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.
It's like I say, everyone's considered an expert about teaching except the ones who actually do it.
-There are different methods of teaching elsewhere in the world.
I haven't followed the data exactly, but you can take a primarily white state like minnesota or vermont and put those kids up against finland, western europe, scandinavia, singapore. How do our primarily white, homogeneous states stack up against other homogenous societies or countries?
We've been using the excuse, "they're different from us" for a long time.
-The textbooks and political correctness in american classrooms is horrendous. I.e. everyday math or X reading program. It'd be interesting to see how often we've changed our math or reading programs over the last 30-40 years, vs other countries.
It's generalizing, but I think they focus on the basics more in many other countries vs us.
We're clearly in a crisis in this country. I.e. the number of remedial classes needed in college.
-Technology (among other things) should be part of the core of education. Not just a periphery device.
For example, under the current system, I don't think students (or many adults) understand how powerful computers have gotten in the past 30-40 years, or the implications of that. The cost to store information has gone to nothing. That has huge implications for many parts of society.
We shouldn't just be looking at technology as a "thing" (a calculator or laptop).
I went to highschool in the 90's, my brother went in the 00's (in a large urban school in los angeles, 2,000-2,300 students). The system seems extraordinarily outdated vs whats available now. Here in California, they have trouble tracking who graduates.
The system doesn't like to bend or create any kind of change (i.e. we still have 25-35 students in a classroom, desks lined up in rows, agrarian calendar!!!). Completely outdated. As outdated as a Ford Model T.
A big problem is the teachers. Because of powerful teachers unions and tenure, they are basically guaranteed jobs for life. This makes it very easy for them to get lazy and sloppy and it only hurts their students.
HS teachers do not need tenure. Many University professors do not either. The point of it was to protect those in teaching positions from being fired over controversial teaching. There is nothing in High School that a teacher should be teaching that is THAT controversial.
A big problem is the teachers. Because of powerful teachers unions and tenure, they are basically guaranteed jobs for life. This makes it very easy for them to get lazy and sloppy and it only hurts their students.
HS teachers do not need tenure. Many University professors do not either. The point of it was to protect those in teaching positions from being fired over controversial teaching. There is nothing in High School that a teacher should be teaching that is THAT controversial.
No, the reason for tenure had to do with both academic freedom on the college level and freedom from being fired for stupid reasons for high school teachers. In many cases, if you were not working for the proper political party, you would be fired. If you were gay, you could be fired. If you were espousing unpopular views outside of your job you could be fired.
Tenure does NOT mean that teachers cannot be fired for cause. It means that the cause must be documented and a fair hearing given. Many administrators are too lazy to document, but if they really want a teacher gone, they certainly can do it. In fact, of course, they can make life hell for a teacher they dislike and try to get that teacher to quit.
-There are different methods of teaching elsewhere in the world.
I haven't followed the data exactly, but you can take a primarily white state like minnesota or vermont and put those kids up against finland, western europe, scandinavia, singapore. How do our primarily white, homogeneous states stack up against other homogenous societies or countries?
We've been using the excuse, "they're different from us" for a long time.
-The textbooks and political correctness in american classrooms is horrendous. I.e. everyday math or X reading program. It'd be interesting to see how often we've changed our math or reading programs over the last 30-40 years, vs other countries.
It's generalizing, but I think they focus on the basics more in many other countries vs us.
We're clearly in a crisis in this country. I.e. the number of remedial classes needed in college.
-Technology (among other things) should be part of the core of education. Not just a periphery device.
For example, under the current system, I don't think students (or many adults) understand how powerful computers have gotten in the past 30-40 years, or the implications of that. The cost to store information has gone to nothing. That has huge implications for many parts of society.
We shouldn't just be looking at technology as a "thing" (a calculator or laptop).
I went to highschool in the 90's, my brother went in the 00's (in a large urban school in los angeles, 2,000-2,300 students). The system seems extraordinarily outdated vs whats available now. Here in California, they have trouble tracking who graduates.
The system doesn't like to bend or create any kind of change (i.e. we still have 25-35 students in a classroom, desks lined up in rows, agrarian calendar!!!). Completely outdated. As outdated as a Ford Model T.
-The lack of collaboration seems tragic.
So what exactly would you do with technology? Computers and the internet have not revolutionized education. There is obviously tremendous potential but in the vast majority of cases, it has become a distraction in the classroom. Place a computer in the typical student's hands and they are googling monster trucks, motorcycles, tattoos, hairstyles, guns or clothes. When they get tired of that, they play games, watch videos or go to Hollywood tabloid sites. We've given students computers instead of books and their reading ability has declined. We gave students calculators and many can no longer do basic arithmetic. We gave students online access to the Web so they can cut and past, and their writing level has declined.
So what exactly are students going to do with more powerful computers that they haven't been doing already. The only thing I can think of is play more sophisticated video games.
So what exactly would you do with technology? Computers and the internet have not revolutionized education. There is obviously tremendous potential but in the vast majority of cases, it has become a distraction in the classroom. Place a computer in the typical student's hands and they are googling monster trucks, motorcycles, tattoos, hairstyles, guns or clothes. When they get tired of that, they play games, watch videos or go to Hollywood tabloid sites. We've given students computers instead of books and their reading ability has declined. We gave students calculators and many can no longer do basic arithmetic. We gave students online access to the Web so they can cut and past, and their writing level has declined.
So what exactly are students going to do with more powerful computers that they haven't been doing already. The only thing I can think of is play more sophisticated video games.
I wouldn't throw more devices at them, I would look at the implications.
-For example, this current controversy over privacy online, big data, etc. It has to do partly with how cheap technology has gotten, to store information. Why aren't there classes about how technology is shaping or changing our lives? What about the history of technology and how it's changed our lives.
When you graduate, you should know the trends. Technology now should be 1/4 of the curriculum. There are a lot of possible topics. Robotics? Artificial intelligence? Cyber security?
Is wood shop and metal shop still taught in middle school or highschool? That's an example of being extremely outdated and being very superficial. I.e., "let's give kids a well rounded education and teach them wood shop". I think that was the rational at one point.
Why aren't electives like that more forward looking? Our kids can't read because we're stuck in the 50's.
-Also, the lack of emphasis on "soft skills" is glaring. I.e. public speaking skills or different types of intelligence.
I wouldn't throw more devices at them, I would look at the implications.
-For example, this current controversy over privacy online, big data, etc. It has to do partly with how cheap technology has gotten, to store information. Why aren't there classes about how technology is shaping or changing our lives? What about the history of technology and how it's changed our lives.
When you graduate, you should know the trends. Technology now should be 1/4 of the curriculum. There are a lot of possible topics. Robotics? Artificial intelligence? Cyber security?
Is wood shop and metal shop still taught in middle school or highschool? That's an example of being extremely outdated and being very superficial. I.e., "let's give kids a well rounded education and teach them wood shop". I think that was the rational at one point.
Why aren't electives like that more forward looking? Our kids can't read because we're stuck in the 50's.
-Also, the lack of emphasis on "soft skills" is glaring. I.e. public speaking skills or different types of intelligence.
I don't think kids have a need to understand the trends. Some have been living with technology since pre-school.
You asked about wood and metal shop in middle or high school. I sub for a middle school technology class. They work on thing like robotics, electronics, digital photography, desktop publishing, and silk screen printing. They will be working with a 3D printer next year. They have a semester of wood shop and a semester of technology for 6th, 7th and 8th grade. Most will not be taking shop classes in high school but there are numerous options available in addition to vo-teach classes.
Artificial intelligence and cyber security are beyond the technical levels of most high school students. You need to have a background in programming languages before you dive into artificial intelligence. Cyber security requires a background in networking technology where you would start learning about routers, firewalls and servers. Most vo-techs and community colleges have programs for certification in networking technologies. Students in most high schools who are planning to go to college might have room for 2-3 of the computer technology classes such as Web Design or a programming class in Visual Basic or Java.
Tenure does NOT mean that teachers cannot be fired for cause. It means that the cause must be documented and a fair hearing given. Many administrators are too lazy to document, but if they really want a teacher gone, they certainly can do it. In fact, of course, they can make life hell for a teacher they dislike and try to get that teacher to quit.
Do you know how hard it is to actually remove a teacher? It's next to impossible. And when it is done, they get a big fat severance package and lots of goodies.
Technology is not a temporary novelty. It's here to stay and eventually grow. It should be interwoven into the fibers of a class, not used like a shiny piece of metal for a raccoon.
Do you know how hard it is to actually remove a teacher? It's next to impossible. And when it is done, they get a big fat severance package and lots of goodies.
I agree that the process of removing a teacher with tenure should be more streamlined. And this is coming from a teacher with 2 decades of teaching under his belt. There are teachers that should be removed and the administration should have an easier time of doing it, but not too easy as that would be as abused as the current situation. The only thing tenure does for the average teacher is prevent us from being dismissed without good, justifiable reason.
But as for your assertion that they get severance packages, well that's just so much bovine excrement. I have done this job for a long time and I've never heard or read of such a thing. This isn't a business company of a Fortune 500 CEO being given a golden parachute. These are teachers being fired for cause, not something they negotiated with the Board beforehand.
Technology is not a temporary novelty. It's here to stay and eventually grow. It should be interwoven into the fibers of a class, not used like a shiny piece of metal for a raccoon.
Yes, technology is mostly under utilized, but having actually been in the classroom using such materials, it is much harder to keep the students on task than those who've never done this job could understand. In theory, is sounds great. In practice, it's much harder. It is working in many places but usually these systems have started earlier with their students (so they basically grow up alongside it and get used to the practice of staying on-task), have the resources - ie money - to spend on the appropriate amounts and types, and all the ancillary material to support it, and have the community that backs it. Not every system has such luxuries. .
Unless you are currently involved in schools, it's unlikely that the average person actually knows what's going on NOW. The HS that my oldest child graduated from ten years ago is very different curriculum and technology-wise than it was back then. Classes routinely use laptops, power points, white boards, etc and our district has put aside time and money for teacher training. They all learn programming to some degree. Sitting in neat little rows is no longer the norm. They work with robots. Kids do seem to be more involved and interested. Whether these new graduates do better in the real world is something that won't be known for years.
I could care less how kids score, or how they compare with students in other countries. I just want our students to know how to think and learn.
See, I would totally disagree here. What you're really describing isn't a child who is happy not having homework, but rather a child who has had the motivation leached out of him. He's cutting corners to get the busywork off his list.
What's more, I think the notion that a child who learns more quickly does not learn better is kind of ridiculous. A child who becomes a more skilled reader faster simply becomes a better reader, for he or she continue to master a richer vocabulary and deepen his comprehension with more challenging stuff at a faster rate. A child who manages to have greater mastery of history ultimately has the time and motivation for a deeper exploration of the subject matter. A child who masters a mathematical concept faster than the rest of the class can move onward, building on what he's already learned. The problems you describe have far more to do with the limits of educational theory than anything.
Further, your statement that I don't know kids is just stupefyingly arrogant. I have three rather bright teenagers, thanks. And I am around a lot of other bright kids. It's amazing to me how they manage to explore their interests and move forward in a particular arena given half a chance.
In fact, in that one statement, you have managed to capture the essence of what's wrong with pedagogy today. You have indicted yourself without realizing it. I'm not sure where this attitude comes from, either. I understand that teaching is an idealistic profession. I realize that teachers love to steep themselves in noble, self-congratulatory language. But at some point, when does the teaching profession finally stop in its tracks and say to itself, "You know, our old approaches are not working. Maybe it's not students and parents. Maybe it really is us"?
Just to underscore that point, let's return to the horrid fact that only 25% and 40% of our children graduate high school with minimal mathematical and reading proficiency, despite the massive investment we've made in schools. We've doubled the amount of spending per child adjusted for inflation to the point that we spend a higher proportion of the GDP than any other industrialized nation. We've slashed classroom size by roughly a third since 1970. During that same time, the number of classroom educators has increased around 65% while public school enrollment has only increased 8%.
In short, we've done everything the educators have asked of us in terms of funding and staffing only to come up with a big, fat zero in terms of improvement. Yet somehow the education profession feels that they are the experts on the subject on children. This is a lie of course, proved by the shoddy product our educators continue to churn out with every graduation ceremony. If educators actually understood kids at all, you'd be loosing a lot of amazing and motivated minds out into the world at the end of every school year. But you don't so you're not.
Let's use a different analogy. If only 25% of all airline flights made it to their destination reasonably on time, it would be a national scandal. If only 25% of Fed Ex's packages were delivered when they were supposed to, that company would be out of business. The same is true of a restaurant where only 25% of the meals were satisfactory to its diners. Yet you blithely prattle on about my not knowing children when it's pretty obvious to everyone but the entrenched educational bureaucracy that they don't understand children at all: What motivates them and what interests them.
In fact, the only thing educators manage to do well in this country is crush the beautiful, curious souls of five- and six-year-olds and transform them into dispirited and cynical burnouts by the time they hit thirteen. Education in this country is pretty good at that. And a big part of the reason? The mindless one-size-fits-all approach that depends on endless drills. I realize that this is something that is a challenge to the educational orthodoxy that reigns supreme this country. But we've done it your way while flinging vast amounts of money at the problem. I think it's about damned time educators were called upon to justify our investment.
As a teacher, I agree with you on pretty much everything, except for one thing.
Don't be so quick to blame the educators. It is not the teachers, it is "the system." Teacher education is extremely broken and political, education policy is broken and political. Yes, many teachers perpetuate the broken system, but it is usually out of ignorance and/or job demands from a higher authority. I'm not excusing this completely -- but you can't blame teachers as much as the people who train them, and the people who give them their orders.
Teachers are often the last redeeming grace of our schools. If teachers didn't care about what's best for the kids, they wouldn't have gone into the profession. The problem is that many teachers, not through much fault of their own, either: 1) don't know what's best and are just teaching how they were taught to teach, and/or 2) they are so pressured to follow mandates, that they CAN'T do what's best without fear of losing their job.
Believe me, I (and many others) HAVE been screaming from the rooftops trying to change things.
People don't listen very easily, especially when they are grounded in hundreds of years of tradition. It takes time.
Last edited by chiMT; 06-03-2014 at 01:41 PM..
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.
