Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a sad, sad post. If ANYTHING, it's the right that operates in a much more fact free zone, especially when it comes to areas of science and history. Which side favors Christian religious teaching over science in public schools? Which side minimizes minority suffering in history in favor of an "America does no wrong" slant?
The biggest danger I see coming from the right when it comes to education is that all opinions, regardless of fact, are equal. There is this strange movement against intellectuals in favor of the uneducated common idiot. Somehow they want us to believe that we should value an idiot's opinion as much as the expert who has dedicated her life to a subject.
I am completely dismayed by those on the right who view science as a belief system rather than the rigorous study of fact. Global warming is a hoax; God will save the planet for us; God will NOT save the planet since this is the end of times and global warming is no more than a manifestation of this. Why do schools no longer teach science?????????? Everything we have that allows us to live such lives of comfort; cures for diseases that used to kill people by the thousands - even millions; the green revolution that allows for an incredible increase in crop productivity; space exploration; the Internet; etc., ect., ect., to the Nth degree all came about from the study of science and technology. If global warming is a hoax, then so is the Internet.
I went to elementary school in Colorado Springs, and I remember that we were taught the basics of the scientific method in 5th or 6th grade. I learned to understand it as did the majority of my classmates. The Evangelicals should never ever have been allowed to impose their views on the rest of society the way that they have. They are in the minority and they are wrong.
My coworkers and I discussed this issue at lunch. I feel that part of the blame falls in line with the teacher education programs at the collegiate level. Most teachers will tell you that an extraordinarily high percentage of what you learn of "how to be a teacher" happens in the first year. Sixteen years ago I graduated college after doing student teaching for a semester, taking five or six classes (one was a technology class for which I learned what a "mouse" was). Many of the student teachers now must take an entire year doing student teaching, and the classes have multiplied.
So as mentioned: you take a ton of classes that really mean nothing (how many lesson plan templates must you go through? Is it realistic to expect an everyday teacher to spend two hours for a day's worth of lesson plans, as expected by teacher preparation programs?), the expectation is sky-high for what you must produce (refer to previous comment about lesson plans) and then you get paid next-to-nothing compared to other professional jobs. I think the writing is on the wall, that if we want our teachers to be professionals, the pay must be commensurate to the expected production.
It's okay, though, computers are already making the profession obsolete. Instead of looking for skilled and knowledgeable teachers, just find some babysitters while the students peruse their latest lesson on the computer.
My coworkers and I discussed this issue at lunch. I feel that part of the blame falls in line with the teacher education programs at the collegiate level. Most teachers will tell you that an extraordinarily high percentage of what you learn of "how to be a teacher" happens in the first year. Sixteen years ago I graduated college after doing student teaching for a semester, taking five or six classes (one was a technology class for which I learned what a "mouse" was). Many of the student teachers now must take an entire year doing student teaching, and the classes have multiplied.
So as mentioned: you take a ton of classes that really mean nothing (how many lesson plan templates must you go through? Is it realistic to expect an everyday teacher to spend two hours for a day's worth of lesson plans, as expected by teacher preparation programs?), the expectation is sky-high for what you must produce (refer to previous comment about lesson plans) and then you get paid next-to-nothing compared to other professional jobs. I think the writing is on the wall, that if we want our teachers to be professionals, the pay must be commensurate to the expected production.
It's okay, though, computers are already making the profession obsolete. Instead of looking for skilled and knowledgeable teachers, just find some babysitters while the students peruse their latest lesson on the computer.
I don't know where you went to college, but where in Colorado, there are no more "education" degrees. I graduated in 1992, and I was expected to complete a full academic major (in my case, it was History, and the history majors were not allowed to take the same general education history classes, ours were more vigorous), an academic minor (English for me) as well as all of the education classes (methods, ed. psych., etc.), and then we had to student teach for a semester. I graduated with 144 credits, (including the 12 credits I received for student teaching).
The masters programs can be a joke, but only if you want to be an administrator. I have several colleagues who have masters degrees in history, geography, economics, English literature, mathematics, etc. My masters is in Information and Learning Technologies, but I have a couple dozen credits in geography and history. I have also done freelance writing in my field as well as worked for national organizations in my field, but none of the writing or the other work gets me any pay raises -- only college credits do. That's why many educators finally give up and get easy college credits through educational consultants. If it were the other way around (only work/credits in content areas count for advancement) then you would see a lot more serious work done by educators.
As for production, teachers are looking for growth; the public is looking for ALL students to achieve at HIGH levels. That is not possible. We want students to know more coming out than they did going in. How much more depends on the ability of the student and the amount of time available.
-education programs: typically, from what I've seen, it's an addition (unless you are elementary ed or middle school ed, then it is a degree in Elementary Education) to your academic major, so I agree with you; don't see where I may have implied otherwise (I specified education programs).
When I say produce, I'm not speaking about my French students being able to speak or write in French; of course we want our students to produce. That is why we go into education. I am speaking specifically to the amount of material the new education programs (the additional classes required by some colleges; I can only speak to UCCS and Colorado College) require the students to do while working towards their degree/certification. Student teachers needing to write up pages for a lesson plan that takes hours to complete. That's unnecessary and burns out future teachers; if you know your pay isn't going to reflect the amount of work you put into the degree/certification/program, why continue? Go do something else.
I think people need to face the dirty truth that functioning societies have people of all intelligences and ability levels. Each job is valuable in its own way; we have created a society that has scorn for the non-college educated, and a society that does not have jobs for them. The student destined to be a car mechanic is just as valuable as the student becoming an engineer. We need both jobs; why elevate one job at the expense of another?
I also think that the new crop of college graduates have come during the high-stakes testing that has shaped education over the past few years, and those graduates do not want any part of that.
So what you're saying is someone who leans to the left (like I do) cannot objectively present history and geography without a leftist indoctrination?
....
- I teach kids how to think and analyze, not regurgitate and forget. If their conclusions differ from yours, maybe you should look at things from their perspective. You might learn a thing or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77
There is this strange movement against intellectuals in favor of the uneducated common idiot. Somehow they want us to believe that we should value an idiot's opinion as much as the expert who has dedicated her life to a subject.
no, I am not saying that.
I am saying that in personal time interactions, that is the norm....
I am hopeful that their recent training in the education industry norms and professional standards will
help to adjust their "presence" in a discussion...
I am saying that what some would consider to be "settled science" is thought by some others in the scientific community as a working theory worthy of continued scrutiny... this is not happening in all instances -- take for instance the scenario surrounding CU's own Roger Pielke Jr.
discussions can be had without the snarky comments and other attempts at 'dressing down' one you disagree with, is what I was saying...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77
The biggest danger I see coming from the **** when it comes to **** is that all opinions, regardless of fact, are equal. ...
Somehow the **** want us to believe that we should value an idiot's opinion as much as the expert who has dedicated her life to a subject.
I can think of a few modern examples where the illustration seems to go the other way, so suffice it to say
that "zealots on either side of the aisle" seem to want absolute confirmation that their worldview is the correct perspective to maintain...
...As for production, ...; the public is looking for ALL students to achieve at HIGH levels. ..
Up around Lake Woebegone ... all the kids are above average....must be great teachers or else it's sumptin in the water up there, eh.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
- I teach kids how to think and analyze, not regurgitate and forget. If their conclusions differ from yours, maybe you should look at things from their perspective. You might learn a thing or two.
Critical thinking used to be a significant benchmark in an education - I am super glad to hear this...
I think people need to face the dirty truth that functioning societies have people of all intelligences and ability levels. Each job is valuable in its own way; we have created a society that has scorn for the non-college educated, and a society that does not have jobs for them. The student destined to be a car mechanic is just as valuable as the student becoming an engineer. We need both jobs; why elevate one job at the expense of another?
I tend to agree with this notion in part -- but I disagree that the society at large does not have jobs for folks in the specialized trades...
I personally know quite a few people: running heavy machinery, doing precision machining/fabrication, welding, mechanics, etc. that are doing very well for themselves and their families...
*edit*
As a side note - many of these folks I know make more than the educators, attorneys, finance folks I hang out with...
so, depending on how an individual comes into the practice of their trade - they could actually do better than their college or university educated counterparts...
I am saying that in personal time interactions, that is the norm....
I am hopeful that their recent training in the education industry norms and professional standards will
help to adjust their "presence" in a discussion...
I am saying that what some would consider to be "settled science" is thought by some others in the scientific community as a working theory worthy of continued scrutiny... this is not happening in all instances -- take for instance the scenario surrounding CU's own Roger Pielke Jr.
discussions can be had without the snarky comments and other attempts at 'dressing down' one you disagree with, is what I was saying...
BZZZZZZT! Fail!
First of all, Wikileaks can no longer be considered a reputable source of information since it has been discovered that it allowed Russian hackers to dump a bunch of mis-information into its database that may have impacted the recent election in the US. I wash my hands of Wikileaks.
According to Wikipedia which I have a little more trust in:
Quote:
Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), an M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science.
Do you notice the words "climatology" or "atmospheric sciences" anywhere above? Pielke wouldn't know what a Keeling curve is if one hit him in the face. If you don't know what one is either without having to Google the term, with all due respect, I suggest you bone up on the basics of climatology and global warming before you continue in the discussion. I suggest "Storms of my Grandchildren," by the highly respected climate scientist, James Hansen, former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The book is highly readable and does not require any advanced degrees in the sciences to understand.
The same article from Wikipedia states:
Quote:
His interests include understanding the politicization of science; decision making under uncertainty; policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade; and professional sports.
Well he certainly appears to be doing his best to politicize the study of a science that he has no background in. I'll hand him that. But he gives himself away with the "decision making under uncertainty" part. There is no uncertainty that global warming is going on and has been going on for quite some time. The uncertainty is whether we are going to do anything about it before it's too late. I am extremely pessimistic about this. As of October 2016 atmospheric CO2 had reached 401.57 parts per million. The last time the earth's atmosphere had that much CO2 was 4 million years ago. We have elected a president who believes global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese. Right. I have (had) a friend out here who has been the foreman for 30 years of the hay and alfalfa farm I now reside upon. He has seen all the changes in Colorado's environment that I have - more, because he spends his every single day in the outdoors, studying the natural world around him. When I mentioned global warming merely in passing, this man blew up. He claimed that climate scientists have all been paid off to lie by special interest groups. I suspect that the changes he has observed form a background clutter of anxiety for him that is even worse than mine. His livihood is vanishing and he can't handle it - what a terrible situation to be in. So, unconsciously he suppresses his own understanding because the things it implies are just too terrible to contemplate.
I understand your desire for civilized discourse. I prefer that myself. However, we are in a horrific crisis that could well end in the literal death of every living being on this planet. Do I speak out about it? You bet I do! Do I sometimes use strong language? Absolutely - the stronger the better. Wake up people! Most folks appear to me to have elected to join the bunch of lemmings runing over the cliff. Why not step away for a moment and honestly seek to understand what is really happening? You can always go back to jump off that cliff later. It will be waiting for you, I guarantee it.
Yours,
Rambler
BS Environmental Biology - University of Colorado (Boulder)
MS Climatology - University of Colorado (Boulder)
MA Information Science - University of Denver
I am saying that in personal time interactions, that is the norm....
I am hopeful that their recent training in the education industry norms and professional standards will
help to adjust their "presence" in a discussion...
I am saying that what some would consider to be "settled science" is thought by some others in the scientific community as a working theory worthy of continued scrutiny... this is not happening in all instances -- take for instance the scenario surrounding CU's own Roger Pielke Jr.
discussions can be had without the snarky comments and other attempts at 'dressing down' one you disagree with, is what I was saying...
I can think of a few modern examples where the illustration seems to go the other way, so suffice it to say
that "zealots on either side of the aisle" seem to want absolute confirmation that their worldview is the correct perspective to maintain...
Regarding Pielke, I can't think of another topic where there is a 99% consensus from the expert community and because of a political agenda, there is so much discredit thrown at that consensus. There is always opposition. There are people who still claim that the world is flat and that man didn't land on the moon. It doesn't mean that we give their opinions credence in the classroom.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
