect. Whether it helps them start their scrapbooking place is a separate question.

Quite the contrary. The students who can expand their father's 100 head farm to a multimillion dollar industry are the people who could handle college level marketing and accounting.

Potentially, but then again, they don't need to because of programs like these.

OTOH, they wouldn't get much out of marketing. They have a buyer guaranteed. Sure, marketing will help boost the government price, but that is a national issue, and not something to be done locally. A good dairy farmer will strongly support the USDA, who they are paying in part as a marketing firm, but the farmer needs to worry about producing the product.

BTW, kev, I have one dispute with something you said. You claimed that there isn't a town of more than 10000 within 75 miles. If you are talking about what I think you are, then I think you mean 20K.

kev

7th February 2007, 07:31 PM

apology/correction -

I want to apologize for an inaccurate (and in hindsight, stupid) representation I made in a couple of my posts. Simply put, In an attempt to illustrate an opinion I hold, I attempted to use a general example to get my point across. As I reread a couple portions of my post, I felt like an *** to see that what I meant to use as a random example, was really more of a broad, sweeping generalization that came off as rather pointed - you know, all the stuff that this site is designed to help teach people NOT to do.

In particular, in criticizing the concept of average HS kids taking college classes INSTEAD of HS classes, I used the example of the "local" community college and a number of specific academic subjects. In my rush to support an argument, I did this to make a general point - But, that is not how it came off as I reread it. It came off as a specific accusation. I feel like an *** for using the example the way I did.

I picked a crappy (and sloppy) way to express and support my opinion. I should have been more careful in how I expressed what it was I wanted to get across. While I feel strongly about the general position of my arguments, I feel sick that I chose to try to support it by making the specific generalization that I did. I noticed this after I could still edit my content - so I felt it was only appropriate to apologize after the fact. Sorry.