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.
My opinion is that the majority of public schools in the USA are teaching students how to act & attempting to teach them how to learn (though I had to relearn a lot of my learning skills when I started college), rather than actually teaching them anything academic. When I say this, I should also say that certain students do learn many academic things while in school, but this is often a naturally exceptional child who takes education into their own hands, or the child of a parent who makes sure their child is being exposed to real education. Does that make sense?
Personally I believe that all the main subject areas should receive equal amounts of instructional time (not necessarily all in one day though). The district I work for is allotting the bulk of the instructional day to math and reading/writing this year, with token amounts of time for social studies/history and science, and art as an afterthought. Will their test scores go up? Probably. Will the students be any smarter or better educated? Probably not.
What I'd like to see, and maybe someone has already done and compiled this research, is a study of educated, successful people in the world. I'd like to know what their educational background was from the beginning. Did they feel they made most of their strides after primary school or do they feel their true education started in the very beginning? If we are going to revamp our education system, I think the first place to look is at people who have been living successfully in the world for awhile, rather than just looking at which high school grads got into ivy leagues and so forth. If any of you know of such a study already having been done, I'd be interested to know how to find it.
"Self education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is."
Isaac Asimov
Students who want to learn and are motivated will, regardless of what school they attend.
I have to disagree, as kids with anxiety and other disorders are often shunned (even though they are some of the most brilliant) just simply because they are bored with the material, or the pace of the class. If a teacher tells a student they have a problem with math, and separate them form the rest of the class, they will always do poorly in math.
I have to disagree, as kids with anxiety and other disorders are often shunned (even though they are some of the most brilliant) just simply because they are bored with the material, or the pace of the class. If a teacher tells a student they have a problem with math, and separate them form the rest of the class, they will always do poorly in math.
They may always do poorly in math.
One of the things about these absolute statements, whether yours or the one to which you are quite reasonably offering rebuttal, is that,, again, no one perspective fits all kids.
Just as the statement that all motivated learners will learn in spite of school is false, so to is the notion that no children will reject the false directions of a teacher.
It goes both ways. Some kids will believe the authority, no matter how absurd - and no matter how intelligent the child.
Some children are either more skeptical or more resilient, and will not be trapped forever or at all by such an abuse of authority.
I have to disagree, as kids with anxiety and other disorders are often shunned (even though they are some of the most brilliant) just simply because they are bored with the material or the pace of the class....
I assume "bored with the material" means they have already learned it in another capacity. This means they have learned despite the restrictive environment in which they were in. That was my point to begin with.
I assume "bored with the material" means they have already learned it in another capacity. This means they have learned despite the restrictive environment in which they were in. That was my point to begin with.
But Sociologist's point, if I understand correctly, was that the result of that is that the student may well cease moving forward faster than or even as fast as the class - and this is certainly the case at times.
I agree and support any type of push towards interdisciplinary courses and "entire systems" learning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher
The separation of that being studied into categories has never been smooth. A researcher was contacted by the Nobel Prize committee and told he had been awarded the Physics prize for his research.
"You must have either the wrong man or the wrong prize. I'm a chemist."
Is psychology an art or a science?
The black and white distinctions you are talking about and an ability to reform education are unrelated, especially when it is possible and perhaps preferable to get away from the discipline (subject) separation approach to schooling, especially at the pre-secondary school levels.
Walking down a street, he saw a sign. "Oh, a sign. English mode, ON!"
He read the sign, and came to a number. "Shift modes. Math ON!"
Too late, he realized his mistake. It had been a marker about a past event. "Shift modes. History ON!" Finally using the proper approach, he could correctly take in the data and interpolate it with the carefully categorized facts and understandings he already had.
Life doesn't work that way, for the most part. Why should we teach that way?
Huh? Are you serious? There is nothing about Psychology that would make it an art, the field originated from Philosophy and is now a proper science. Since the field relatively new it still has some philosophic character to it (i.e., speculative reasoning).
Quote:
Students who want to learn and are motivated will, regardless of what school they attend.
Sure, but they will learn more if the educational environment is better. The problem is you can't make a kid want to learn, but you should provide the resources to those that do.
Quote:
I agree and support any type of push towards interdisciplinary courses and "entire systems" learning.
You'll first need to find people that understand Mathematics, Science, Engineering, Arts, Literature etc. Good luck with that, its hard enough to find teachers that properly understand just one of these fields.
"Personal computers aren't magic, they are just a tool. What you need to make the educational process work is a good teacher who is knowledgeable in the subject and can get kids excited."
But how do you get good teachers when they were educated in the previous system that was lacking in many ways? Its a catch 22. They should also remove the credential requirements. There are a lot of older scientists,engineers etc that would teach for fun at low buy after they retired from their original career. The college system makes it very hard to go back to get a credential after being out of school for a number of years.
Anyhow, there is little hope that this country will fix its education system too much vested interest in the current system by the corrupt unions, adminstrators etc.
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.
