Tracey -
Looking for context:
Some questions: What factors lead you to state that education is in poor condition? What country do you live in (or are you referring to education everywhere)? What prompted this passionate and pointed write?
Alcuin of York - Stacey, you ask a good question. You want proof of a problem prior to seeking a solution. Fair enough.
1) 1955 brought “Why Johnny Can’t Read”. They thought their school system was in crisis, and many educators consider the education of that era superior to the current one.
2) Howard Gardner recounts his daughter calling him from college to tell him how much trouble she was having with physics. Although she had passed the requisite courses in high school, she stated unequivocally that she had never understood physics. In his books, Gardner cites many cases of graduates from various courses who could not apply what they had supposedly learned to simple real-world problems. One of the examples he gives is the belief that seasonal temperature changes are caused by a variation in the distance between the earth and the sun, rather than by the angle of the earth’s rotational axis relative to the direction of the sun. Students who have learned the facts in school, correctly answered the test questions, and passed the relevant courses, nevertheless tend to revert to their original idea that seasonal temperatures are produced by a difference in the earth’s solar distance. Another of Gardner’s examples is the predicted path of a ball ejected from a coil-shaped tube, a simple problem easily solved by reference to Newton’s Laws. Students who had passed physics courses often made the wrong prediction for this relatively simple, basic problem. If passing courses is disconnected from understanding, then what is the purpose of providing education?
3) My uncle, a university professor, told me in the mid ‘80s that what was then considered “A” work had been “B” work a generation earlier.
4) The results of international math proficiency tests conducted in 2003 by the Program For International Student Assessment (PISA) reveal a fundamental problem within American mathematics courses. The test, which was restricted to 15-year-olds, scored the United States below 20 of 28 other industrialized nations.
I could cite several other reasons, but suffice it to say that I have studied the subject in some depth. Our students are perpetually cramming, not learning. It’s not simply that they can’t name the Supreme Court Judges – it’s that they don’t even understand the fundamental workings of our government, or even the theory behind it.
My final proof: The products of that education system elected George Bush – twice!
Alcuin
Leanne - Without wanting to be overly cynical, history shows us that if a regime wishes to dominate its people with minimal resistance it will target independent learning first. Sapping the will to learn is a very effective tool in controlling what is thought about. In the Middle Ages, only the clergy and the nobility were educated. And unless something is done, you will find that in the US the trend will be increasingly similar.
Affordable and sensible tertiary education is your only solution. Certainly, more needs to be done at primary level -- however if parents know they won't be able to afford college tuition for their children the incentive is already absent from the home. Kids will do the bare minimum just to make it through until they're old enough to leave and take some menial job. Minds will never be allowed to develop.
On the up side, McDonalds will have plenty of willing employees. And so will the armed forces.
Derma Kaput - you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him think. you can however maintain high standards, which I have seen, to varying results, in my local schools - all urban, overwhelmed by poverty, and multicultural to the extent of something like 80 languages spoken in the system. I tend to think families play the most important role - instilling a love of learning in their offspring. But, on the other hand, I've been surprised at the watering down of social studies, to the extent that kids I know have only barely been exposed to the constitution, bill of rights, or the various structural forms of government, here or abroad. Math I've seen intensified, way beyond the way it was when I was in school. The sciences seem to be taught about equally well. Learning a second language seems to be diminished, which is a pity. But these are just my impressions of a local district which is beset with a myriad of sociological challenges and still turns out an impressive array of well educated students. At least when the students step up to the plate and take what's being offered.
All that said, I don't think education in general is "bad", but it has been subjected to too much theory, overly politicized, and is currently being bogged down with those very tests you speak of - ones that encourage cramming without comprehension - courtesy of politicians who want to be considered the "education" candidate, who then burden school districts with red tape and extraneous testing from a centralized source far removed from the classroom. Which is probably good for bad school districts, but diminishes responsible districts. I'm at the point where I just say "fuck it." Everyone needs to turn off the tv and read a book. Then teach their children to do the same. Every day. Can that be legislated? Can we legislate that families must look up words in a dictionary as a form of family fun? Buy an encylopedia so every time a child asks an interesting question, parents can help them find the answer and enjoy the process?
I just read a snippet the other day about a study that found nearly 50% of children, at the age of 3 months, watch television on a regular basis. I find that alarming.
Jen -
My kids are in 6th and 9th grade. They both are average students and they both are two full grade levels ahead of what I was doing when I was in their grade.
I live in New York State and you can't graduate from high school without a regent’s diploma. Every year they take NYS assessment tests in math, reading, science and social studies which is actually a report card for the school. They use this to see what schools need to improve and it helps the teachers see what they need to focus on. They can also see what kids are not meeting the standards get them help.
My concern is that the schools are teaching just to pass these tests because it makes the school look good. I think that today’s kids are smarter than we were at their age and it's going to take time to see just how smart they really are.
White_Feather - Seems to me that schools are meant to be an efficient way of educating the masses to perform basic skills, but in so doing efficiently squash any love of learning along the way. I find myself torn between the concepts of delayed academics for younger kids, and higher standards for the bigger ones. But most of all, I have a nagging suspicion that the whole system is fundamentally flawed, and we need to start looking at education in new ways.
Someday In May - My problem with schools is the lack of funding. My sister being a high school social studies teacher complains on a regular basis that the schools in our district don't even have one text book per child. To me that is tragic. How can we possibly hold our children accountable for failing grades and lack of intrest in expanding thier knowledge independantly when they don't even have the tools to do so.
I have two children in elementary school, and will have three next year. They never bring home any kind of text books. I want them to be bright little educated people. And the fact that they have to share text books in class, and cannot bring them home to study, or help with homeowrk, is quite alarming. It seems to me, that lack of funding is limiting the education they will be able to recieve. Granted, they can acess the internet and libraries, but in the area we live in I am certain this isn't always the case. What about those children, the ones who have to depend on what the school provides them, when the school isn't providing?
The good news is, we have a wonderful stadium in our city, and the roads are in excellent condition.
-----
...but what do I know?
Alcuin of York - First Jen: Yes, they do teach to the test because the test is considered objective and equal in comparing different students in the same or different schools, and even in different states. One problem with the tests is that they cannot test for the UNDERSTANDING of a subject, rather than certain key pieces of knowledge. This is why we have a population with little understanding but lots of knowledge. The other problem with the tests is that they are multiple-choice (MC) in format. This is a poor format for finding what a student has actually learned. in fact, for discerning the understanding the student might have gained, they are literally useless.
Second, White Feather: Super bingo to you! The current system does squash love of learning, and yes, it is fundamentally flawed. You have hit two nails on the head!
Third, Mandy: So the schools lack funds, but at least you have a nice stadium (I assume you mean sports stadium).
Pretty much says it all.
Alcuin
Alcuin of York - Well W-F, the next step is to decide what we should be teaching. But before we do that, should we not ask why we teach in the first place? I think I covered that in my original comment:
1)Survive as an individual
2)Promote their families (i.e., next generation)
3)Sustain their culture.
To me, these seem self-evident, and we should develop up a set of purposes in education that serve these 3 purposes. I'm really open to suggestions besides these 6 that I propose for a she, the student:
1) She should possess the basic literacy skills.
2) She should be capable of assuming the duties of citizenship.
3) She should possess either vocational or career skills.
4) She should understand the cornerstones of our culture.
5) She should be capable of protecting and promoting her interests as an adult.
6) She should be prepared for lifelong learning.
This last means she will be both able and desirous of further learning. As Jen pointed out, we tend to turn students off to further learning. If someone has questions about these purposes, or would substitute some of their own, I'm all ears.
Alcuin
White_Feather - I would add the importance of a basic understanding of math and science. Further, I'd highlight the importance of independent thought and/or critical thinking skills . . . which you may have intended to be covered under the umbrella of other points, but I think it's important enough to highlight. Quite possibly, since we're entering an age of the global neighborhood, it would be important for the student to have fundamental understanding of many other key cultures besides her own.
Jen -
What I think needs to be done isn’t simple. Right now each school gets state aid and funding from the state and their tax payers. The tax payers vote on school bugets and often vote them down because their taxes are too high. There should be a cap on school taxes for each state. The federal government should make up the difference and supply the same amount of funding for each school district. The district should decide where and what to do with the funding.
The curriculum should be the same for every child at their grade level, regards less of state. To begin, the assessment test should not reflect the students but rather the districts/states achievements. The government should then look at what states are doing best, implement the new curriculum and re-train the teachers, especially at the college level. There should be a nationwide change and uniformity not just a state change.
They have a respect and responsibility, no put downs and a no bully program in our schools which is great. After Columbine every school should have such a program. They have a friendship program which teaches kids how to make friends. They have a banana splits program for kids whose parents are divorced. They have learning study halls where they can get extra help instead of goofing off.
I do see my state making an effort. If they are going to challenge the kids, the kids are going to need more help than what they offer now and in my opinion that is where they are failing the kids.
But then again, what the hell do I know
Alcuin of York - Well W-F, the basic understanding of math is called math literacy (sometimes also, “numeracy”), so it is a basic literacy skill. And science should be considered a cornerstone of our culture, which is why I think the religious whackos should not have their way in weakening the teaching of evolution. It is literally a an assault upon our culture, rather than a defense of it as they portray it. And your highlighting of understanding other nations is very important. Perhaps we need a 7th category, or perhaps #5 needs to be modified.
Jen: The method of taxation and money transfers already occurs as you depict it. If I remember correctly, about 20% of the education budget in a district comes from the feds, and in most states, a large part comes from the state government. I think there are a few reasons education is so expensive: 1) We as a nation have gotten poorer, though we don’t know it. 2) A large portion of the personnel budget, (something like 40% I believe) goes to health benefits and pensions. 3) We spend more on security. 4) We spend a lot of time teaching students things they do not need to fulfill what should be the main education purposes.
Your assessment test idea has one fatal flaw. The districts don’t just teach to the test; they teach to the entrance requirements of the colleges and universities. These tend to favor students who have taken the steroid courses – advanced placement calculus, for example. Most people entering college will never use their differential equations. Why are they learning what they won’t use? To get into a prestigious college, get a prestigious degree so they can get a good job. When I left high school in the ‘60’s, the sense of desperation that exists now was unimaginable.
So any solution has to begin at the college entrance requirements. Bush is not one of my favorites, but when he was governor, he backed a bill that guaranteed entrance in a Texas higher-education institution for every student in the top 10% of their high school class. This was a good thing, and perhaps needs to be copied in other states.
And please, don’t say, “What the hell do I know?” You certainly can’t do worse than the experts. One other thing: In 1955, when the school system was so great, less than 40% actually graduated high school. Obviously, if our schools graduated fewer people, they would spend less and produce better results.
Alcuin
Leanne - If I may throw in something that seems to have worked very well here for many years, and also is similarly done in the UK from what I understand:
in first year high school, every subject on offer is compulsory for all students -- that is, you have your basic core subjects of English, Maths, Social Studies and Science, then the subjects that become elective in second year such as Manual Arts (woodwork, metalwork), Graphics, Home Economics (sewing and cooking), Commerce and Bookkeeping, etc -- these are all offered just once a week so that kids get a chance to sample as much as possible.
In second year you have the four core subjects plus four electives. In third year (the year of the junior certificate, or first opportunity to leave) only English and Maths are compulsory, the rest are electives (although most people do science as well).
In the last two years, the senior years, you have two possible paths. There are vocational subjects on offer such as business maths, basic science (largely environmental and horticultural) and many trades also offer initial courses through high schools. If you take the vocational path you obviously forego the chance to go to university but it means that at least you're learning something of use. Every other subject counts for university entry. There are weightings and English is the highest, but interestingly the social sciences and languages rate just as highly as physics or chemistry. We don't have "advanced" courses per se. If you're at school in your senior years, you're either studying for a trade or vocation, or you're going to go to university. The rate of continuing students from junior to senior is increasing and our unemployment is less than 1%.
Furthermore, you choose your area of university study straight after high school. It's straight into a bachelors, no wasted subjects. From what I can understand from talking to people who are in early college years, those things were already covered when we were in high school. From an outsider's perspective, it seems to me like the US education system doesn't give its kids enough credit. They're either in advanced classes or they're not smart enough. This has two effects -- the advanced classes are populated by people who don't really want to be there but have to be because of the pressure for college placement, which disadvantages those who really do want to learn what's on offer, and the kids who don't cut it academically are left feeling pathetic and useless.
Our education system isn't perfect but it ain't bad.
Invite participants
Share at Facebook
Share at Twitter
Share at LinkedIn
Reference this page