Bad grades: for ONCE, blame the student

[bigred]

Wow somebody gets it - sadly, he might as well be spitting into the wind

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060308/cm_usatoday/foronceblamethestudent

[Wowbagger]

Sheep. The U.S. has been training its citizens to become nice, fluffy sheep. Why would any political or educational leader encourage more learning? If our sheep learned math and science...why, that could lower church attendance, and our sheep can't survive without begging God to help them live!

[Zbu]

Good point, Wowbagger. America--or at least some of our leaders--wants kids to be dumb little consumers instead of citizens that take responsibility for making a great country. I do not look forward to the day when our chickens come to roost, that will not be pretty. And I see a lot of American intellectuals giving up and going to other countries instead of constanting having to reason with people who just don't know how to reason and don't think they should know how to do anything for themselves.

Colleges keep complaining that students are coming to them unprepared. Instead of raising admissions standards, however, they keep accepting mediocre students lest cuts have to be made in faculty and administration.

That's probably because colleges don't want to bother with dealing with the parents. In my eyes, failing at your first year in college is a defining moment: when you're going to college, you are pretty much an adult. You can't simply call mommy and daddy to have them bail you out or bitch at the dean until he breaks. You can try, but all you'll get is actual help and actual criticism which these kids cannot take. In a sense, that's where the buck stops: when you're paying for your education and you finally get a dose of what it means to truly succeed, then that's when you separate the serious from the entitled. While I could state that colleges are being unethical about taking money from cut-and-run students, I can't really think of anything more direct to the point about it. When learning is free, many of those students do not take it seriously. When you put money into the equation, then you really cut to the quick and cut the serious from the entitled. Colleges benefit from it in two ways, really: they get the money and they get an easy way to get a student to reevaluate their choices and offer a chance to get serious. It's a harsh lesson, but somewhere the buck must stop.

[Melendwyr]

We've already become a nation of mindless sheep. That is precisely why our society accepts notions such as "the teachers are responsible for motivating the students".

[bigred]

Sheep. The U.S. has been training its citizens to become nice, fluffy sheep. Why would any political or educational leader encourage more learning? If our sheep learned math and science...why, that could lower church attendance, and our sheep can't survive without begging God to help them live!
lol - oh the irony

Yes, teachers and political leaders across the country are all in on a conspiracy to dumb down America so they can hypnotize them with religion. That's the ticket.

Your honor, Exhibit A. b-a-a-a-a.

:rolleyes:

If anyone is interested in actually discussing this from an educational perspective w/o digressing into yet another political and/or religious "looky me JREF I agree with you aren't I smart do I belong now" pile of gibberish (for which oh by the way there is a seperate forum), let me know. TIA.

[drkitten]

Sheep. The U.S. has been training its citizens to become nice, fluffy sheep.

Um, Wowbagger -- just how much influence do you think "the U.S." has over the contents of the average American classroom?

Teaching is done by teachers. Teachers, almost universally, do not want their students to become "nice, fluffy sheep" -- they want their students to become educated critical thinkers and are deeply, deeply concerned with their intellectual development. In my experience, the only exceptions that I've ever encountered have been high-end research professors at top-flight universities, the ones who consider themselves primarily researchers and who regard students as a waste of time and a nuisance who cut into their productivity. Even they aren't interested in "nice, fluffy sheep."

Even administrators aren't interested in "nice, fluffy sheep." By and large, the good ones are ex-teachers who want their students to excel. Even the venial ones are interested mostly in having smoothly running and safe schools -- they're not against education and critical thinking, but they simply don't want to have to deal with complaints.

Almost no one is interested in maximizing church attendance. Almost no one is interested in weakening the teaching of math and science, except to the extent that fewer complaints is better. And the political nutcases who try to influence teaching content, such as the Dover school board, tend to get their strongest resistance from the people who do the actual work -- the teachers themselves. (Remember that the whole Dover thing blew up when the teachers refused to teach the material the board demanded.)

[strathmeyer]

We've already become a nation of mindless sheep. That is precisely why our society accepts notions such as "the teachers are responsible for motivating the students".

Right; it's those damn kid's faults for not picking up a Calculus book and learning it!

[I less than three logic]

Right; it's those damn kid's faults for not picking up a Calculus book and learning it!
No, but it would be the kid’s fault for putting the book down because he/she doesn’t want to bother to learn Calculus because it seems too hard or too much work.

As with most things, the cause for poor school performance really can’t be whittled down to one factor or a single group to blame. I suspect that one of the largest factors is that, here in America at least, society in general values higher education less than it did in the past. Perhaps the value and reason behind why education is important has been lost because no one remembers a time when the majority of people couldn’t read or write, and how having an education really set one apart.

[drkitten]

No, but it would be the kid’s fault for putting the book down because he/she doesn’t want to bother to learn Calculus because it seems too hard or too much work.

And similarly, high employee turnover is the fault of the employees, not the supervisor?

This is simply untrue, and corporate America recognizes that in the business context. It is the responsibility of management to recruit and retain employees. It's understood that there's no practical way to make everyone happy without exception, but a supervisor with a higher-than-acceptable turnover rate will be disciplined for it.

[I less than three logic]

I’m not sure the comparison is completely valid. In a business environment it may be the supervisor’s responsibility for higher-than-acceptable employee turnover, but the supervisor also gets a chance to screen employees before they are hired. They have the chance to eliminate the ones that appear unwilling to do the work, or may become unhappy too soon before they are added to roster to contribute to the high turnover rate. If the supervisor has constantly poor judgment with this then he or she should be subject to disciplinary action.

Schools don’t get this luxury. They by law, public schools at least, have to accept everyone, including those unwilling to do the work or have little to no appreciation for the education being offered to them. I’m not saying that it is entirely the students’ fault, but if they are unwilling to put forth the effort, they have to accept some of the responsibility for their poor performance.

[Wowbagger]

Okay, I see many of you have taken my "sheep" comment a bit too seriously. I should have expected this, and I apologize for parts of it coming off too immature sounding.

Um, Wowbagger -- just how much influence do you think "the U.S." has over the contents of the average American classroom?

Perhaps not much, but you know elements of the U.S., such as its politicians, want more.

Teaching is done by teachers. Teachers, almost universally, do not want their students to become "nice, fluffy sheep"

The teachers don't want sheep. But, their training is often inadequate to produce anything more than that. Teachers were taught by other teachers, each generation a little less adept at enticing a work ethic out of their pupils. At least in the U.S.

Even administrators aren't interested in "nice, fluffy sheep."
...
they're not against education and critical thinking, but they simply don't want to have to deal with complaints.

Administrators: Same training problem as teachers, more or less.

But, you have noted another problem: Lack of critical thinking education to avoid complaints. The guy in the article blames The Students, but perhaps the real key is finding a solution to this very problem. If the world of critical thinking can be made out as exciting, perhaps the students would be more likely willing to learn other things.

Almost no one is interested in maximizing church attendance. Almost no one is interested in weakening the teaching of math and science, except to the extent that fewer complaints is better. And the political nutcases who try to influence teaching content, such as the Dover school board, tend to get their strongest resistance from the people who do the actual work -- the teachers themselves.

And it was those political nutcases I was really referring to in my previous comment. I didn't make that clear, did I? Oh well. I should learn not to post comments on this thing when I'm about ready to fall asleep.:o

Keep in mind one thing though: If you think of religion as a meme-based brain fluke, as many skeptics do, you have to wonder what adaptations that fluke evolved to sustain its reproduction rate. I hypothesize that the poor quality of math and science education offered by public schools could be one of religion's extended phenotypes.

Another factor I would like others to comment on is if the monopoly situation of our public schools is another major factor in this: If people were able to choose which public school to send their kids to, the competition would drive the school systems to better quality, as happens in other countries.

[drkitten]

Perhaps not much, but you know elements of the U.S., such as its politicians, want more.

The teachers don't want sheep. But, their training is often inadequate to produce anything more than that. Teachers were taught by other teachers, each generation a little less adept at enticing a work ethic out of their pupils. At least in the U.S.

Evidence? I'm sorry, but this is the same uninformed "all the teachers suck!" line that I've been hearing for decades now and that leads to stuff like the No Child Left Behind Act.



Another factor I would like others to comment on is if the monopoly situation of our public schools is another major factor in this: If people were able to choose which public school to send their kids to, the competition would drive the school systems to better quality, as happens in other countries.

This is incoherent with your previous comments. The same parents who are phoning the administrators to complain about Suzie's bad grades and want the teacher to reward her for doing less work are all of a sudden going to care enough to pull Suzie from an underperforming school because she's not being challenged?

The United States has been experimenting with competitive semi-privatized education for decades at the post-secondary school level. The result is a "race to the bottom" and a well-documented history of grade inflation, precisely because parents and students The schools that have best resisted this trend are precisely the ones that are protected from the market by large private endowments or external revenue streams such as federal support or research funding.

[Wowbagger]

Evidence? I'm sorry, but this is the same uninformed "all the teachers suck!" line that I've been hearing for decades now and that leads to stuff like the No Child Left Behind Act.

I will be collecting some evidence for this, soon. I have friends in the education system that might back me up. (I got this comment from them, you see.) Until then, you can feel free to be skeptical. Or even after then. I admit I am not an expert on such things, myself.

I want to make a few more things clear, for the record: Not all teachers suck. But, perhaps the average competence of teachers is going down. There could be many factors involved, not all can be blamed on humans, but rather the general emergent patterns of complex adaptive systems, that couldn't be predicted by even the brightest of folks.

Most teachers mean well. And, a lot are probably very competent. But, a lot of them have tended to plop their students in front of computers, expecting the machine to do their work. NOT ALL, but enough to lower average education quality. That is BUT ONE factor.

Another worth throwing into the ring are teacher's unions.

Also, The No Child Left Behind Act is probably only making things worse. You imply that it was a failed attempt to solve the problem. I think there is the possibility that it might have been "deliberately" put in place in exacerbate it - not in a conspiracy sort-of way: Think in terms of my hypothetical extended phenotype of religion.

This is incoherent with your previous comments.

All I'm saying is that there are a LOT of factors. Some might even seem to contradict each other, at first, but they all form a web of influence driving the education system down. Such is the way of complex systems.

The same parents who are phoning the administrators to complain about Suzie's bad grades and want the teacher to reward her for doing less work are all of a sudden going to care enough to pull Suzie from an underperforming school because she's not being challenged?

You're right. That does sound a bit far fetched. Now, we got to dish part of the blame onto the parents, for making such an idea unlikely.:rolleyes:

But, in principal, competition would allow those parents who do care about "the appropriate level of challenge" being offered to their children to get it.

The United States has been experimenting with competitive semi-privatized education for decades at the post-secondary school level. The result is a "race to the bottom" and a well-documented history of grade inflation, precisely because parents and students The schools that have best resisted this trend are precisely the ones that are protected from the market by large private endowments or external revenue streams such as federal support or research funding.

This could well be true. But, again, a lot of factors have to go into this. Competitive, semi-privatized education is working well in a lot of other countries. It doesn't always work out right, as you imply, but it is not impossible for it to do so. And, the long-term rewards could make it worth while, even if some exploitive behavior survives in the short term.

[Wowbagger]

If anyone is interested in actually discussing this from an educational perspective w/o digressing into yet another political and/or religious "looky me JREF I agree with you aren't I smart do I belong now" pile of gibberish (for which oh by the way there is a seperate forum), let me know. TIA.

Okay, I'm the one who got this thread a little off topic. I shall now attempt to get it right back on.

One comment about the article:

The author's thesis is an observation that students from foreign countries tend to have a better work ethic that U.S. students, but then it goes beyond that. I find it interesting that the title of the article is "For once, blame the student". Perhaps this was chosen by an editor, and not the author. But, it does not convey the whole message of it. He does not place ALL the blame on the students, themselves (although I agree some of it should be dealt to them.), but also comments that the schools are playing into it. See, the school system, itself, has (perhaps accidentally) gotten too lazy to get the students to learn better.

Hey, if "the students" were the only problem, then foreign students would have the same problem, wouldn't they?

[edited because I forgot a few words.]

[Crazytree]

I blame society. :D

[Melendwyr]

I'm sure most teachers aren't in favor of zero-tolerance rules, but they're put in place regardless.

There is a significant difference between what individual teachers want and what the system inculcates.

[slingblade]

At the school in which I student teach, we are not allowed to fail students, and must do everything we can to get them to do the assignments they've not turned in for whatever reasons, and try to get them enough grading points to at least pass with a D.

There are those few who honestly do nothing more than warm seats. I have these students in my classes. I work with them; I struggle to teach them anything, to get them to do anything.

They are not the majority by any means, but they do exist.

[veggie doll]

At the school in which I student teach, we are not allowed to fail students, and must do everything we can to get them to do the assignments they've not turned in for whatever reasons, and try to get them enough grading points to at least pass with a D.

There are those few who honestly do nothing more than warm seats. I have these students in my classes. I work with them; I struggle to teach them anything, to get them to do anything.

They are not the majority by any means, but they do exist.

Wait- a 'D' is a pass in your country? That's so pathetic. :rolleyes: Any student who is getting D's is failing.

[Jeff Corey]

Not so. An "F" is failing. "D" indicates poor performance, "C" average, "B" good and "A" excellent.

[Skeptic]

The point is not that schools are blameless, but the immigrants go to the same bad schools with the same lousy teachers and the same "let's not tell them they do anything wrong because it will hurt their self-esteem" philosophy, yet they excel because, at home, they have parents who care about education and will sacrifice for it, and above all do not consider their children's self-esteem along the way (thank god).

[Skeptic]

At the school in which I student teach, we are not allowed to fail students, and must do everything we can to get them to do the assignments they've not turned in for whatever reasons, and try to get them enough grading points to at least pass with a D.

Which means that a diploma from your school is not worth the paper it's printed on, because it's nothing more than proof that you were off the street for X hours a day Y days a year.

There are those few who honestly do nothing more than warm seats. I have these students in my classes. I work with them; I struggle to teach them anything, to get them to do anything.

But why should they do anything? If they do nothing, you will have to run around and find some way, any way--"fun" assignment, "extra credit" for doing nothing, etc.--to give them a passing grade anyway, because you are not allowed to fail them.

So they can either work and pass, or not do any work... and let you do all the work... and still pass. Not a difficult choice, is it?

Of course, if they had any self-respect, they would do the work for its own sake. But they don't have any self-respect, since they have no real reason to respect themselves. What they do have, instead, is tons of self-esteem, that is, they think very highly of themselves without thinking such a high opinion depends on anything they do. They just deserve it for breathing. Since they're perfect just the way they are, that's another reason not to bother working.

Hmmmm.... there might be something slightly wrong with the "self-esteem uber alles" educational system.

[blutoski]

The point is not that schools are blameless, but the immigrants go to the same bad schools with the same lousy teachers and the same "let's not tell them they do anything wrong because it will hurt their self-esteem" philosophy, yet they excel because, at home, they have parents who care about education and will sacrifice for it, and above all do not consider their children's self-esteem along the way (thank god).

I know it's hard to generalize about this, but as a math/science tutor, I have accumulate some opinions about parental motives over the years.

The parents who push their kids to perform academically are actually *very* interested in the kids' self-esteem: they believe that a kid who succeeds will have better self-esteem.

[Hindmost]

This is such a complex issue. There is enough blame to go around so we can all point to some deficiency for bad grades. Teachers, parents, students. Although my relationship with the vast majority of parents has been good, at times I have had to deal with parents that do not believe their student could possibly be lazy or inattentive. “My son/daughter never gets a C.” D is a passing grade at my school, but students are not just passed through.

My biggest goal is to focus students on a science based education and to ensure they realize they must obtain superior job skills in today’s competitive job market. Whether they are on a college track or wanting to go straight into the job market, students need problem solving skills that someone wants to pay a lot of money for. However, science just isn’t cool enough for too many students.

I think the most important issue facing teaching today is the lack of an educational culture in the US. Many parents and students are not focused sufficiently. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to all parents and all students. I have many students that have been doing too well to make generalizations. Personally, I feel numerous students have it too easy. They have cars and cell phones and ipods and computers without really working for them. Many students have the attention span of a gnat--always saying how boring school is and feel they should be entertained all the time. Just try keeping those students focused.

One of the biggest failings of public high schools, in my opine, is the lack of adequate alternatives for students that just don’t care about traditional academics. Learning Shakespeare is not going to help this type of student. Alternative programs should be available. But that takes money.

<O:p
glenn:boxedin:

PS: Wowbagger: believe me, the students in class are rarely like sheep...sheep are skittish and docile. Students aren’t.

Competition among school districts is very high actually. School districts are always competing to hire the best teachers they can find. Standardized test scores can make a big difference on how a district is perceived and will affect local housing prices and how the school district is viewed by colleges vying for the best students. An “A” from a superior district carries more weight.

[Godmode]

Kids do need to study, and teachers do need to teach. I don't know how much of a problem this is in the US, but I do know a teacher in the US, and her biggest complaint is she doesn't really get to teach, most of her job is pure discipline. The class is too large, the kids are too rowdy, there's not enough staff, and not enough teaching going on.

[slingblade]

One comp class and one lit class I teach are 20 students each. These classes have more under-achievers, but I'm seeing an obvious increase in work turned in, more work done with serious thought behind it, and higher attendance.

They can't "hide" from me, becasue I have plenty of time to get to each one of them several times in an hour and encourage, assist, guide, and teach. If they misbehave, it's much more obvious, and there are fewer students to egg the distractors on.

Smaller classes seem better to me, from my very limited experience.

[Jorghnassen]

Yeah, a few (2-4) disruptive students and no mechanisms to remove them from class in an effective way is all that is needed change the lesson plan from teaching to practically nothing but attempting to discipline.

[slingblade]

Yeah, a few (2-4) disruptive students and no mechanisms to remove them from class in an effective way is all that is needed change the lesson plan from teaching to practically nothing but attempting to discipline.

Yeah. I know. That's rather a strawman. One disruptive student in a class of five is going to take time away from instruction.

This is too small a sample to tell anything even remotely definitive. In my smaller classes, I have more kids my mentors felt were troublemakers, but these classes are calmer than the larger classes with kids my mentors labelled "gifted" or "smart." In the bigger classes, I'm more distracted even when things go well. But with more students, there are more chances for things to go wrong.

In the small classes, when I hear students chatting while someone is speaking, I turn around and there are only two or three students behind me. Not too hard to figure out who isn't paying attention. In the big classes, I turn around and see six or eight faces. All smiling, all silent now. Sigh.

It's not a scientific study, for crying out loud. It's a simple observation. I like small better.

[Antiquehunter]

Are students / parents / 'the system' culpable for problems in our public education system? Sure. However - the role of the teacher is, in my opinion, the 'make or break' element in the educational system.

Some background to my comments: 1) I was educated in the public school system of Canada. I skipped one primary grade and then dropped out of my senior year, returning to complete my high school diploma one year later. During this completion year I was absent 124 days of the year and still graduated with honours (a testament to the lax approach in schools even in the late 80's) 2) I did not enter a University program until later in my adult life - late 20's - at which time I did a 2-year Executive MBA program at UVic in Canada.

I consider myself very fortunate to have had such a weird educational background and be successful in my adult life. I have a (ridiculously) well-paying job, which I enjoy. And, while I give myself credit both from a work ethic and from a capacity perspective, I give a HUGE amount of credit to specific teachers at my elementary, junior and senior high schools for giving me the skills to succeed in my field with NO university education for the first 10 years, and indeed, to take me to where I am today.

My experience shows that students with strong intellects and reasonable work ethics can and do have problems in school (as evinced by the fact I was a dropout). At the same time, teachers can be incredibly inspirational and compel students to levels of learning that can truly mould one's future.

Examples:

- My Comp / English teacher in grades 11/12 was absolutely superb. She demanded excellence from her students and either got it or ground them out into another program. She was a ruthless disciplinarian and a true workhorse, but I give her credit TO THIS DAY for the communication skills I use in my work and daily life, and for understanding that at some points in your work life you simply have to buckle down and deal with crappy projects you'd rather keep on procrastinating. She still teaches in my same high school in a run down suburb of Vancouver, and whenever I remember, I send her a card on the first day of school. She is a shining example of what a teacher can accomplish given tough funding budgets, huge class sizes, English as a second language students, disruptive / violent kids etc...

- My Physics / Chem teacher in grades 11/12 - Again, inspired a love of science in me that has inspired me to continue learning in my adult life - at least as a layman - about science. His teaching approach was exactly the opposite of my English/Comp teacher. His attitude was 'Come here to learn - otherwise go away and leave the real students alone.' I'm not sure if his approach would even be legal today - because he would start the year with 30 kids, have 5 drop his classes in the first 2 weeks and fail another 5. He also took it upon himself to provide enrichment (Advanced Placement) courses for those of us interested to learn more - as extracurricular activities. Another shining example of how a teacher can inspire.

- My Grade 12 Algebra teacher is an example of a complete failure. Unable to maintain any form of discipline, and unable to speak intelligibly (a ridiculously thick Cantonese accent), I dropped his course BOTH times I went through Grade 12. I feel to this day that I missed a tremendous opportunity in my youth to get a better understanding of higher math as a result of having a crappy teacher. I completed all my science classes without the support of grade 12 Algebra / precalc - and had I entered a University program immediately out of high school, would've been stuck taking extra units to complete the bachelor degree required mathematics.

In my opinion, the role of the teacher (and the ability of the system to support said teacher) is CRUCIAL to development. Will a student with excellent capacity and a solid work ethic fail to succeed with a terrible teacher? Quite often. Will a student with a terrible work ethic or weak capacity benefit from a stellar teacher? With the right teacher, turnarounds and success stories abound.

-AH.

[Hindmost]

Are students / parents / 'the system' culpable for problems in our public education system? Sure. However - the role of the teacher is, in my opinion, the 'make or break' element in the educational system....-AH.

Absolutely true...all you really need for a good class is a good teacher, a blackboard and a piece of chalk. If the teacher is good, then the class will be good.

glenn:)

[blutoski]

Kids do need to study, and teachers do need to teach. I don't know how much of a problem this is in the US, but I do know a teacher in the US, and her biggest complaint is she doesn't really get to teach, most of her job is pure discipline. The class is too large, the kids are too rowdy, there's not enough staff, and not enough teaching going on.

Exactly. The same teacher can have five classes in a day, ranging from well-managed to totally unproductive, depending on the student composition.

I don't teach in a school, but I do coach the 11-18 age category, and I find that there are seasons where probably 80% of my attention was directed to the same few swimmers. If you decide to just stop paying attention to them, things can get ugly (eg: one of my swimmers was injured, and a difficult swimmer took advantage of my distraction to pull an 80-year-old pool patron's bathing suit off)

On the days where these kids are no-shows, the workout actually resembles the lesson plan. From what I hear from my friends who teach highschool, this is a similar experience.

And the big problem with this is that it's a total crapshoot, because you may or may not get one of these kids in your class. Some schools have a flexible assistant who can be directed to classes in an ad-hoc manner, but it's hard to justify economically, since these kids also have very inconsistent attendance.

[jj]

Sheep. The U.S. has been training its citizens to become nice, fluffy sheep. Why would any political or educational leader encourage more learning? If our sheep learned math and science...why, that could lower church attendance, and our sheep can't survive without begging God to help them live!

Just take a look over in politics at the threads discussing how one should dress for interviews, etc.

You might even look to see how conforming is really 'adapting to the situation', rather than "doing instead of thinking".

[screw_dog]

One comp class and one lit class I teach are 20 students each. These classes have more under-achievers, but I'm seeing an obvious increase in work turned in, more work done with serious thought behind it, and higher attendance.

They can't "hide" from me, becasue I have plenty of time to get to each one of them several times in an hour and encourage, assist, guide, and teach. If they misbehave, it's much more obvious, and there are fewer students to egg the distractors on.

Smaller classes seem better to me, from my very limited experience.
Just for comparison purposes, I work with adult offenders in a prison. The standard for delivering a course is 10 offenders to 2 facilitators. I shudder to think of the behavioural problems we'd have if the ratio were any worse.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let's say the students aren't motivated. Let's list all the reasons why not. Don't some of those reasons pertain to the parents, teachers, administrators, school board, PTA, textbook writers, and publishers, too?

~~ Paul

[slingblade]

Let's say the students aren't motivated. Let's list all the reasons why not. Don't some of those reasons pertain to the parents, teachers, administrators, school board, PTA, textbook writers, and publishers, too?

~~ Paul

My answer is yes. Everyone involved in any complicated system is going to share some degree, higher or lesser, of culpability when that system breaks down.

What Americans tend to do resembles what my mom calls "being pecked to death by a duck."

[Wowbagger]

My answer is yes. Everyone involved in any complicated system is going to share some degree, higher or lesser, of culpability when that system breaks down.

What Americans tend to do resembles what my mom calls "being pecked to death by a duck."

Sounds like a much more concise version of what I said!:)

[bpesta22]

The problem is not recognizing the role of intelligence in determining who gets edumacated. Half the population isn't smart enough for college, but we have this egalitarian ideal that everyone's equal cognitively, and if only they had access to the education, we'd show em.

Doesn't work.

SAT scores have been dropping not because we're teaching any different, but because we accepting the lower part of the gene pool.

Any college profs here-- in non elite schools-- experience the bi-modal distribution of class grades, no matter what type of test you give them?

[Jorghnassen]

Ah yes. When I was a TA in calculus, I'd get this mixture of normals all the time. In fact, when I had to implement an EM algorithm for mixtures in a math stats assignment, I tested my code on the students grades first...

[bigred]

Let's say the students aren't motivated. Let's list all the reasons why not. Don't some of those reasons pertain to the parents, teachers, administrators, school board, PTA, textbook writers, and publishers, too?

~~ Paul
Of course. But I think that's stating the incredibly obvious......the point is that far too often the accountability/responsibility of the student to motivate themselves and work hard is ignored/denied/whatever.

[slingblade]

Sounds like a much more concise version of what I said!:)

Probably, so I shall agree to your "firsties."

Anyone with Doug Adams in his sig is someone I already adore.
:sehellobaby:

[Zbu]

The problem is not recognizing the role of intelligence in determining who gets edumacated. Half the population isn't smart enough for college, but we have this egalitarian ideal that everyone's equal cognitively, and if only they had access to the education, we'd show em.

Doesn't work.

SAT scores have been dropping not because we're teaching any different, but because we accepting the lower part of the gene pool.

Any college profs here-- in non elite schools-- experience the bi-modal distribution of class grades, no matter what type of test you give them?

I'd agree with you except it's not really matter of smarts as it's also a matter of what you really want to do. When you get to the college level of something, you must like what you're doing in order to get involved with it to such a great deal. I wasn't that good of a student in high school (B Average) but when I started on my college career and started doing something I enjoyed, my GPA went up. I currently stand at 3.8 and get good feedback from my professors. Some don't, but the reason is that I just happen to like the subjects I'm in to the point where I don't mind doing all this extra work and investigation into it. I get a kick out of it, and I attribute that to why I'm successful academically.

You also bring up a good point: while college is good for some, others it's just not right. I wouldn't attribute this to intelligence necessarily as they're bound to do well in other fields. What the country needs to learn is that if not college, then find a good solid vocation in which you can still make a good comfortable living. Sadly that is going by the wayside, but if we could reestablish that and take the stigma off of 'no college, you screwed' then maybe we could get some people who are disheartened and funnel them into other industries so they don't feel they have to go into low paying crap jobs.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Of course. But I think that's stating the incredibly obvious......the point is that far too often the accountability/responsibility of the student to motivate themselves and work hard is ignored/denied/whatever.
By whom? If people other than the student himself, then you've just made my point. Everyone shares the change in education ethic, whatever it may be. I'm not convinced it's a simple question of motivation, but I really don't know.

~~ Paul

[Wowbagger]

[QUOTE=slingblade;1512459]Probably, so I shall agree to your "firsties." [QUOTE]

Hopefully, you are referring to post numbers 11 and 13, which ran on about complex systems, and not so much post #2, about the sheep.

And, I quote Douglas Adams all the time, now. It's like a chore: Gotta keep his quality writing alive, to combat those who've only gotten the homeopathic doses of him from last year's Disney version.
(But there I go, derailing the thread again.)

[rockoon]

Heres what I think on the subject:

We as a community once upon a time (as in, I wasn't even born yet) came to the conclusion that we would be better off if the state mandated (as in TAX) and provided for education. Property owners MUST pay for the public education in this community BY LAW.

If this forced system is performing poorly, then a big injustice is taking place.

The injustice is not against the children, but instead against those who pay for it. Theres a good chance that its not THEIR child who is effected. They have no influence at all one way or the other on the outcome.

If you must feel pity.. pity the payers.
If you must admonish.. admonish the system.

[slingblade]

Heres what I think on the subject:

We as a community once upon a time (as in, I wasn't even born yet) came to the conclusion that we would be better off if the state mandated (as in TAX) and provided for education. Property owners MUST pay for the public education in this community BY LAW.

If this forced system is performing poorly, then a big injustice is taking place.

The injustice is not against the children, but instead against those who pay for it. Theres a good chance that its not THEIR child who is effected. They have no influence at all one way or the other on the outcome.

If you must feel pity.. pity the payers.
If you must admonish.. admonish the system.


Yeah, 'cause we all know there just aren't enough illiterates out there to pump gas and flip burgers. A poor educational system only hurts those who pay for it, not those who are supposed to learn within it, is that right?

People who don't have kids in the system, but who are members of the community, shouldn't have to pay for public education. Never mind that the community paid for their educations, back when they were kids. Never mind that today's kids are someday going to be the ones running the place after we've retired.

If you can't pay for your own kids' educations, let 'em stay ignorant, I say.
What could it possibly hurt? Don't work to change a system you see as injust, unfair, or inequitable. Don't come up with alternatives for paying the costs of education. It will never benefit you in any way, since you don't have any children, or since your children are grown, educated, and out of school now. You live in a vacuum, and today's children aren't going to someday be tomorrow's police, firefighters, medical personnel, or anything else from which you might benefit one day.

Is that what you meant?

[Complexity]

Don't have kids you can't afford.

[slingblade]

I didn't. How about you?

[Zbu]

Don't have kids you can't afford.

I'd like to expand on this: maybe the reason we have kids who just do not learn (and hence don't like to be taught) is because American society treasures having kids as soon as possible. I've love to see a survey on how many of these kids that are having problems and having issues with learning come from a home where the parents are not mature enough to have children, much less deal with them. Not to completely blame the parents (or make a bad call by saying all young parents are always bad parents), but where I grew up it wasn't uncommon for people to graduate high school, get married immediately, start having children all before hitting their mid-twenties. While this worked in the last few decades, the onset of globalization could have made this Americana mindset and practice obsolete since most well-paying jobs require higher education even if the school system is competant. This could affect the children greatly as if both their parents need to work to support themselves, they would not get the support from home that is needed for a healthy academic career.

[SirPhilip]

Yeah, I knew a girl, 16 who had a kid and wanted another - her and the teenage father weren't together anymore either. Talk about people who perpetuate their own suffering. I would have become indignant immediately, lecturing her about how she'd eventually try to get the goverment to support them with our tax money, but I knew it didn't matter at that point. I mean, it isn't that hard of an arithmetic problem to realize the cost of adaquetly providing for a decent life for a kid, not to mention the personal responsibility and attention required toward it's well-being. Lacking these two things, there's a good chance the emerging person won't be socialized, as it's core component - the parent-child relationshp, was nonexistant. A genuine disservice to humanity on an individual level to be sure...

[SirPhilip]

No, but it would be the kid’s fault for putting the book down because he/she doesn’t want to bother to learn Calculus because it seems too hard or too much work. You guys are totally missing the real motivational issues here. I knew kids like this, but they weren't affluent - they were middle-class and upper middle class. They are totally bored with their existence and the last thing they want to do is sustain a middle class existence. One of the most comical, or sad, whichever way you want to look at it, in the U.S and now in the U.K, is wiggerism or "chavism", in which white, suburban teenagers and young adults adopt the language, music, mannerisms, and values of underprivledged urban blacks. The other types were equally hapless, wearing other manufactured, store-bought identities and shooting for the same goal: money and attention.

When I went to high-school, I lived in a middle upper-class area, and the school was a zoo. Totally out of control. The teachers were helpless to do anything, and could care less (understandably), as these clowns had no interest whatsoever in anything except pretending they weren't utterly unremarkable white kids with utterly unremarkable lives, and being the biggest spoiled brat, er, "made man" on the block. So I transferred to a school smack dab in the ghetto in downtown Ft.Lauderdale, 95% of the school was black, had excellent funding, brand new, the teachers were all smiles and superb - and every person there realized it was a privledge. One strike, you are out of there, and almost every student there wanted to better themselves, many were immigrants, had a real hard life, spoke respectfully, and had a genuine interest in whatever opportunities the world gave them.

[rockoon]

Yeah, 'cause we all know there just aren't enough illiterates out there to pump gas and flip burgers. A poor educational system only hurts those who pay for it, not those who are supposed to learn within it, is that right?

People who don't have kids in the system, but who are members of the community, shouldn't have to pay for public education. Never mind that the community paid for their educations, back when they were kids. Never mind that today's kids are someday going to be the ones running the place after we've retired.

If you can't pay for your own kids' educations, let 'em stay ignorant, I say.
What could it possibly hurt? Don't work to change a system you see as injust, unfair, or inequitable. Don't come up with alternatives for paying the costs of education. It will never benefit you in any way, since you don't have any children, or since your children are grown, educated, and out of school now. You live in a vacuum, and today's children aren't going to someday be tomorrow's police, firefighters, medical personnel, or anything else from which you might benefit one day.

Is that what you meant?

After reading your long winded post, I will answer your question.

No.

[Complexity]

I didn't. How about you?
I don't have any kids.

I'm really tired of paying for other people's kids.

[Jorghnassen]

I don't have any kids.

I'm really tired of paying for other people's kids.

And I'm really tired of paying for you and everybody else...

/I must be Jesus

[Godmode]

I love to complain about taxes as much as the next person, but one thing I've never begrudged is my taxes going towards education. In fact, I would happily pay twice as much to educating other people's kids (I don't have any) if ONLY I were convinced that they were actually being educated. That applies to college and university as well. I don't think anyone should be denied education because of lack of funds...only lack of brains.

[JamesDillon]

I don't have any kids.

I'm really tired of paying for other people's kids.

That's why "commonwealth" is a better synonym for "state," Complexity. We collectively pool our resources to provide for programs that benefit society generally-- infrastructure, security, and, yes, education. As Slingblade eloquently points out above, each of us has an interest in the education of the next generation. Even if you want to take a purely Hobbesean, self-interested perspective, you will personally benefit from today's 10 year olds getting a decent education when those kids are the legislators and doctors who provide for you in later life, to say nothing of that fact that we all have an interest in developing the appreciation and perpetuation of human knowledge.

[Zbu]

Plus I would like to think that a world full of educated people is a better one to live in. While it would be far from perfect as human beings of any amount of learning can also be greedy and selfish and lead to a bad atmosphere, education would at least provide a better environment and possibly less crime. Plus it would get rid of this stupid tendency for the public to be conned then wonder dumbly how they were conned, not realizing that they didn't have the ability to really examine the issue.

[Antiquehunter]

As a Canadian (for tax purposes) and having no children (for reasons other than taxation) I have no qualms paying for socialized education - much like socialized medicine. If nothing else, these taxpayer-funded programs provide a baseline that can benefit all. If there are people who wish to get better education for their kids (or better medical care for themselves) they are (or should be) free to go out and spend their personal money on these servicese. However, at least there is a common group of services for all to share - which betters everyone's existence.

(And - I hate taxes as much as the next person.)

-AH.

[rockoon]

I have a problem with "blaming the student" when my tax dollars are in play...

..its a kid!!

It doesnt take a million dollar study to find out that children don't like school!!

It also doesnt take a million dollar study to find out that some parents simply are not going to be helping the situation regardless of what we "feel" they SHOULD or OUGHT to be doing.

The system should not be allowed to fail the tax payers - blaming children is just a scape-goat.

[Chaos]

I don't have any kids.

I'm really tired of paying for other people's kids.


Are you as tired of the prospect of other peopes´ kids paying for your retirement?

[CFLarsen]

I don't have any kids.

I'm really tired of paying for other people's kids.
You don't think that having an educated population is a good thing for a nation?

[ERGONER]

...why might students 'not' be motivated to 'perform', even in the majestic presence of their noble & selfless 'teachers' {???}:

".. Forcing restless teens of both sexes to sit like robots in regimented rows in crowded classrooms for the better part of each day is a pointless, sadistic exercise except for those with their sights on office jobs. This school system is not even 200 years old, yet most people treat it as if the burning bush floated it down from Mount Sinai. Too often, school has become a form of mental and physical oppression..
{-- Camille Paglia}

----------

..The main function of the public school is not education but social control. Using schools as institutions for social control makes them de facto criminal-psychiatric facilities, depriving children of liberty. Schools are prisons, to which children are sentenced by compulsory education and truancy laws.

{-- Dr. Thomas Szasz}

[Hindmost]

Paying taxes for schools is just the price of civilization.

glenn

[ERGONER]

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}

[SirPhilip]

You don't think that having an educated population is a good thing for a nation?The statement about "worth of education" is true. Public education is not only free, but a required thing - and not only this, few students consider it of any practical value. Square that with the fact that education is not an American ideal - rather wealth, and you have a series of subtle contradictions at play. I think we'd all agree that preparing children for life by first and foremost teaching them critical thinking skills, basic psychology, practical life skills and the option to persue an interest academically - much like in college, is far superior to the crapshoot of half-hearted, outdated method of teaching subjects we have now.

[SirPhilip]

The point is not that schools are blameless, but the immigrants go to the same bad schools with the same lousy teachers and the same "let's not tell them they do anything wrong because it will hurt their self-esteem" philosophy, yet they excel because, at home, they have parents who care about education and will sacrifice for it, and above all do not consider their children's self-esteem along the way (thank god). I disagree it has much to do with parents - rather their lot in life. Most immigrants are used to having little or nothing given to them, and nonexistant support in other countries. They don't grow up with a sense of entitlement. They see public education as a breath of fresh air - a gift. A priviledge. A way to advance without hard, uncertain struggle and fate.

[Piggy]

Disclaimer: I don't have kids. (However, I don't mind paying taxes to support public education, b/c I benefit from it -- I just wish I didn't have to fight so hard to keep superstition out of the classroom.)

Blaming the student is a tricky proposition b/c it's we adults who tell them what to expect. Holding students responsible, however, is a policy we need to implement much sooner than we do in many school systems.

When I taught college freshmen, it took me about a year to learn that I needed to be very explicit in the first week of the course that I graded on results, not effort.

This idea was foreign to many of them, and some never fully understood it. Most had been raised in a K-12 ed system which recognized, at least to some extent, "efforts based" grading, which I did not.

Most of them expected that an A or B would be forthcoming if they "did their best".

This was never the case in my primary and secondary education, and my undergraduate college was a notorious "C" school, even during the Viet Nam war. My scholarship required a 3.5 GPA or I was out on my butt and my family couldn't afford tuition period. So that's where I was coming from.

Making them understand that an average student would receive a "C" in my course was incredibly difficult.

After the first year, I made a point of stating in the course introduction that I was not responsible for maintaining their scholarships.

The challenges facing my poorest students were jaw-dropping. I had more than one student who did not know to add -ed to a verb to make it past tense. How do these kids graduate from high school and get admitted to the state's "flagship university" with those English skills? That's a question I still can't answer.

The best student I ever had was from Brazil. He had learned more formal English grammar, syntax, and style than any American kid I taught.

Effort-based standards are harming our kids. It's time for change. And if what I'm hearing from my friends who are still in the K-12 trenches is any indication, the NCLB requirements aren't helping.

FWIW

[Complexity]

People shouldn't have children that they can't afford. 'Afford' here includes paying for food, shelter, health care, education, clothing, care, etc.

This means that many people shouldn't reproduce.

Choosing to have a child when you can't afford it threatens the child and is a dare to others - "if you don't pick up the slack, this kid will suffer". That heartless extortion infuriates me.

I have no children and, at 49, I'm quite unlikely to have any. I deeply wish that my life had included adopting some children, but it did not.

If you wish to contribute to the educational expenses of children, teens, or adults, by all means do so, but don't use the govenment as a means to force the money from others.

I would love to be surrounded by educated people. I wish I were. Instead, I'm surrounded mostly by idiots who have sleepwalked through a public education, often including a college education that was little more than remedial high school.

I taught my heart out for eight years at the university level. I left when I couldn't bear it anymore.

As to my retirement: I don't expect to live long enough to receive any social security money. The government won't allow me to marry, so I can't pass any of that money on to my partner. Every single cent that has been withheld from my paychecks for social security will be lost to me.

True education has little to do with schooling.

I wish that people understood education enough to value it and to pursue it at all costs.