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.
I am thoroughly convinced that we are at a tipping point in education. I believe that the end result will reject the Race to the Top objectives as well as many of the initiatives being pushed by people like Bill Gates.
The fact of the matter is that many students, even those that have traditionally done well, are not buying the line that the extensive testing/assessment routine is valuable in the real world. The students are awakening to the fact that little of what they are being presented with in the classroom represents value in the 21st-Century world that they live in.
Some of the skill sets that many of the students have that are not measured in the classroom, such as the use of technology, are far superior to that of their teachers.
There are many deficiencies that have value and are being overlooked, such as foundational mathematical skills, solid reading comprehension and writing ability. These are areas that should be the primary focus of learning in elementary school. With a solid foundation the expansion of a student's talents in other areas would be much more possible at the middle and high school levels. Unfortunately by middle school many students that have not mastered their foundational skills have become detached, apathetic, angry, or explosive and adversely affect their own learning and that of others.
The value of Robinson's talk is to encourage discussion and exploration of true solutions. IMO, education today is run by a field of "experts" making big money off of shoty research used to push their own agenda. They currently have sold both conservatives and liberals on their goals for seemingly plausible reasons. In the process it has been easy and convenient to scapegoat teachers as a way to come up with a simple solution for a complex problem. There is little chance of any true change from the top as BOEs and Superintendents will not hire anyone to position of leadership who does not demonstrate commitment to the principles of contemporary "experts" as to do so would jeopardize the ability of having their programs funded. The funding of programs requires buying in to the current education philosophy as defined by educational experts and leadership at the federal and local departments of education.
Diane Ravitch's book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, does a very good job revealing many of these hypocrisies.
Last edited by Lincolnian; 12-04-2010 at 05:40 AM..
I am thoroughly convinced that we are at a tipping point in education. I believe that the end result will reject the Race to the Top objectives as well as many of the initiatives being pushed by people like Bill Gates.
The fact of the matter is that many students, even those that have traditionally done well, are not buying the line that the extensive testing/assessment routine is valuable in the real world. The students are awakening to the fact that little of what they are being presented with in the classroom represents value in the 21st-Century world that they live in.
Some of the skill sets that many of the students have that are not measured in the classroom, such as the use of technology, are far superior to that of their teachers.
There are many deficiencies that have value and are being overlooked, such as foundational mathematical skills, solid reading comprehension and writing ability. These are areas that should be the primary focus of learning in elementary school. With a solid foundation the expansion of a student's talents in other areas would be much more possible at the middle and high school levels. Unfortunately by middle school many students that have not mastered their foundational skills have become detached, apathetic, angry, or explosive and adversely affect their own learning and that of others.
The value of Robinson's talk is to encourage discussion and exploration of true solutions. IMO, education today is run by a field of "experts" making big money off of shoty research used to push their own agenda. They currently have sold both conservatives and liberals on their goals for seemingly plausible reasons. In the process it has been easy and convenient to scapegoat teachers as a way to come up with a simple solution for a complex problem. There is little chance of any true change from the top as BOEs and Superintendents will not hire anyone to position of leadership who does not demonstrate commitment to the principles of contemporary "experts" as to do so would jeopardize the ability of having their programs funded. The funding of programs requires buying in to the current education philosophy as defined by educational experts and leadership at the federal and local departments of education.
Diane Ravitch's book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, does a very good job revealing many of these hypocrisies.
Well, if future jobs are going to involve texting, tweeting, facebooking and Googling, my kids are all set. Oh, and add gaming...They're good at that too. Also using technology to cheat. They can take a picture of a test and send it to a friend.
If you were talking about programming and being able to use technology to do solid research (for most of my students, "research" = "Google" and "research paper" = cut and paste from sites found in Google or Wiki.) I might agree with you but what I see is technology being used as a distraction and a toy. As long as this is how they use it, they will not amount to as much as the generation that designed the technology they now use. It will become a handicap not something to propel them into the future. They will simply be, users of technology someone else designs. (One thing I hate about the technological revolution is that I can no longer recode software to do what I want. All I can do is make my request known to the programmers and hope mine is one they listen to. I miss the days when I could hop out to DOS and just write the code for what I needed.)
I gave my kids a background research assignment for a lab and actually had kids ask "Can we just cut and paste?". Um, NO!!! Read it, if you don't understand it, research it some more, if you do understand it, explain it to me!!! Seriously, I'm not sure being able to use technology is such a great thing. They can use all the bells and whistles on their phones but can they design the next generation of phones? They can play video games with real life graphics but can they write one? The jobs of the future aren't going to be about USING technology. They're going to be about making technology better. I can train a monkey to USE most of the technology we have available today. I really don't think my limititations WRT use of the features on my phone make my students superior to me at all. Because I didn't have Google and Wiki....I know how to assess good information when I read it...I know how to research when I don't understand....I know how to study and learn...they know how to text each other the answers... Their, superior knowledge of technology won't get them far because the future doesn't lie in the ability to use your phone. It lies in the ability to understand how your phone works so you can design the next phone and, right now, kids in Japan and China are training to do that and they aren't doing it by texting and tweeting....
As a teacher, I should be expecting my students to USE technology but I should also be expecting them to treat it as a tool not the be all end all. The human brain is what has to decide which source is trustworthy when two say something different. That is once we get past the problem of them thinking the first thing that pops up in Google HAS TO BE RIGHT.
I always have to laugh at the claims that the ability to use any technolgy is somehow superior. Are we superior to those who lived 100 years ago because most of us can drive a car? Use a phone? Use a microwave? Turn on a TV? Turn on a light? Turn on a faucet and have water come out? It's not the people who use technology who are superior. It's the ones who change technology and you don't learn that by being able to use it. You learn that by delving into its history, learning the nuts and bolts of the science and math behind the technology. Technology is just a toy and a distraction until you get to the point you can alter it.
I agree we're at a tipping point in education. We always are!!! Seems we're always poised to abanodon the last new great thing that came along that didn't work for the next greatest thing to come along that won't work either. In the meantime, I'm going to do my best to teach my students to think. Their phones and computers can't do that for them. They are going out into a world of information overload and they have to be able to sort through that information to find what they need. That takes a brain.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-04-2010 at 06:24 AM..
I disagree. The other kids who attend school with my childre have just as much education offered to them. It is their home lives and ability that determine whether or not they take it. It's there for the taking and anyone can take it. What the system doesn't do is attempt to even the playing field.
Bold italics: THAT is the goal of schools. To educate the population to a reasonable standard. Not to an individual standard and NOT to make up for what you weren't born with. While education helps, it does not even the playing field. The field will always have people who were just born lucky. Lucky WRT who their parents are or lucky WRT genetic abilities. Yes, some will rise above whatever obstacle is placed in front of them. They have the ability to do so and they choose to do so. Those who don't have that ability or choose not to act on it if they do are on thier own.
The problem is that each school district has to offer what their students need. They need to do what serves the greatest number of students. In an inner city school with kids from poor neighborhoods, that's, likely, remedial math and reading not physics. Each district is allocated money from the state to pay for classroom instruction and each district has to decide how to best spend it. If something is not offered, that is something parents need to take up with the school district.
Why stop at physics? Why not sculpture, underwater basket weaving, swimming, diving, golf, interpretive dance, web page design, computer gaming....or any other thing any student might decide they're good at? Each school decides what to offer for a reason. Most schools are not in position to offer everything and must choose what to leave out. My daughters attend different districts. One takes a swimming class for PE, the other can't because the school doesn't have a pool. The district with the pool in the high school is much larger so things like having a pool aren't such a burden.
That's sort of my point; the kids at your daughter's school DO have at least equal eduational opportunities, even if they choose not to take advantage of them. I'm talking about the many schools that offer a vastly inferior educational program. Sure, schools can't offer everything, but there's ample evidence that not all schools are even offering anything approaching the basics to their students.
I think, and wish, more parents who do enjoy a decent quality of life would make it more of a personal concern to look out for the interests of kids who live perhaps far away; the kids who need our help the most are the ones most likely to have parents who don't have the political power, knowledge, time, or in some cases, interest, to demand changes.
I'm not talking about middle or upper-class communities here where the education is mostly adequate, even if I think it's in need of some improvements. But so many posters here -- so quick to complain about "Taj Mahal" schools and hovering parents -- forget that there are many kids out there who are stuck in schools that look very, very different. And all the talk about all the information out there free for the taking is also overlooking the fact that there are schools out there that lack libraries, families that don't own computers, living in communities where the public libraries have limited hours or can't fully accomodate all the demand; I just wish people would try to keep in mind that just because they live or work in a district where kids mostly have access to the basics, that not everyone out there does. I suppose one can't make someone care about kids who were born into unlucky circumstances, but I think that's a very sad statement about our society today.
It's all fine and dandy that you want kids to "use" the technology rather than learn how the technology is implemented.
But, what happens in the future when these kids graduate knowing how to use it.
Without understanding the theory of it, the calculations that go into it, the formulas of it, the science of it..how will they be the next "inventors" and push technology further ? The answer is..they won't.
That's sort of my point; the kids at your daughter's school DO have at least equal eduational opportunities, even if they choose not to take advantage of them. I'm talking about the many schools that offer a vastly inferior educational program. Sure, schools can't offer everything, but there's ample evidence that not all schools are even offering anything approaching the basics to their students.
I think, and wish, more parents who do enjoy a decent quality of life would make it more of a personal concern to look out for the interests of kids who live perhaps far away; the kids who need our help the most are the ones most likely to have parents who don't have the political power, knowledge, time, or in some cases, interest, to demand changes.
I'm not talking about middle or upper-class communities here where the education is mostly adequate, even if I think it's in need of some improvements. But so many posters here -- so quick to complain about "Taj Mahal" schools and hovering parents -- forget that there are many kids out there who are stuck in schools that look very, very different. And all the talk about all the information out there free for the taking is also overlooking the fact that there are schools out there that lack libraries, families that don't own computers, living in communities where the public libraries have limited hours or can't fully accomodate all the demand; I just wish people would try to keep in mind that just because they live or work in a district where kids mostly have access to the basics, that not everyone out there does. I suppose one can't make someone care about kids who were born into unlucky circumstances, but I think that's a very sad statement about our society today.
The problem is that each school has to decide what they need to offer. It woud not be appropriate to offer AP physics in a school where the average student can't read on grade level. Far more good is done, for the student body and society at large, by enriching reading.
There are only so many hours in a day and so many days in a year and so much resources to go around. Every school can't offer the same education. They have to offer the one that serves THEIR student body. If the education at your school doesn't serve you, you have to address that. You can't wait for the school to address that. They are going to address the issues that serve most students in their school.
What do you propose we do with the kids who were born in unlucky circumstances given we have the exact amount of time with them as we do the ones who were born in lucky circumstances? Schools, cannot, magically, without one extra minute or day even the playing field. Don't mistake recognizing that we cannot make things even with lack of caring. There is a HUGE difference in what I can teach in 180 days starting with kids who can read and know their math than starting with kids who can't read and don't know their math. Most of the kids could not handle chemistry level math in the charter school I attended so I had to teach the math first and lob off some of my content to do so. In my current school, my students know the math. I don't have to teach it so I enrich my content. It would have done, absolutely, no good to have enriched the content in the charter school. The only way I could would be if you added in enough time into the year for me to teach the math first, get through the content AND enrich it. We'd need a much longer school year in schools in disadvantaged areas.
Short of going to year round schools (as in like a normal work schedule) to try an make up for what wasn't there to begin with, there's not much we can do. We get kids for 180 days a year, 7 hours a day...PERIOD. We teach, in that time, what we can and we teach what is needed by our students. I can't teach them AP chemistry before they learn to read on a college level. It would make no sense to offer AP chem over remedial reading if the average reading level of a 10th grader is 5th grade as it was in my last school. Who should they hire first? Another reading teacher or another chemistry teacher so they can offer AP and organic? What should they spend their money on? Computer programs designed to remediate reading or the type of equipment needed to run an analytical chemistry class?
We cannot fix everything so we fix what we can. If we get kids up to reading level, they have a chance at college. If we don't, it doesn't matter how many AP classes we offer. What you are failing to realize is that all schools have the same time to teach. Kids born in unlucky circumstances need to learn things their luckier counterparts learned at home. They need more support from school just to learn the basics. You are trying to frost the cake before it is baked.
If you want to go to a 220 day school year in disadvantaged areas and stay at a 180 day school year in advantaged areas, maybe we could do something. Without extra time, we cannot teach the same content in every school AND make up for students who are born into disadvantaged backgrounds. You have to choose what will serve the students best. When they lack basic skills, for whatever reason, that is teaching them basic skills. That's why I taught the math they needed for chemistry in chemistry even though it meant my students would never get to the point they could ask the questions my current students ask every day.
How do you propose I make up for unlucky background AND teach to the same level as the students who were born lucky without extra time?
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-04-2010 at 09:19 AM..
these kids who don't see the benefit of an education because it's no guarantee of a job etc., etc. aren't going to be my kid's competititon, so I really don't care. We all get to make choices. Plenty of kids are going the other diection. Where I live competition for gifted and talented programs, private schools etc. is fierce. The debate is how to get them to understand they need to have fun and have some balance in life so they don't burn themselves out. So that you-tube video doesn't reflect my life, my kid's life, or those of many, many kids we know.
It's all fine and dandy that you want kids to "use" the technology rather than learn how the technology is implemented.
But, what happens in the future when these kids graduate knowing how to use it.
Without understanding the theory of it, the calculations that go into it, the formulas of it, the science of it..how will they be the next "inventors" and push technology further ? The answer is..they won't.
This discussion reminds me of a cartoon I once saw. A young man and an old man are having a conversation. The young man is going on and on about how his generation is better because they grew up with computers, the internet, cell phones, etc, etc, etc,.... after several frames of this, the old man answers "Yes, we grew up without those things, So we invented them!!! And then he asks the young man "WHAT WILL YOU DO?" and walks away.
It's fine and dandy to be a user but if that's all you are, then all you will ever do is keep the system running by spending money to get more technology to use. Until you understand that technology well enough to improve upon it, you're just a user no matter how impressive your skills.
Most of us here can drive cars but that dosen't make us better than someone who can't. In fact, when our cars break down, we're helpless. We're used to that technology at our beck and call and when it fails us, we don't know what to do.
Do you want to know what the most common excuse for not having homework is in my class? "My printer wouldn't work". THEN WRITE IT OUT BY HAND!!!!!!! My students are dumbfounded when I don't accept that excuse. They're helpless when the technology doesn't do what they expected. I think all the technology they have cripples them.
Being able to use what someone else made for you is not greatness. Being able to make things others will use is. People have this backwards. They think being able to use a computer, a cell phone, the internet, etc, etc, etc....somehow makes you better. Whether it does or not kind of depends on what you do with those tools. If all you ever do is use them, you're just a user. Seriously, the only things you can look up on the web are things others did before you. How is that contributing? Unless it contributes to your education in a way that lets you go farther than they did, it doesn't!!! I can train anyone to use a tool. It takes someone special to make the leap from there to making the tool better or using the tool to do something no one else has done before and THAT takes an education to accomplish.
Right now, as a teacher, I am only a user of technology. I'm relying on others to help me teach. Fortunately, I'm also a former engineer. Once I get the user part down, I will work on becomming a creator of things others use to improve their teaching. I have to learn the ropes first but I'll get there and not because I know how to use a computer. Because I know how to think!!! And you can't look that up on WIKI or Google!!
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-04-2010 at 09:38 AM..
these kids who don't see the benefit of an education because it's no guarantee of a job etc., etc. aren't going to be my kid's competititon, so I really don't care. We all get to make choices. Plenty of kids are going the other diection. Where I live competition for gifted and talented programs, private schools etc. is fierce. The debate is how to get them to understand they need to have fun and have some balance in life so they don't burn themselves out. So that you-tube video doesn't reflect my life, my kid's life, or those of many, many kids we know.
What a callous attitidue. Just be glad everyone doesn't feel like that, otherwise there wouldn't be public schools, there'd be few other social benefits, and we'd probably have riots in the street. How can someone not care about other kids? Even if you don't care about others just because it's the decent thing to do, what about the benefits to society that come with having an educated population? It's going to impact you when your taxes go to pay for welfare and other costs associated with high poverty. It's going to impact you if the kids who don't have access to an adequate education turn to crime to survive instead. You can try to live in a bubble, but that usually doesn't work out so well. Just take a look at those countries who do have extremes between the "haves" and the "have nots;" those are not the sorts of communities I prefer to live in. If that means having a bit of empathy for the kids who don't have access to even a basic education, well, is that really so difficult?
And Ivory, I still don't think you're getting my point: I'm not talking about what you, personally, can do for your own kids. I'm talking about trying to equalize opportunities, at least basic opportunities, across school districts. I know that individual teachers and schools can only do so much, but that doesn't excuse the fact that there's such vast disparities between even the relative basics. Schools are always going to have to make some decisions and can't offer everything, but that's been taken to extremes. It should be whether to offer Spanish versus French, for example, not whether to be able to teach reading or a foreign language. And I think you're also mostly referring to differences in educational outcomes, not opportunities; not all classes might move through the material at the same rate, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be offered.
What a callous attitidue. Just be glad everyone doesn't feel like that, otherwise there wouldn't be public schools, there'd be few other social benefits, and we'd probably have riots in the street. How can someone not care about other kids? Even if you don't care about others just because it's the decent thing to do, what about the benefits to society that come with having an educated population? It's going to impact you when your taxes go to pay for welfare and other costs associated with high poverty. It's going to impact you if the kids who don't have access to an adequate education turn to crime to survive instead. You can try to live in a bubble, but that usually doesn't work out so well. Just take a look at those countries who do have extremes between the "haves" and the "have nots;" those are not the sorts of communities I prefer to live in. If that means having a bit of empathy for the kids who don't have access to even a basic education, well, is that really so difficult?
And Ivory, I still don't think you're getting my point: I'm not talking about what you, personally, can do for your own kids. I'm talking about trying to equalize opportunities, at least basic opportunities, across school districts. I know that individual teachers and schools can only do so much, but that doesn't excuse the fact that there's such vast disparities between even the relative basics. Schools are always going to have to make some decisions and can't offer everything, but that's been taken to extremes. It should be whether to offer Spanish versus French, for example, not whether to be able to teach reading or a foreign language. And I think you're also mostly referring to differences in educational outcomes, not opportunities; not all classes might move through the material at the same rate, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be offered.
I'm all about empathy ma'am. In fact, suffering from a bit of compassion exhaustion TBH. But what am I supposed to do about their plight (I mean specifically?) I have plenty on my plate worrying about my own kids education. If they were in an underperforming school I'd move them. We do an hour of homework a night whether the teacher assigns it or not. This business about I don't want to work hard in school because there will be no job for me is just a pretext for laziness in most cases.
It's all fine and dandy that you want kids to "use" the technology rather than learn how the technology is implemented.
But, what happens in the future when these kids graduate knowing how to use it.
Without understanding the theory of it, the calculations that go into it, the formulas of it, the science of it..how will they be the next "inventors" and push technology further ? The answer is..they won't.
I've always seen technology as discounted in public schools. They don't want students to understand the history behind it, where it's going, formulas for it, etc.
When I was in school in the 90's, we'd watch movies in class, lol. Movies we had already seen at a home, like Rambo, or Die Hard or something. Not Ken Robinson. Leaving the tv on in school is like leaving the tv on at a daycare center. Not much difference. You don't explain the intricacies of technology to 4 year olds. And you don't explain it to 16 or 18 year olds.
No technological role models were presented in school....yet look at the wide array of people in the last 30 years....Andy Grove, Steve Jobs, Gates, Wozniak, Gordon Moore (Moore's law). Hard to inspire the troops when you don't present anyone. We've probably already reached a tipping point. It takes a certain aptitude to be a technological innovator. You can't keep taking remedial math and english in highschool or college, and think you can be a technological innovator.
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.
Oh, and add gaming...They're good at that too. Also using technology to cheat. They can take a picture of a test and send it to a friend. 
What you are failing to realize is that all schools have the same time to teach. Kids born in unlucky circumstances need to learn things their luckier counterparts learned at home. They need more support from school just to learn the basics. You are trying to frost the cake before it is baked.
This discussion reminds me of a cartoon I once saw. A young man and an old man are having a conversation. The young man is going on and on about how his generation is better because they grew up with computers, the internet, cell phones, etc, etc, etc,.... after several frames of this, the old man answers "Yes, we grew up without those things, So we invented them!!! And then he asks the young man "WHAT WILL YOU DO?" and walks away.
