The American Education System

[TWJC: The Beginning]

So, I'm watching this documentary called "Waiting for Superman". Which is basically about how shitty our school system is.

I don't wanna discuss the documentary, I want to discuss the system. Personally, I think it's a double-edged sword. In many cases, mostly the inner schools, yes the school system blows. In others, like a lot of lazy students I know, they get bad grades (due to laziness, they expect teachers to dance and sing them songs or something) and then blame it on the system.

I would like to see equal funding per student across the board and your school gets more if there are improvements. Get rid of guaranteed contracts for teachers, get rid of no student left behind, and make it harder to become a teacher. My last suggestion may be the hardest part but seriously, the education majors at my school are the dumbest people. They get 2.75 GPA with a class schedule that's literally "swimming, dance, making bullitin boards, and anatomy".

 

[GI Cake]

The Education System in America is where it is today is because of a fancy little two-step tango. Neither students or teachers wish to fully apply themselves to learn or teach, plain and simple. Why would a teacher wish to try and teach a 100 students a day when only about 20 to 30 of them are applying themselves to the fullest? Take for instance professional wrestling. Let's say Teachers are the wrestlers and the crowd are the students. It doesn't matter if you go out and pour your heart out every day if the crowd could care less about what you're doing.

But is it all the students fault? Of course not, teachers make plenty of mistakes as well. And you can't blame them, in public schools, teachers have to deal with 30-40 students every hour every day and have to deal with their students issues and take care of them one at a time. But what happens when a teacher wants to fix an issue with a student that couldn't care less about? It turns out to be an all out struggle for the teacher as they waste their time and energy on the little fucks that don't care about the others in the class.

Then they're is also the fact that every student is forced to go to school everyday. I fail to understand why a child who obviously doesn't have any strong feelings about getting an education should take that chance away from a child that does. Either you show up to learn, or you don't show up at all, I don't see why it should be a federal offense if a parent's stupid kid doesn't want to learn the alphabet.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

1. Change the schedule - Shorten summer vacation to one month. Summer vacation is just a period for students to lose knowledge and skills. I have no problem with adding more vacation elsewhere but summer vacation is too long and is burdensome on working parents.

2. Teacher's pay - should either not be in the hands of the union or the union needs to find a way to reward teachers based on experience and merit. The union should maintain their interest in working conditions, discipline and benefits but not salaries.

3. Lose the 4th Wall - Classrooms are like cages. I went to a high school where each classroom only had three walls. It forces children to focus and not feel so confined. It can make a crowded classroom not feel as crowded.

4. No More Grades after 5th - Not the A's and B's but grades like 6th, 7th etc. Students should be studying at a level that is appropriate, not what their age determines. While this type of rigidity is comforting students need to be challenged by a differing atmosphere by the time they are 11 or 12.

5. Make school available year round - this would be a huge help for working parents and help keep kids out of trouble. Either keep the school running for kids that need care during breaks or allow others to rent the space for daycare. (I haven't fully worked this one out)

6. Discipline - detention and punishment should either promote studying or feel more like punishment to a kid. Sticking kids in a detention hall with nothing to do is not constructive at all, it just prepares kids for prison life.

7. Teachers pensions - I don't know how these have gotten so out of hand. I imagine it is because the both sides are not on a equal footing of expertise regarding pensions. Both sides should have their own consultants and actuaries who work independently and audit each others work. This probably goes for all unions and their employers.

That's all I have for now. Most these ideas are too radical to get anywhere but it still feels good to share my thoughts (however cluttered).

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

1. Change the schedule - Shorten summer vacation to one month. Summer vacation is just a period for students to lose knowledge and skills. I have no problem with adding more vacation elsewhere but summer vacation is too long and is burdensome on working parents.

2. Teacher's pay - should either not be in the hands of the union or the union needs to find a way to reward teachers based on experience and merit. The union should maintain their interest in working conditions, discipline and benefits but not salaries.

3. Lose the 4th Wall - Classrooms are like cages. I went to a high school where each classroom only had three walls. It forces children to focus and not feel so confined. It can make a crowded classroom not feel as crowded.

4. No More Grades after 5th - Not the A's and B's but grades like 6th, 7th etc. Students should be studying at a level that is appropriate, not what their age determines. While this type of rigidity is comforting students need to be challenged by a differing atmosphere by the time they are 11 or 12.

5. Make school available year round - this would be a huge help for working parents and help keep kids out of trouble. Either keep the school running for kids that need care during breaks or allow others to rent the space for daycare. (I haven't fully worked this one out)

6. Discipline - detention and punishment should either promote studying or feel more like punishment to a kid. Sticking kids in a detention hall with nothing to do is not constructive at all, it just prepares kids for prison life.

7. Teachers pensions - I don't know how these have gotten so out of hand. I imagine it is because the both sides are not on a equal footing of expertise regarding pensions. Both sides should have their own consultants and actuaries who work independently and audit each others work. This probably goes for all unions and their employers.

That's all I have for now. Most these ideas are too radical to get anywhere but it still feels good to share my thoughts (however cluttered).

I agree with everything you said. However I would make a few aditions.

1: Get rid of opinionated text books and get rid of indoctrination. I hate having kids today being told you will believe this or face punishment.

2: Get rid of Tenurship. I can't tell you how many times when teachers get tenurship they don't care about teaching. They're getting paid no matter what. Which leads me to

3: Pay teachers on the quality of their work. Not seniority.

4: Teachers opinions should be left to those classes that advocate opinions. Which also leads me to having teachers be held accountable when they are openly biased against a student for their opinion and can be proven.

5: Better quality Special education and teachers that are willing to teach the classes. I can't tell you how much I wanted to murder my teachers because they obviously couldn't care less about helping special needs students.

6: Provide an alternate view on history rather than our own. That way students can formulate their own opinion as to what is right and what is wrong.

 

[ezuvgu]

I think any reforms for the better are probably impossible. If you try to do anything to rein in the teachers union, you'll just cause a repeat of what happened last year in Wisconsin and you can expect to spend years fighting off lawsuits and attempts by the unions to run you out of office. If all the vested interests who benefit from the unions turn out for a school board election, they are going to win. The only way I could imagine that you could successfully fight the teachers union from would be from an anti-tax perspective, which wouldn't do any good to reform public education.

Equalizing funding sounds like a good idea in theory, but I could imagine this would further reduce local control of education. If schools are dependent on state or federal funding, that means that a politician could decide that all schools must teach abstinence-only (or comprehensive sex ed for that matter) or risk losing their funding.

Trying to eliminate "bias" sounds like a good idea, but there is no universal agreement on what is bias and what is fact. To some people, global warming is a fact, while other people would regard it as politically motivated pseudoscience (its very difficult to understand the arcane scientific claims on both sides, so most people probably just take the side that is compatible with their political views). The 2 main political factions have a number of mutually exclusive views regarding what is true and the smaller factions have an even greater diversity of opinions regarding facts.

The best solution I can come up with is:

1) Make school attendance voluntary. Forcing kids to go to school against their will only causes problems for everybody. If attendance is voluntary, this provides teachers with incentives to do a better job so that kids want to attend school and it probably greatly reduces bullying and classroom disruptions.

2) Give schools as much local control as possible. If every school is permitted to experiment, some schools will adopt good ideas and some will adopt bad ideas. That way, we can see what works and what doesn't and schools can adapt accordingly.

3) Find some way to allow parents and kids to choose which school to attend. Because each community has just one local public school system, this may not exactly be practical, but some degree of choice would help the bad schools to either change their ways or shut down. I don't think it is a good idea to have public funding of private education, as I don't think it is a good idea to turn private education over to politicians and the ban on public financing of religion is unlikely to change. This can also help solve the interminable disputes over what is true and what is bias by allowing each side to have their kids taught their side or all sides (although many people will be unhappy unless they are able to indoctrinate everybody's children with their own point of view).

4) Allow private schooling and homeschooling to operate relatively freely. Even if some people can't afford them, alternatives to the public education system provide a way out if its performance is unsatisfactory. I think homeschooling is probably ideal, as every child has a unique ability level. However, many parents lack the time or the ability to homeschool their kids, so it isn't practical in many or probably even most cases.

People will probably still be discussing how to fix the education system 20 or 30 years from now. Like the rest of our problems, its probably impossible to fix because of the special interest groups.

 

[Slyfox696]

So many experts...

First of all, by whose standards is education bad? Ignoring for a moment more people are going to college than ever before, ignoring for a moment so many people who are "experts" at how bad our system is didn't finish the equivalent of high school, and ignoring for the moment that most of the adults who claim the education system is bad couldn't do half the work our high school students do, let's focus on the fact kids today know so much more in many areas than adults.

For example, I teach a 4th grade computer class. We work with Linux computers. I teach them how to login to a Novell network, save files to a network share, use word processing and presentation software, proper safety on Facebook, how to use different features of Google search, etc. 4th graders...10 years old. These are things their teachers cannot do. Literally, their teachers, at the end of the year, are asking the students how to do things on the computer.

Technology is a HUGE part of life today. It affects everything we do, and students today are exponentially better at understanding how technology works than adults are. It's not even close. And yet, this important component of everyday life is not tested. Ever. Why not? I have fifth graders who can go out in the woods, know which gun to use when shooting ducks or deer, kill the deer, skin it, butcher it, and process it to have food for the next several months. How come this is never tested? Half of my sixth grade is learning to play a musical instrument, how come this is never tested?

The problem isn't the educational system, but rather how we're judging education. For some reason, we have this idea that what politicians think is important is what we should measure student learning on, and that is simply asinine. Not every student needs to know math and science to have a great life. I'm living proof of that, and I was so good at school, I got my entire college paid for through an academic scholarship.

So, I'm watching this documentary called "Waiting for Superman". Which is basically about how shitty our school system is.

I don't wanna discuss the documentary, I want to discuss the system. Personally, I think it's a double-edged sword. In many cases, mostly the inner schools, yes the school system blows. In others, like a lot of lazy students I know, they get bad grades (due to laziness, they expect teachers to dance and sing them songs or something) and then blame it on the system.

I would like to see equal funding per student across the board and your school gets more if there are improvements. Get rid of guaranteed contracts for teachers, get rid of no student left behind, and make it harder to become a teacher. My last suggestion may be the hardest part but seriously, the education majors at my school are the dumbest people. They get 2.75 GPA with a class schedule that's literally "swimming, dance, making bullitin boards, and anatomy".

As far as students not reaching arbitrarily set goals put forth by politicians who couldn't reach those goals themselves (check link), there are two major reasons for this, in my mind.

1) Parental support is simply not enough. Everybody wants to blame teachers and make them pay for a lack of student achievement, but when you're teaching to a group of kids who have no incentive to do well on a test, how is that a teacher's fault? I've long said if you want to see an improvement in student achieve, you levy legal fines against the parents of underperforming students.

Of course, then they won't vote for you in the next election, so you can see why that will never happen.

2) The focus these days in the classroom is not on sitting students down and presenting knowledge and facts, but rather "differentiated instruction", the idea you have to present the same lesson in 47 different ways because different students learn differently. So colleges waste so much time teaching teachers how to do all sorts of differentiated instruction, without ever teaching the future teachers the knowledge they need to pass on to their students. It's silly. In my college career, I was never given any lessons to help achieve student growth. And I come from a school highly respected in the state for its education department.

The Education System in America is where it is today is because of a fancy little two-step tango. Neither students or teachers wish to fully apply themselves to learn or teach, plain and simple.

Fuck off. I work my ass off in what I do. And so did my grandparents and my parents.

Allow me to post some Matt Damon greatness...

[YOUTUBE]WFHJkvEwyhk[/YOUTUBE]

But is it all the students fault? Of course not, teachers make plenty of mistakes as well. And you can't blame them, in public schools, teachers have to deal with 30-40 students every hour every day and have to deal with their students issues and take care of them one at a time.

And schools have become far more than a place where knowledge is passed on to future generations.

Allow me to post part of a scene from Boston Legal. A teacher was sued because another student sneaked a candy bar into class, and a student with a peanut allergy ate it and died.

"The problem here, as Ms. Bixby correctly states, is we have more and more special needs kids going into our public schools, combined with an unprecedented escalation in auto-immune diseases, autism. The peanut allergy alone has doubled in
recent years.

So, who do we heap this responsibility on? Who else? The teachers. The average annual starting salary for a teacher is $32,000. For that, we ask them to teach, police, provide emotional and social guidance. In some schools, they actually have to clean the toilets. Now, let's throw in healthcare.

This teacher, she works 65-hour weeks. In addition to her actual classroom duties, she teaches sex education to the older kids, she teaches a standardized test the school mandates in order to qualify for funding under the No Child Left Behind Act. She spends another ten hours a month meeting with parents. She supervises extracurricular activities, goes on overnight class trips, cleans and disinfects toys, coaches. She teaches fire drill safety procedures, healthy eating habits, she's certified in CPR, first aid, and food sanitation.

...

Is it any wonder half our teachers are quitting the profession outright within five years? Never mind who's going to handle the epi-pen. Who's going to teach?"

If only teachers were only asked to impart knowledge to the next generation...

1. Change the schedule - Shorten summer vacation to one month. Summer vacation is just a period for students to lose knowledge and skills. I have no problem with adding more vacation elsewhere but summer vacation is too long and is burdensome on working parents.

Good point. It's not like children have the entire rest of their lives to work, let's make sure they never have any fun ever.

2. Teacher's pay - should either not be in the hands of the union or the union needs to find a way to reward teachers based on experience and merit. The union should maintain their interest in working conditions, discipline and benefits but not salaries.

Teachers should be paid two or three times more than they are. It's amazing how everyone bitches about raising taxes for education, and then complains when test scores aren't up to arbitrarily set levels. Their bitching, of course, comes during the middle of the baseball game they paid $500 a ticket for. They just can't afford a couple more tax dollars out of their check.

When Alex Rodriguez walks to the batters box, whether he swings the bat or not, he'll make more money than I make in a year. Want to fix education? Let's fix society's values first.

3. Lose the 4th Wall - Classrooms are like cages. I went to a high school where each classroom only had three walls. It forces children to focus and not feel so confined. It can make a crowded classroom not feel as crowded.

So how do you keep kids focused on your class and not others?

4. No More Grades after 5th - Not the A's and B's but grades like 6th, 7th etc. Students should be studying at a level that is appropriate, not what their age determines. While this type of rigidity is comforting students need to be challenged by a differing atmosphere by the time they are 11 or 12.

But then you're "tracking" students, and that can hurt their feelings. The last thing we want to do is separate students in such a way, ask all the people who bitch about it being done now.

5. Make school available year round - this would be a huge help for working parents and help keep kids out of trouble. Either keep the school running for kids that need care during breaks or allow others to rent the space for daycare. (I haven't fully worked this one out)

So make schools a free babysitting service. Got it.

6. Discipline - detention and punishment should either promote studying or feel more like punishment to a kid. Sticking kids in a detention hall with nothing to do is not constructive at all, it just prepares kids for prison life.

How about instead of detention, we bring back paddling? No, can't do that, people will sue. Of course, when a child is beaten repeatedly at home by their parents, even paddling isn't much of a punishment. Of course, once again, we're back to putting blame on parents and that won't win you any elections.

7. Teachers pensions - I don't know how these have gotten so out of hand. I imagine it is because the both sides are not on a equal footing of expertise regarding pensions. Both sides should have their own consultants and actuaries who work independently and audit each others work. This probably goes for all unions and their employers.

Uhh...what? I pay 14% of my check every month into retirement, and these days it's only a hope it will still be there when I'm ready to retire.

Again, so many experts...

I agree with everything you said. However I would make a few aditions.

1: Get rid of opinionated text books and get rid of indoctrination. I hate having kids today being told you will believe this or face punishment.

Impossible. Everyone has an opinion and a motive.

2: Get rid of Tenurship. I can't tell you how many times when teachers get tenurship they don't care about teaching. They're getting paid no matter what. Which leads me to

I can't speak for other states, but in Missouri, being tenured doesn't mean you can't be relieved of your teaching. It just means you have to be given due process and it has to be shown you were failing at being a teacher.

3: Pay teachers on the quality of their work. Not seniority.

So many experts...

And how do you propose we do that Doug? Let's say you and I are both teachers in the same department. I've been teaching for 4 years and you're a new teacher. One of us is going to get the upper level achieving class and the other is going to get the more basic class. Since I've been teaching longer, I'll probably get the higher achieving class, leaving you the lower.

Are you telling me you're okay with making significantly less money than me, simply because of situations beyond your control? That's such a stupid argument.

4: Teachers opinions should be left to those classes that advocate opinions. Which also leads me to having teachers be held accountable when they are openly biased against a student for their opinion and can be proven.

You're a dumbass. Just saying. You've obviously never heard of the 1st Amendment.

5: Better quality Special education and teachers that are willing to teach the classes. I can't tell you how much I wanted to murder my teachers because they obviously couldn't care less about helping special needs students.

No offense, but special education students are being groomed for careers in the janitorial business. That's not an insult, those people are valuable, no question.

The point is though, they're not destined for jobs which require a lot of individual deep thinking. We should be spending LESS time and money on special education, and more of it on those students who can truly make a difference in life.

6: Provide an alternate view on history rather than our own. That way students can formulate their own opinion as to what is right and what is wrong.

History is a dying subject in schools. We only care about math and science these days.

I think any reforms for the better are probably impossible. If you try to do anything to rein in the teachers union, you'll just cause a repeat of what happened last year in Wisconsin and you can expect to spend years fighting off lawsuits and attempts by the unions to run you out of office.

As well you should. It's time this country stops catering to the wealthy elite, and start spreading the money around to the little guy.

Equalizing funding sounds like a good idea in theory, but I could imagine this would further reduce local control of education. If schools are dependent on state or federal funding, that means that a politician could decide that all schools must teach abstinence-only (or comprehensive sex ed for that matter) or risk losing their funding.

People don't have any idea how ridiculous funding for schools is.

It's not like schools get one large lump sum of money and are told, "spend this how you wish". Every dollar is earmarked and must be spent in certain ways. And if you don't spend it, you lose it. You can't put it in the bank.

The best solution I can come up with is:

1) Make school attendance voluntary. Forcing kids to go to school against their will only causes problems for everybody. If attendance is voluntary, this provides teachers with incentives to do a better job so that kids want to attend school and it probably greatly reduces bullying and classroom disruptions.

I think it should be required, but only through 7th or 8th grade. The honorable idea of public education is that anyone can make of themselves anything they want. That they can cast off their lot in life, and become whatever they wish to become. It obviously doesn't work that way, but it CAN.

Children don't know what they want. Hell, even young adults don't. How many college students change majors? The decision to not attend school at age 8 is probably not one with proper perspective. I think children should be allowed to drop out of school after 8th grade with parent permission, up until they are 18 and can drop out when they wish.

2) Give schools as much local control as possible.

I agree, but there needs to be overview of the school boards. But I agree, local districts should have the right to decide what's best for their students.

3) Find some way to allow parents and kids to choose which school to attend. Because each community has just one local public school system, this may not exactly be practical, but some degree of choice would help the bad schools to either change their ways or shut down.

It sounds good in theory, but impractical. Let's say I live in District A. All of my tax money goes to District A. Same with people who live in District B, District C, and District D.

What if every parent wants to send their child to District B? How can District B afford all of these students, without the tax money to build new buildings, hire new teachers, etc.? You could make the argument of tuition, but then you're setting up a class system, in which only the richest families receive benefits.

No, it's just not a practical theory.

People will probably still be discussing how to fix the education system 20 or 30 years from now. Like the rest of our problems, its probably impossible to fix because of the special interest groups.

No, it's impossible to fix because society really doesn't give a damn. They give lip service and express outrage, but when it comes to time to actually affect their lives, suddenly they don't care anymore.

The same family of four who will pay $500 to go watch a baseball game, will vehemently oppose any tax increases which would go to improve the quality of the school. The Los Angeles Angels will pay Albert Pujols $240 million dollars over the next ten years at the same time the state of California is bankrupt.

The problem is not nearly so much with the educational system, but rather the priority our society places on education.

 

[H33LTurn]

I think its wrong to just blame the students. No student wakes up and thinks, "I'm going to spend the next 20 something years not applying myself". First, the government doesnt want to fund inner schools. Theres no motivation when you have torn up textbooks and interesting classes being eliminated. Teachers arent willing to apply themselves to their jobs and instead graded on attitude. I dont know about you but when I gave my all and still got a 70 on a class, knowing I didnt deserve such a low grade, I gave up. Teachers are supposed to make their classes interesting. I remember one year my Global teacher always kept us on or toes and actually cared about how we would do on the test, the next year my teacher was just concerned about giving enough work to grade.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

So many experts...

First of all, by whose standards is education bad? Ignoring for a moment more people are going to college than ever before, ignoring for a moment so many people who are "experts" at how bad our system is didn't finish the equivalent of high school, and ignoring for the moment that most of the adults who claim the education system is bad couldn't do half the work our high school students do, let's focus on the fact kids today know so much more in many areas than adults.

For example, I teach a 4th grade computer class. We work with Linux computers. I teach them how to login to a Novell network, save files to a network share, use word processing and presentation software, proper safety on Facebook, how to use different features of Google search, etc. 4th graders...10 years old. These are things their teachers cannot do. Literally, their teachers, at the end of the year, are asking the students how to do things on the computer.

Technology is a HUGE part of life today. It affects everything we do, and students today are exponentially better at understanding how technology works than adults are. It's not even close. And yet, this important component of everyday life is not tested. Ever. Why not? I have fifth graders who can go out in the woods, know which gun to use when shooting ducks or deer, kill the deer, skin it, butcher it, and process it to have food for the next several months. How come this is never tested? Half of my sixth grade is learning to play a musical instrument, how come this is never tested?

The problem isn't the educational system, but rather how we're judging education. For some reason, we have this idea that what politicians think is important is what we should measure student learning on, and that is simply asinine. Not every student needs to know math and science to have a great life. I'm living proof of that, and I was so good at school, I got my entire college paid for through an academic scholarship.


As far as students not reaching arbitrarily set goals put forth by politicians who couldn't reach those goals themselves (check link), there are two major reasons for this, in my mind.

1) Parental support is simply not enough. Everybody wants to blame teachers and make them pay for a lack of student achievement, but when you're teaching to a group of kids who have no incentive to do well on a test, how is that a teacher's fault? I've long said if you want to see an improvement in student achieve, you levy legal fines against the parents of underperforming students.

Of course, then they won't vote for you in the next election, so you can see why that will never happen.

2) The focus these days in the classroom is not on sitting students down and presenting knowledge and facts, but rather "differentiated instruction", the idea you have to present the same lesson in 47 different ways because different students learn differently. So colleges waste so much time teaching teachers how to do all sorts of differentiated instruction, without ever teaching the future teachers the knowledge they need to pass on to their students. It's silly. In my college career, I was never given any lessons to help achieve student growth. And I come from a school highly respected in the state for its education department.
Fuck off. I work my ass off in what I do. And so did my grandparents and my parents.

Allow me to post some Matt Damon greatness...

[youtube]WFHJkvEwyhk[/youtube]

And schools have become far more than a place where knowledge is passed on to future generations.

Allow me to post part of a scene from Boston Legal. A teacher was sued because another student sneaked a candy bar into class, and a student with a peanut allergy ate it and died.



If only teachers were only asked to impart knowledge to the next generation...
Good point. It's not like children have the entire rest of their lives to work, let's make sure they never have any fun ever.

Teachers should be paid two or three times more than they are. It's amazing how everyone bitches about raising taxes for education, and then complains when test scores aren't up to arbitrarily set levels. Their bitching, of course, comes during the middle of the baseball game they paid $500 a ticket for. They just can't afford a couple more tax dollars out of their check.

When Alex Rodriguez walks to the batters box, whether he swings the bat or not, he'll make more money than I make in a year. Want to fix education? Let's fix society's values first.

So how do you keep kids focused on your class and not others?

But then you're "tracking" students, and that can hurt their feelings. The last thing we want to do is separate students in such a way, ask all the people who bitch about it being done now.

So make schools a free babysitting service. Got it.

How about instead of detention, we bring back paddling? No, can't do that, people will sue. Of course, when a child is beaten repeatedly at home by their parents, even paddling isn't much of a punishment. Of course, once again, we're back to putting blame on parents and that won't win you any elections.

Uhh...what? I pay 14% of my check every month into retirement, and these days it's only a hope it will still be there when I'm ready to retire.

Again, so many experts...

Impossible. Everyone has an opinion and a motive.

I can't speak for other states, but in Missouri, being tenured doesn't mean you can't be relieved of your teaching. It just means you have to be given due process and it has to be shown you were failing at being a teacher.

So many experts...

And how do you propose we do that Doug? Let's say you and I are both teachers in the same department. I've been teaching for 4 years and you're a new teacher. One of us is going to get the upper level achieving class and the other is going to get the more basic class. Since I've been teaching longer, I'll probably get the higher achieving class, leaving you the lower.

Are you telling me you're okay with making significantly less money than me, simply because of situations beyond your control? That's such a stupid argument.

You're a dumbass. Just saying. You've obviously never heard of the 1st Amendment.

No offense, but special education students are being groomed for careers in the janitorial business. That's not an insult, those people are valuable, no question.

The point is though, they're not destined for jobs which require a lot of individual deep thinking. We should be spending LESS time and money on special education, and more of it on those students who can truly make a difference in life.

History is a dying subject in schools. We only care about math and science these days.

As well you should. It's time this country stops catering to the wealthy elite, and start spreading the money around to the little guy.

People don't have any idea how ridiculous funding for schools is.

It's not like schools get one large lump sum of money and are told, "spend this how you wish". Every dollar is earmarked and must be spent in certain ways. And if you don't spend it, you lose it. You can't put it in the bank.

I think it should be required, but only through 7th or 8th grade. The honorable idea of public education is that anyone can make of themselves anything they want. That they can cast off their lot in life, and become whatever they wish to become. It obviously doesn't work that way, but it CAN.

Children don't know what they want. Hell, even young adults don't. How many college students change majors? The decision to not attend school at age 8 is probably not one with proper perspective. I think children should be allowed to drop out of school after 8th grade with parent permission, up until they are 18 and can drop out when they wish.

I agree, but there needs to be overview of the school boards. But I agree, local districts should have the right to decide what's best for their students.

It sounds good in theory, but impractical. Let's say I live in District A. All of my tax money goes to District A. Same with people who live in District B, District C, and District D.

What if every parent wants to send their child to District B? How can District B afford all of these students, without the tax money to build new buildings, hire new teachers, etc.? You could make the argument of tuition, but then you're setting up a class system, in which only the richest families receive benefits.

No, it's just not a practical theory.


No, it's impossible to fix because society really doesn't give a damn. They give lip service and express outrage, but when it comes to time to actually affect their lives, suddenly they don't care anymore.

The same family of four who will pay $500 to go watch a baseball game, will vehemently oppose any tax increases which would go to improve the quality of the school. The Los Angeles Angels will pay Albert Pujols $240 million dollars over the next ten years at the same time the state of California is bankrupt.

The problem is not nearly so much with the educational system, but rather the priority our society places on education.

I'm not going to debate with you but I'm gonna say one thing. Janitorial jobs? Seriously? You do realize that there are high functioning learning disabled students who actually made something of themselves. I'm sorry Sly but that's the most asinine statement I've read from you.

 

[SalvIsWin]

No offense, but special education students are being groomed for careers in the janitorial business. That's not an insult, those people are valuable, no question.

The point is though, they're not destined for jobs which require a lot of individual deep thinking. We should be spending LESS time and money on special education, and more of it on those students who can truly make a difference in life.

Special education students encompasses such a wide variety of students, from those who are significantly underdeveloped compared to their peers, to students who simply suffer from a learning disability that needs to be helped by an understanding and knowledgeable teacher and in that case they will be just fine. It's pretty dumb and ignorant to insinuate that special needs students should be thought of as an afterthought because of their disabilities on moral and ethical grounds, but also on grounds of logic.

 

[RockFan89]

So many experts...
First of all, by whose standards is education bad? Ignoring for a moment more people are going to college than ever before, ignoring for a moment so many people who are "experts" at how bad our system is didn't finish the equivalent of high school, and ignoring for the moment that most of the adults who claim the education system is bad couldn't do half the work our high school students do, let's focus on the fact kids today know so much more in many areas than adults.

But why are you comparing kids today to the kids of 30 years ago? They're not going to be competing with them for jobs, they're going to be competing with kids in Japan, China, Korea, India, France, England, Germany, Finland, Brazil, etc.

Besides, of course kids today are going to know more. We live in the information age. No longer can an average person support a family of four on just a high school education. Being educated becomes more and more of a necessary in today's, and especially tomorrow's, market.

For example, I teach a 4th grade computer class. We work with Linux computers. I teach them how to login to a Novell network, save files to a network share, use word processing and presentation software, proper safety on Facebook, how to use different features of Google search, etc. 4th graders...10 years old. These are things their teachers cannot do. Literally, their teachers, at the end of the year, are asking the students how to do things on the computer.

Technology is a HUGE part of life today. It affects everything we do, and students today are exponentially better at understanding how technology works than adults are. It's not even close. And yet, this important component of everyday life is not tested. Ever. Why not? I have fifth graders who can go out in the woods, know which gun to use when shooting ducks or deer, kill the deer, skin it, butcher it, and process it to have food for the next several months. How come this is never tested? Half of my sixth grade is learning to play a musical instrument, how come this is never tested?

You can't compare the two. Kids today grew up with technology while most adults had to adapt to it. That would be like comparing someone who learned Spanish at age 18 to someone who grew up in a Spanish speaking home. Of course the later person will understand the language better.

And why would the ability to hunt or play a musical instrument be tested? Not everyone does those things. Those are hobbies and extracurricular activities.

The problem isn't the educational system, but rather how we're judging education. For some reason, we have this idea that what politicians think is important is what we should measure student learning on, and that is simply asinine. Not every student needs to know math and science to have a great life. I'm living proof of that, and I was so good at school, I got my entire college paid for through an academic scholarship.

Math, Science, Reading, and Writing are important beyond just the technical things you pick up. Sure most of us will never need to know how to find the cosine of an angle, but these subjects teach us critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, creativity, logic, and other important traits.

I have no problem in judging our education system by asking our students to solve mathematical problems or to read a passage and explain what it means. Problem solving and communication skills are important things we must instill in our students.

How would you judge our education system then?

"The problem here, as Ms. Bixby correctly states, is we have more and more special needs kids going into our public schools, combined with an unprecedented escalation in auto-immune diseases, autism. The peanut allergy alone has doubled in
recent years.

So, who do we heap this responsibility on? Who else? The teachers. The average annual starting salary for a teacher is $32,000. For that, we ask them to teach, police, provide emotional and social guidance. In some schools, they actually have to clean the toilets. Now, let's throw in healthcare.

This teacher, she works 65-hour weeks. In addition to her actual classroom duties, she teaches sex education to the older kids, she teaches a standardized test the school mandates in order to qualify for funding under the No Child Left Behind Act. She spends another ten hours a month meeting with parents. She supervises extracurricular activities, goes on overnight class trips, cleans and disinfects toys, coaches. She teaches fire drill safety procedures, healthy eating habits, she's certified in CPR, first aid, and food sanitation.

...

Is it any wonder half our teachers are quitting the profession outright within five years? Never mind who's going to handle the epi-pen. Who's going to teach?"

If only teachers were only asked to impart knowledge to the next generation...

I'm sorry, but what teacher does that? 65 hours a week? 10 hours a month meeting parents? Overnight class trips? Sex ed and cleans toys?

That's just a list of a bunch of stuff no individual teacher does. I know none of my teachers did all, or even most, of that.

Sure they're beginning salary is low, but the average salary gets up over 50,000 (although I wouldn't object to them being paid more). Plus, teachers get weekends off, all major holidays (including 2 weeks during Christmas), and 3 months off in summer. I know sometimes they work during that time if they coach a sport or head certain extra-curricular, but those don't go all year and most teachers, especially in elementary and middle school don't do that.

Good point. It's not like children have the entire rest of their lives to work, let's make sure they never have any fun ever.

Shortening the summer to 1 month and spreading the time off throughout the year means kids never are going to have fun? Seriously? They do this in the rest of the world and are kicking our butt. Complaining about this makes you come off as a teacher who's just doesn't want they're vacation shortened.

Teachers should be paid two or three times more than they are. It's amazing how everyone bitches about raising taxes for education, and then complains when test scores aren't up to arbitrarily set levels.

We spend the 2nd most in the world on education per student:

The United States spends more per student, on average, than other countries. In the 2009 PISA study, only Luxembourg spent more per student. The report notes that countries like Estonia and Poland perform at about the same level as the United States, while spending less than half the amount per student.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544897/ns/us_news-life/#.Twp1-IGwWPo

So you could understand why Americans are tired of having to pay more in taxes for education when countries who spend way less than us have much better results.

But then you're "tracking" students, and that can hurt their feelings. The last thing we want to do is separate students in such a way, ask all the people who bitch about it being done now.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not with the "hurt their feelings" part. I'd rather their feelings be hurt then have them just passed on from grade to grade without them learning anything.

And how do you propose we do that Doug? Let's say you and I are both teachers in the same department. I've been teaching for 4 years and you're a new teacher. One of us is going to get the upper level achieving class and the other is going to get the more basic class. Since I've been teaching longer, I'll probably get the higher achieving class, leaving you the lower.

Are you telling me you're okay with making significantly less money than me, simply because of situations beyond your control? That's such a stupid argument.

No one's saying judge teacher performance by that. How about measuring improvement? Compare their exam performance at the beginning of the year (or end of last year) to their performance at the end of the year. Or how about this, have students and parents turn in evaluations at the end of the year. They do this at my college (just not with parents) and I think it's a good way to measure teachers.

You're a dumbass. Just saying. You've obviously never heard of the 1st Amendment.

The first amendment doesn't apply in a classroom setting. Most people can't go into their work place and just start saying whatever they want without repercussion.

No offense, but special education students are being groomed for careers in the janitorial business. That's not an insult, those people are valuable, no question.

The point is though, they're not destined for jobs which require a lot of individual deep thinking. We should be spending LESS time and money on special education, and more of it on those students who can truly make a difference in life.

Yeah...ditto on what Doug Crashin and SalvIsWin said.

It sounds good in theory, but impractical. Let's say I live in District A. All of my tax money goes to District A. Same with people who live in District B, District C, and District D.

What if every parent wants to send their child to District B? How can District B afford all of these students, without the tax money to build new buildings, hire new teachers, etc.? You could make the argument of tuition, but then you're setting up a class system, in which only the richest families receive benefits.

No, it's just not a practical theory.

The problem with your analysis is that I don't think people are actually proposing that. When people want equal funding, they mean on a per child basis. So if all of the parents send their kids to District B, District B gets all the money. School choice revolves around attaching the money to the kid and not the school. That would force them to compete and improve.

No, it's impossible to fix because society really doesn't give a damn. They give lip service and express outrage, but when it comes to time to actually affect their lives, suddenly they don't care anymore.

The same family of four who will pay $500 to go watch a baseball game, will vehemently oppose any tax increases which would go to improve the quality of the school. The Los Angeles Angels will pay Albert Pujols $240 million dollars over the next ten years at the same time the state of California is bankrupt.

The problem is not nearly so much with the educational system, but rather the priority our society places on education.

Well, I agree with the priority part, but not the money part. I've already stated that the U.S. spends more than almost every country when it comes to education. The money is there.

But education is not the highest priority for kids like it is in other countries. Just look at the Asian community in this country, they go to the same schools as everyone else but generally are at the top of their classes because of the work ethic they have. As a society, we've failed to instill that in our children.

Now as one caveat to the comparison with other countries is this. The U.S. has a much more diverse demographic. Teachers have to teach kids from all different backgrounds while these other countries have fairly homogenized classes. That must make the job of teachers here in the U.S. that much harder.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not going to debate with you but I'm gonna say one thing. Janitorial jobs? Seriously? You do realize that there are high functioning learning disabled students who actually made something of themselves. I'm sorry Sly but that's the most asinine statement I've read from you.

Special education students encompasses such a wide variety of students, from those who are significantly underdeveloped compared to their peers, to students who simply suffer from a learning disability that needs to be helped by an understanding and knowledgeable teacher and in that case they will be just fine. It's pretty dumb and ignorant to insinuate that special needs students should be thought of as an afterthought because of their disabilities on moral and ethical grounds, but also on grounds of logic.

I'm fully aware of what special education means. However, I'm talking about the ones who are the biggest drain on the finances of a public school. I'm talking about the true special education students.

It seems today nearly half the students in America have an IEP (an exaggeration, but it highlights what I'm talking about). I'm not speaking about simply having an IEP, I'm talking about the true special education, the ones who cannot exist in a regular class. The amount of money spent on them, compared to a "regular" student is something like an 8:1 ratio. And most of these students will be dishwashers, janitors, etc. You can get morally indignant about if you want, but one of my friends from high school was special education, and he's washing dishes at a Texas Roadhouse.

It's not mean, it's objective. The fact we spend so much more money on students who have a lesser chance to go into fields where more highly developed skills are a requirement is asinine. Why should I, has a student recognized as being gifted with an IQ greater than 95% of the population, have less funds spent on me than my friend who is now washing dishes for a career? That's a silly waste of money.

Nothing against my friend. I liked him, he was nice and treated me nice, I still talk to him at ballgames and stuff...but he didn't deserve to have 8 times the amount of money spent on him.

But why are you comparing kids today to the kids of 30 years ago? They're not going to be competing with them for jobs, they're going to be competing with kids in Japan, China, Korea, India, France, England, Germany, Finland, Brazil, etc.

Because that's what the adults in power are doing. They're taking the skills THEY think are important and applying them to today's children.

Besides, of course kids today are going to know more. We live in the information age. No longer can an average person support a family of four on just a high school education. Being educated becomes more and more of a necessary in today's, and especially tomorrow's, market.

So if we recognize they know more, why do we blame the educational system for them not knowing even more?

You can't compare the two. Kids today grew up with technology while most adults had to adapt to it. That would be like comparing someone who learned Spanish at age 18 to someone who grew up in a Spanish speaking home. Of course the later person will understand the language better.

Exactly. The point is students today DO have greater knowledge. But we're only testing them in areas that politicians feel are important. Are you going to tell me technology isn't important? Why don't we have standardized tests on word processing, social networking, etc.? These are incredibly important skills in today's world, and yet, standardized test worry about if students can regurgitate how civilization originated in the Mesopotamia region. Surely you can understand how completely unimportant that is in today's society.

And why would the ability to hunt or play a musical instrument be tested? Not everyone does those things. Those are hobbies and extracurricular activities.

And not everybody does math or science. I've been in my career for over four years, and not once have I had to do anything beyond basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

You're making my point. When you arbitrarily decide what is important to everyone, you completely miss the point it's not important to everyone. People hunt for food all the time, especially where I live. My wife's father has made his living as a musician. Those things are important to those people. Why should math be more important to my father-in-law than music?

Math, Science, Reading, and Writing are important beyond just the technical things you pick up. Sure most of us will never need to know how to find the cosine of an angle

Exactly. If most of us are not going to use them, why are they more important?

but these subjects teach us critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, creativity, logic, and other important traits.

As does hunting and music. You're not exactly scoring any points here.

I have no problem in judging our education system by asking our students to solve mathematical problems or to read a passage and explain what it means. Problem solving and communication skills are important things we must instill in our students.

Says you. Why is what you think important worth more than what my students think is important?

How would you judge our education system then?

I would judge our education system to be overly governed, and completely missing the point. I would judge many of our schools to be poor, but many many more of them to be very good at what they do. And considering the financial reward in teaching, I think our educational system is outstanding.

There are many talented people who could be fantastic teachers, but they never get into the business. It simply doesn't pay enough for them.

I'm sorry, but what teacher does that? 65 hours a week? 10 hours a month meeting parents? Overnight class trips? Sex ed and cleans toys?

A lot of them. Welcome to our world.

That's just a list of a bunch of stuff no individual teacher does. I know none of my teachers did all, or even most, of that.

And I've done all of that. Whose anecdotal evidence to believe...

You see your teachers for an average of an hour a day. You have no idea what they do the rest of their day or when you're gone. You have no idea what they do when they get home or how many phone calls they take.

Sure they're beginning salary is low, but the average salary gets up over 50,000

Only after years of additional college education. I could have graduated from college in a different field and started out making $50,000. The only way I'll reach that now is 15-20 years in my field, never changing jobs, and by spending more money at college.

(although I wouldn't object to them being paid more).

We only get paid more, when people are willing to receive an increase in taxes.

Plus, teachers get weekends off, all major holidays (including 2 weeks during Christmas), and 3 months off in summer. I know sometimes they work during that time if they coach a sport or head certain extra-curricular, but those don't go all year and most teachers, especially in elementary and middle school don't do that.

I'm a middle school teacher. I'm a PE teacher, a computer teacher, an assistant in the technology department and our webmaster. I've yet to have 3 months off in the summer, I spent half of my Christmas break working on technology things, and I spend many times over the weekend trying to learn more about website development, since I've never had any formal training.

Again, so many experts...

Shortening the summer to 1 month and spreading the time off throughout the year means kids never are going to have fun? Seriously? They do this in the rest of the world and are kicking our butt. Complaining about this makes you come off as a teacher who's just doesn't want they're vacation shortened.

I barely get a vacation, so I can assure you that's not the reason.

Why are we so worried about catching up to the rest of the world? Why is education competitive? Shouldn't education be about teaching our children what's best for them?

And as far as other countries go, most (if not all) of them don't support special education students like we do. Many countries track their students into different levels of education. Many countries don't have the permissive culture for children like we do in America. The idea we should be comparing ourselves to other countries, when the situations are completely different, is stupid.

We spend the 2nd most in the world on education per student:

So you could understand why Americans are tired of having to pay more in taxes for education when countries who spend way less than us have much better results.

Is it important to you or not?

As I said, most countries don't have the situations we deal with in America. Sure, they have their own unique hindrances, but the point remains the same. You simply cannot compare.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not with the "hurt their feelings" part. I'd rather their feelings be hurt then have them just passed on from grade to grade without them learning anything.

No, I'm serious. Tracking in school has been a big debate for years, because by putting students in certain tracks, the theory is you are telling them they can never be as good as other students, and that makes them not want to work as hard.

No one's saying judge teacher performance by that. How about measuring improvement? Compare their exam performance at the beginning of the year (or end of last year) to their performance at the end of the year.

What if I have a student, who in just this year alone, had his father arrested and put in jail, and then had his father die in jail. Then, right before Christmas, had his grandfather die.

You think that might have something to do with his learning this year? Should teachers be penalized for this?

Or how about this, have students and parents turn in evaluations at the end of the year. They do this at my college (just not with parents) and I think it's a good way to measure teachers.

Do you have any idea how stupid that is? I bet if I didn't teach anything, and let my students watch MTV all year, they would give me great evaluations. And if they were thinking of not giving me a good evaluation, I would make sure I would tell them that I'd find out and flunk them.

So many experts...

The first amendment doesn't apply in a classroom setting. Most people can't go into their work place and just start saying whatever they want without repercussion.

Public schools are government funded settings. The first amendment VERY much applies. Quit saying stupid things.

The problem with your analysis is that I don't think people are actually proposing that. When people want equal funding, they mean on a per child basis. So if all of the parents send their kids to District B, District B gets all the money. School choice revolves around attaching the money to the kid and not the school. That would force them to compete and improve.

That's not how the system works, and it couldn't work that way. School funding is a complicated process. We get money from federal, state and county taxes. Perhaps even city, I'm not sure on that. You can't simply give money based solely upon student enrollment.

Furthermore, what if next year 400 new students decide to go to District C school? They're not going to have the classrooms, the teachers, etc., not to mention the scheduling, ready for that many new students.

It's just not a feasible idea.

Well, I agree with the priority part, but not the money part. I've already stated that the U.S. spends more than almost every country when it comes to education. The money is there.

No it's not. For reasons I've already mentioned.

Class sizes are growing. Building repair is tough. Money is earmarked only for certain projects. Some students receive many times more the amount of money than the general student population.

If education is really as important as people scream about, then they'd be willing to forgo those season tickets and 3 $8 beers, and pony up a little more for education. It's all about priorities.

But education is not the highest priority for kids like it is in other countries.

Well, math and science education isn't.

As a society, we've failed to instill that in our children.

Agreed. Which can hardly be labeled the fault of the educational system.

It seems we both agree that for education to ever be improved, there first needs to be a significant change in attitude in society.

Now as one caveat to the comparison with other countries is this. The U.S. has a much more diverse demographic. Teachers have to teach kids from all different backgrounds while these other countries have fairly homogenized classes. That must make the job of teachers here in the U.S. that much harder.

It does. And the culture is different too. It never fails we have to suspend students for things like drugs at school, cursing at a teacher, fighting, etc. Do you think Japanese teachers have to deal with that? Of course not.

 

[Harthan]

The biggest problem in the education system for me is far too little emphasis on science (and, as a byproduct, math [arguably computers as well], but on a mainstream level math is only important as a tool for science). Science education is flawed on nearly every level. One, it's taught as if it's equally important as other subjects, which is patent nonsense. I'm in favor of a balanced education, to be sure - I think it's vitally important that students read great literature, learn how to write well, and gain an understanding of the civic system. But the problem is that we prioritize these skills equally with the most singular important thing to the wealth and success of nations, which is science. Take a gander through history, and find out who the most successful nations are. You'll find, and it's no coincidence, that those nations have the highest scientific output. When the United States became a true economic superpower during and after World War II, do you know what fueled it? Science, science, science. We had massive scientific output with the intent of innovating in any and all areas that could aid the war effort, and once we got started and had a metric fuckton of industry in place, we kept going. Our economy exploded. The only reason the United States can still be called a superpower is because of the scientific output that we had then. Want to know why our economy is stagnating? We're not innovating enough. We're putting out fewer scientists and fewer engineers then ever. Our government dumps billions into welfare that doesn't produce for the economy, and meanwhile, cancels and refuses to fund scientific projects that could change the world. Look at the particle accelerator at CERN, doing the most important work in physics in the modern era. By the by, before you say, "What good is it if we find some theoretical Higgs boson!", nobody knew that quantum mechanics would turn out to be as vitally important to modern technology back when we first researched it, so hush on that point. Back to the particle accelerator - did you know the United States was going to build a bigger one? And we cancelled it. Cancelled it, no doubt, to provide food stamps and Medicare to the least productive echelon of society.

Incidentally? China is rapidly overtaking the US in scientific output. Coincidentally, the most powerful rising economy is...?

I'm rambling a bit, but you get the point. We're not emphasizing science across the board, and it is going to destroy us. I fear it's already too late. But perhaps it isn't, and we can only work as if it isn't. Double the amount of time you spend in science class, double its funding. Do it at the expense of anything else. Sly mentioned Mesopotamia. We are in panic mode. We do not have time for that shit. Cut it out. Teach kids about atoms, molecules, reactions, evolution, dinosaurs, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein. All of it, as rapidly as possible, and then keep going. You can inspire kids to love science. It's pretty easy. Get the kids hooked early and it'll follow from there. Maybe I'm wrong on the methodology - I'm not an expert in teaching kids. What I know is that however we do it, we just desperately need to start focusing on a science oriented education. Not one where science is an objective alongside others, but one where it is the primary objective.

There's a bevy of other problems to address, as well. Discipline at home, what to do with the kids who aren't cut out for science, special education. Actually, let's talk about special education. Sly, you're spot on and I've said it before - I cannot understand for the life of me why we spend so much money on kids who will grow up to be nothing. It's harsh, I know, but I said it already - the educational system of the US is in panic mode, it's time to be harsh. It's part of the broader problem of schools becoming a free day care center, I suppose, but really, we need to cut this shit out. I'm making a distinction between kids for whom special education is the difference between life at home and a service sector job, versus kids who are going to live with their parents their entire life no matter what and never do anything. The former group deserve proportional attention, though they should be a secondary objective to the school's science objective. The latter group should be left at home for their parents to deal with privately. I'm sorry. I know it must be horrible to have a severely disabled child. But our schools are desperate. There are sacrifices to be made, and this is one of them.

I worry that our educational system is a huge component of our country being fucked long term, and maybe, just maybe, we can fix it. We won't, of course, until it's far too late, which is why America is silently falling from grace and why we'll shortly (relatively speaking) be overtaken by China, India, and South America economically as the world superpowers. If we're lucky, we enter that position with some form of dignity, like Europe. More likely, we fall apart disastrously and become the 21st century Rome.

 

[RockFan89]

Because that's what the adults in power are doing. They're taking the skills THEY think are important and applying them to today's children.

So if we recognize they know more, why do we blame the educational system for them not knowing even more?

Exactly. The point is students today DO have greater knowledge. But we're only testing them in areas that politicians feel are important. Are you going to tell me technology isn't important? Why don't we have standardized tests on word processing, social networking, etc.? These are incredibly important skills in today's world, and yet, standardized test worry about if students can regurgitate how civilization originated in the Mesopotamia region. Surely you can understand how completely unimportant that is in today's society.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people in this country view math and reading as important, not just politicians. Understanding history also allows students to know where they come from. If we are going to expect kids to be leaders tomorrow, they should be learning from the mistakes and successes of the past.

And not everybody does math or science. I've been in my career for over four years, and not once have I had to do anything beyond basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

You're making my point. When you arbitrarily decide what is important to everyone, you completely miss the point it's not important to everyone. People hunt for food all the time, especially where I live. My wife's father has made his living as a musician. Those things are important to those people. Why should math be more important to my father-in-law than music?

No one says a kid can't do music and know math. Childhood is all about exploring interests, but every child should have a solid basis to work off of, and that basis is math and reading. These skills are far more transferable to other areas than hunting or music.

I would judge our education system to be overly governed, and completely missing the point. I would judge many of our schools to be poor, but many many more of them to be very good at what they do. And considering the financial reward in teaching, I think our educational system is outstanding.

There are many talented people who could be fantastic teachers, but they never get into the business. It simply doesn't pay enough for them.

I actually meant how would you distinguish from a good school and a bad school, a good teacher from a bad teacher.

And like I said, I've got no problem paying our teachers more, but they need to develop a merit system of pay.

You see your teachers for an average of an hour a day. You have no idea what they do the rest of their day or when you're gone. You have no idea what they do when they get home or how many phone calls they take.

Kids know what teachers do. Throughout the year they mention what they did at home or how they spent their summer.

Why are we so worried about catching up to the rest of the world? Why is education competitive? Shouldn't education be about teaching our children what's best for them?

And as far as other countries go, most (if not all) of them don't support special education students like we do. Many countries track their students into different levels of education. Many countries don't have the permissive culture for children like we do in America. The idea we should be comparing ourselves to other countries, when the situations are completely different, is stupid.

Education is competitive because the world is competitive. We educate kids so that they can grow up and get jobs. If the rest of the world has a better educated workforce, then those jobs will leave the U.S.

Given your view on special education then, why don't you push for reduced spending on them instead of an increase in taxes?

Is it important to you or not?

As I said, most countries don't have the situations we deal with in America. Sure, they have their own unique hindrances, but the point remains the same. You simply cannot compare.

Of course it's important, but my point is that money is not the problem. The system has enough money, it's how we spend it.

And while you may not want to compare, those kids' future employers will.

What if I have a student, who in just this year alone, had his father arrested and put in jail, and then had his father die in jail. Then, right before Christmas, had his grandfather die.

You think that might have something to do with his learning this year? Should teachers be penalized for this?

One student's rare circumstance is not going to completely skew the results. You can't make an argument based on the exception.

Do you have any idea how stupid that is? I bet if I didn't teach anything, and let my students watch MTV all year, they would give me great evaluations. And if they were thinking of not giving me a good evaluation, I would make sure I would tell them that I'd find out and flunk them.

So many experts...

Didn't you just say this...

Why is what you think important worth more than what my students think is important?

You just stated basically that our students are smarter than we give them credit for, but not when it comes to evaluating how well you do as a teacher?

My favorite teachers were always the ones who were fair and the ones I felt I learned the most from. Sure some will give unfair scores, but when you have at least 30 students doing the evaluation, on balance the results will reflect reality.

Public schools are government funded settings. The first amendment VERY much applies. Quit saying stupid things.

The problem is that the kids don't have a choice when it comes to listening. You might have the freedom to speak, but you can't force people to listen.

That's not how the system works, and it couldn't work that way. School funding is a complicated process. We get money from federal, state and county taxes. Perhaps even city, I'm not sure on that. You can't simply give money based solely upon student enrollment.

Furthermore, what if next year 400 new students decide to go to District C school? They're not going to have the classrooms, the teachers, etc., not to mention the scheduling, ready for that many new students.

It's just not a feasible idea.

These changes won't happen overnight, and schools will have discretion when capacity becomes an issue. The problems you pose are not going to be solved immediately, but overtime the good schools will grow and get funding while the poor ones will shut down, as they should.

Class sizes are growing. Building repair is tough. Money is earmarked only for certain projects. Some students receive many times more the amount of money than the general student population.

If education is really as important as people scream about, then they'd be willing to forgo those season tickets and 3 $8 beers, and pony up a little more for education. It's all about priorities.

You can't stereotype all people who oppose an increase in taxes that will just have more money thrown into an ineffective system. Money spent per student has gone up but results haven't
(source: http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ore-on-education-improve-academic-achievement)

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people in this country view math and reading as important, not just politicians.

But the vast majority don't live my life. That's my point.

Understanding history also allows students to know where they come from. If we are going to expect kids to be leaders tomorrow, they should be learning from the mistakes and successes of the past.

Yes, and knowing how to use technology is the difference in being employed and being unemployed in many situations these days.

No one says a kid can't do music and know math. Childhood is all about exploring interests, but every child should have a solid basis to work off of, and that basis is math and reading. These skills are far more transferable to other areas than hunting or music.

Why? I can understand reading, but why is math more transferable? Music is one of the oldest forms of expression, don't tell me it's not important.

You're arbitrarily deciding what's important, based on what YOU think is important. Furthermore, you're only testing based on what you think is important. That's my point. For my father-in-law, anything besides basic math was a waste of his time. And yet, he would only be graded on that which was a waste of his time.

All of which is to say that judging our educational system based simply on math and science is ridiculous.

I actually meant how would you distinguish from a good school and a bad school, a good teacher from a bad teacher.

A good school is any institution which maximizes their student's abilities. Economic status has been proven time and again to be the biggest factor in a child's ability to perform well on a test. Not teachers, not textbooks, but economic status.

If you maximize what your students are capable of, then you've done well as a teacher/school.

And like I said, I've got no problem paying our teachers more, but they need to develop a merit system of pay.

Why? Did you not read the example I presented to Dagger earlier?

Kids know what teachers do.

No they don't. Hell, both my mother and father were teachers, and I still didn't fully appreciate what teachers do until I became one.

Education is competitive because the world is competitive. We educate kids so that they can grow up and get jobs.

Yes, because no one was ever able to get a job until education became competitive.

If the rest of the world has a better educated workforce, then those jobs will leave the U.S.

No...just no. That sentence shows an incredibly limited understanding of economics. Jobs aren't leaving the country because our workers are uneducated, they're leaving the country because other countries are uneducated. Because they'll work for 15 cents an hour and no bathroom breaks.

Given your view on special education then, why don't you push for reduced spending on them instead of an increase in taxes?

I am.

What I'm saying though is that it's time for society to put its money where its mouth is. People scream all day long about our educational system, and yet aren't willing to do more to support it.

You seem to have this idea that schools have a lot of money. That is simply false. Money is tight. Money has been tight for nearly a decade now. Schools don't have the money you seem to think we do. Not to mention the fact that funding for schools is not equal and involves complicated formulas. Which doesn't even take into account government subsidized lunch for poorer students, transportation for special needs students, etc.

If education is really such a problem, people need to put their money where their mouth is. It's that simple.

Of course it's important, but my point is that money is not the problem. The system has enough money, it's how we spend it.

See above.

And while you may not want to compare, those kids' future employers will.

No they won't. Do you really think the local insurance company is going to compare the standardized test scores of a local American student with the standardized test scores of a student who currently lives in Asia?

One student's rare circumstance is not going to completely skew the results. You can't make an argument based on the exception.

That's only THIS student's rare circumstance. But those stories exist EVERYWHERE. We had a student whose mother shot herself in the head with a shotgun, because the hidden money account she was embezzling money to was about to get her arrested. We had a student whose mother and stepfather were arrested for drug use, and the student now lives with grandparents. We've had a student who is the only person of her family currently not in jail for drug use...she was 14 years old at the time.

These circumstances happen all the time, unfortunately. These kids have WAY more important things to worry about than whether or not their teacher gets a bump in pay at the end of the year.

Didn't you just say this...

You just stated basically that our students are smarter than we give them credit for, but not when it comes to evaluating how well you do as a teacher?

They do know more than they're given credit for. That doesn't mean they necessarily like having to do the work to get there. A teacher who lets a student do whatever they want is more likely to be liked than a teacher who makes the student buckle down and work all the time.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make, but I'm pretty sure you failed miserably.

My favorite teachers were always the ones who were fair and the ones I felt I learned the most from. Sure some will give unfair scores, but when you have at least 30 students doing the evaluation, on balance the results will reflect reality.

No they won't. We did those things in college all the time, and students never took them seriously. And these were college students filling out the evaluations.

Do you really think high school students are going to care? Get real.

The problem is that the kids don't have a choice when it comes to listening. You might have the freedom to speak, but you can't force people to listen.

They don't have to listen. They can think what they want.

You're wrong in every way here. Revisit your Constitution.

These changes won't happen overnight, and schools will have discretion when capacity becomes an issue.

So capacity becomes an issue, and a school has to decide between a student from a rich white family, or a poor black family with a history of drug crimes.

Geez, I wonder which one the school will take. Class system anyone?

The problems you pose are not going to be solved immediately, but overtime the good schools will grow and get funding while the poor ones will shut down, as they should.

Again, you are missing the point.

The best predictor for student achievement is economic status. Poorer children, on average, do worse than rich children. A community made up of poor children is less likely to do well than a community made up of rich students. If you shut down the school with the poorer performing children, where are they going to go? To the "better" school. At which point that school's test scores will drop.

There is no such thing as a "magic" school. Are there some schools which are, comparatively speaking, better than others? Sure. But all things being equal, the idea of kids going where they want is simply asinine, for all the reasons I've stated in all of my posts.

You can't stereotype all people who oppose an increase in taxes that will just have more money thrown into an ineffective system.

Ineffective according to who? We have more students in college than ever before. Technology in the last 20 years has improved at a rate three times the rate of ever before. We have young people starting Youtube in their garage, Facebook at college, and having them become worldwide phenomena.

So ineffective to who? Politicians who use scare tactics to get people to vote for them? People who think the only way to measure student achievement is math and science, regardless of whether math and science has any relevance to the student or not? Did you not read my article from earlier about the Florida Board of Education member who failed the 10th grade test?

At the end of the day, the measures we use for assessing student achievement are silly (and that's not even getting in to how ridiculous the scoring on these tests can be). It's time we stop thinking there is a universal need for certain areas, and quit telling kids they're dumb because they don't score well in two subjects they don't care about and never affect their lives.

 

[Remix]

Just to put a different perspective on things. For the record, Slyfox is right and knows more about it than you do, unless you are also a teacher.

Yes, and knowing how to use technology is the difference in being employed and being unemployed in many situations these days.

This is very true and is indicative of how the world has advanced. From what you've said about your ten yearolds I certainly couldn't do half of the things that you mentioned. But then, I've never needed to. I've also never needed to know how to use the cosine rule. I doubt I ever will (that goes for both things). I expect that in ten years time many of your students will say the same about using Linux. In school you learn a lot of stuff you never use after you leave it with a slip of paper saying you passed.

Why? I can understand reading, but why is math more transferable? Music is one of the oldest forms of expression, don't tell me it's not important.

Depends what level of maths you're talking about. Basic maths is something everyone should be able to do and that is considerably more important (in my opinion) than music. Even musicians need to be able to count. How often does a day go by when you don't need to add, subtract, multiply or divide? Higher levels of maths I agree with you to a point. Nobody other than an engineer or maths teacher is going to need to use the cosine rule. But the entirity of modern society is built on maths. Computers do almost nothing but maths and as I'm sure you've discovered, statistics are ingrained at the core of everything. Music, as you say is one of the oldest forms of expression but it is not as funtimental to the way society works like maths is.

I'm prejudiced against the arts (I'm a science man), but they have their place in schools. If someone prefers to play the saxaphone than learning about physics and are better at the former than the latter then that should be encouraged. Trying to fit 1,000 pegs of different size and shape through one hole is futile.

You're arbitrarily deciding what's important, based on what YOU think is important. Furthermore, you're only testing based on what you think is important. That's my point. For my father-in-law, anything besides basic math was a waste of his time. And yet, he would only be graded on that which was a waste of his time.

In my opinion some things are more important. Knowing how to read English is more important than knowing how to read music. For the majority of people knowing how to add and subtract is more important than knowing how to do a 95% confidence interval.

In a hypothetical world where I was in absolute control of the education system the only subjects that every single student would need to know by the time they graduate would be literacy, basic maths, and how to use a computer. Beyond those three things the rest would be optional (within reason). Wherever possible it would be the student making the choices, with the classes appropriately streamed (if possible) as long as there is a full time table with aforementioned fundimentals being taught. School would be optional after 16, with an assessment taking place in that school year. From 16-18 the student would choose a small number of classes. It would be a pain in the arse to manage but a step up from 1,000 pegs and one hole.

A good school is any institution which maximizes their student's abilities. Economic status has been proven time and again to be the biggest factor in a child's ability to perform well on a test. Not teachers, not textbooks, but economic status.

Ecconomic status also significantly affects life expectancy. To the point that one of my lecturers who once lived in a major city (Glasgow, I think. In any case, that's the city with the street that has the lowest life expectancy in the UK) was advised which streets not to live in because the life expectancy was so low there. Coincidentally those streets were the ones where the poor people live. That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand but hey, my teachers always told me I have a tendancy to go off on tangents.

There's a test that's done on English Secondary Schools (For those of you that are stateside that's ages 11-16/18) that takes into account factors like ecconomic status, number of SpLD students (that is students with Specific Learning Disabilities. I assume that you use different jargon in the USA) and the like. The test looks at the students going in, and the results obtained when those students left. An average school would score 1,000. Good schools score higher, worse schools score lower. It's called "the contextual value added" Do you know of something similar to that in the USA, Sly?

 

[Fuel The Fire]

So, I'm watching this documentary called "Waiting for Superman". Which is basically about how shitty our school system is.

I don't wanna discuss the documentary, I want to discuss the system. Personally, I think it's a double-edged sword. In many cases, mostly the inner schools, yes the school system blows. In others, like a lot of lazy students I know, they get bad grades (due to laziness, they expect teachers to dance and sing them songs or something) and then blame it on the system.

I would like to see equal funding per student across the board and your school gets more if there are improvements. Get rid of guaranteed contracts for teachers, get rid of no student left behind, and make it harder to become a teacher. My last suggestion may be the hardest part but seriously, the education majors at my school are the dumbest people. They get 2.75 GPA with a class schedule that's literally "swimming, dance, making bullitin boards, and anatomy".

Ok, all I did was read this one and I wanted to step my foot in the Newswire. From one who has had a learning disibility in high school with writing and english and try to keep up and it's hard at times. But the one thing I remember is that they forced me to go to the room where teachers would give you one and one. That I didn't have a proplem with but the thing I did not like is that the would do the work for you. I kept telling them no and that I didn't want to go in their and I wanted to try and learn this with out them just walking me along the way. I felt like I didn't learn much and it made me very recentfull from getting a tutor in college. So thats all I can say but I wanted to through my two cents in.

 

[RockFan89]

But the vast majority don't live my life. That's my point.

Well then your point is subjective, not objectively right.

Yes, and knowing how to use technology is the difference in being employed and being unemployed in many situations these days.

No one is saying get rid of technology classes in schools. But the difference between a technology class and a math class is that a math class teaches you how to think. Computer classes teach you how to use programs other people have already designed. Math teaches you how to solve problems logically and systematically. Math is important beyond just the technical details.

You also need to consider this. Math is a subject that builds upon itself, you just can't skip a year. In able to do finance, engineering, computer programming, or statistics, you need to a very high level of math. But if a student decides to stop taking math after algebra to become a musician and then changes his mind when he's a senior in high school. He will be way too far behind to switch to any of those fields. You already mentioned that so many college students switch majors, but you also believe that kids should choose what subjects they want to learn. What if they change their mind? It will be too late for them. Math, unlike music, is critical in so many fields.

A good school is any institution which maximizes their student's abilities. Economic status has been proven time and again to be the biggest factor in a child's ability to perform well on a test. Not teachers, not textbooks, but economic status.

I would never dispute that economic status is the biggest factor, but we can't control that. Spending more on schools is not going to change that.

No they won't. Do you really think the local insurance company is going to compare the standardized test scores of a local American student with the standardized test scores of a student who currently lives in Asia?

YES! That's exactly what they are doing. Sure some jobs are impossible to outsource (like teacher, mechanic, waiter), but jobs like actuaries, programming, accounting, and even law are being outsourced. With globalization and the proliferation of technology, employers no longer have to narrow the potential candidates to a single area. They can email/video conference with people across the world to get what they want done.

That's only THIS student's rare circumstance. But those stories exist EVERYWHERE. We had a student whose mother shot herself in the head with a shotgun, because the hidden money account she was embezzling money to was about to get her arrested. We had a student whose mother and stepfather were arrested for drug use, and the student now lives with grandparents. We've had a student who is the only person of her family currently not in jail for drug use...she was 14 years old at the time.

These circumstances happen all the time, unfortunately. These kids have WAY more important things to worry about than whether or not their teacher gets a bump in pay at the end of the year.

They exist everywhere, but statistically speaking, they're not common enough to characterize the performance of a teacher. Unless you teach in a school with kids specifically from those backgrounds. In which case you would use a different approach.

They do know more than they're given credit for. That doesn't mean they necessarily like having to do the work to get there. A teacher who lets a student do whatever they want is more likely to be liked than a teacher who makes the student buckle down and work all the time.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make, but I'm pretty sure you failed miserably.

My point is that kids know a good teacher from a bad one. I also mentioned that parents should be involved with the evaluation process as well. They would also see the impact a good teacher has on a child's life.

No they won't. We did those things in college all the time, and students never took them seriously. And these were college students filling out the evaluations.

Do you really think high school students are going to care? Get real.

Well, kids at my college (which is just a typical state school) do these as well and generally take them seriously.

They don't have to listen. They can think what they want.

You're wrong in every way here. Revisit your Constitution.

A teacher appears to speak for the school district when he or she teaches, so the district administration has a strong interest in determining the content of the message its teachers will deliver. While courts sometimes protect the academic freedom of college and university professors to pursue novel teaching methods and curriculum, these principles do not apply with equal force to K-12 teachers. It does not violate a teacher's free speech rights when the district insists, for example, that she teach physics and not political science, or that she not lead students in prayer – even though both have the result of limiting what the teacher says in the classroom.

Washington courts have upheld the authority of school districts to prescribe both course content and teaching methods. Courts in other jurisdictions have ruled that teachers have no free speech rights to include unapproved materials on reading lists.

Source: http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/free-speech-rights-public-school-teachers

By your logic, a student should be forced to hear a teacher say whatever (s)he wants? A 4th grader is supposed to discern between the fact and opinion of a teacher? Seriously?

So capacity becomes an issue, and a school has to decide between a student from a rich white family, or a poor black family with a history of drug crimes.

Geez, I wonder which one the school will take. Class system anyone?

Even if that scenario came up, the black family can still go find another school. The "Class system" is far more engrained under the current system where that black family has no choice but to send their kids to the garbage schools.

Again, you are missing the point.

The best predictor for student achievement is economic status. Poorer children, on average, do worse than rich children. A community made up of poor children is less likely to do well than a community made up of rich students. If you shut down the school with the poorer performing children, where are they going to go? To the "better" school. At which point that school's test scores will drop.

There is no such thing as a "magic" school. Are there some schools which are, comparatively speaking, better than others? Sure. But all things being equal, the idea of kids going where they want is simply asinine, for all the reasons I've stated in all of my posts.

There are schools in the inner city that far out perform schools just blocks away from them.

And those same kids who did great in these inner city schools end up going to college where they are told that they must take remedial classes. Based on what you're saying, a straight A student in one school should be comparable to a straight A student in another. But that often isn't the case with these low preforming schools.

Ineffective according to who? We have more students in college than ever before. Technology in the last 20 years has improved at a rate three times the rate of ever before. We have young people starting Youtube in their garage, Facebook at college, and having them become worldwide phenomena.

You can't project the exceptions of Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs to the whole country. In fact, Bill Gates himself said this:

"America's young people must come to see science and math degrees as key to opportunity. If we fail at this, we won't be able to compete in the global economy."

"Gates also called on lawmakers to give more resources and attention to improving the teaching of math and science -- knowledge essential to many of today's jobs. "

Source: http://www.mathmotivation.com/money/billgates.html

For the record, Slyfox is right and knows more about it than you do, unless you are also a teacher.

Oh, well obviously an appeal to authority trumps everything

By that logic, no one who isn't also a tax accountant can't question what I have to say on tax policy.

 

[Slyfox696]

This is very true and is indicative of how the world has advanced. From what you've said about your ten yearolds I certainly couldn't do half of the things that you mentioned. But then, I've never needed to. I've also never needed to know how to use the cosine rule. I doubt I ever will (that goes for both things). I expect that in ten years time many of your students will say the same about using Linux. In school you learn a lot of stuff you never use after you leave it with a slip of paper saying you passed.

You use Linux every day, I would bet. You're using Linux right now. 75% of the world's Internet servers are Linux based, including this website. Entire countries are moving to Linux. The US Department of Defense is creating a version of Linux to be secure and portable on thumb drives. Mac OS shares the same parent as Linux (Unix).

Will the majority of the population ever have to know how to manipulate Linux? No, but they will use it all the time. And it's free, you don't have to buy it like you do Windows or Mac, so if people WERE to know how to use it, it would be to their great financial advantage.

Depends what level of maths you're talking about. Basic maths is something everyone should be able to do and that is considerably more important (in my opinion) than music.

Agreed. I'm speaking more of upper level algebra and up.

But the entirity of modern society is built on maths. Computers do almost nothing but maths and as I'm sure you've discovered, statistics are ingrained at the core of everything. Music, as you say is one of the oldest forms of expression but it is not as funtimental to the way society works like maths is.

Yes, but the people who use math for a living do so for the rest of us, just like people who create music do so for the rest of us. The idea math is more important for someone like me than music is wrong.

Trying to fit 1,000 pegs of different size and shape through one hole is futile.

Exactly. And that's what the US education system is trying to do.

There's a test that's done on English Secondary Schools (For those of you that are stateside that's ages 11-16/18) that takes into account factors like ecconomic status, number of SpLD students (that is students with Specific Learning Disabilities. I assume that you use different jargon in the USA) and the like. The test looks at the students going in, and the results obtained when those students left. An average school would score 1,000. Good schools score higher, worse schools score lower. It's called "the contextual value added" Do you know of something similar to that in the USA, Sly?

Right now, school evaluation is a very inexact science. The George W. Bush administration pushed through No Child Left Behind, but states were free to implement it how they wished, leading to irregularities in evaluations between states. Furthermore, the Obama administration is now granting states the ability to opt out of No Child Left Behind.

So the answer is pretty much a no.

Well then your point is subjective, not objectively right.

No, the fact these people don't live my life IS an objective argument. I'm not trying to tell people what should be important in their life, that's what people who think the only thing that matters is math and science are trying to do.

My point very much is not subjective.

No one is saying get rid of technology classes in schools.

But you are saying we shouldn't measure student knowledge in these areas, an area where students far outshine adults.

But the difference between a technology class and a math class is that a math class teaches you how to think. Computer classes teach you how to use programs other people have already designed. Math teaches you how to solve problems logically and systematically. Math is important beyond just the technical details.

You obviously haven't done much more with a computer than get on Facebook. You have no idea how incredibly naive this comment is.

Have you ever installed an operating system and tweaked it by editing configuration files by hand to optimize performance? Have you ever built a web server, or even a web page? How about learning programming? Do you have any idea the logic and critical thinking skills it takes to build even a simple PHP application which connects to a MySQL database?

Learning how to use computers is a great way to learn critical thinking and solve problems logically and systematically. Just because you don't have the experience with it doesn't make it less true.

You also need to consider this. Math is a subject that builds upon itself, you just can't skip a year. In able to do finance, engineering, computer programming, or statistics, you need to a very high level of math. But if a student decides to stop taking math after algebra to become a musician and then changes his mind when he's a senior in high school. He will be way too far behind to switch to any of those fields. You already mentioned that so many college students switch majors, but you also believe that kids should choose what subjects they want to learn. What if they change their mind? It will be too late for them. Math, unlike music, is critical in so many fields.

That's why there are college level math classes. If you wish to change your field, you take the appropriate college level class.

I don't understand why that's a difficult concept to grasp. Music builds on itself as well. Your ignorance in these subjects seems to the platform of your argument.

I would never dispute that economic status is the biggest factor, but we can't control that. Spending more on schools is not going to change that.

Okay, but that's not what you asked of me. You asked me how I would judge the success of a school. Quit trying to change the argument.

YES! That's exactly what they are doing.

No they're not. I have several friends in the insurance business, and I can guarantee you they weren't compared with students from Asia.

They exist everywhere, but statistically speaking, they're not common enough to characterize the performance of a teacher. Unless you teach in a school with kids specifically from those backgrounds. In which case you would use a different approach.

But those type of students usually get lumped in the same classes. So now you're judging teacher performance of students with such hardships in their life.

It's a silly way to measure teacher effectiveness.

My point is that kids know a good teacher from a bad one.

And my point is kids like teachers who they think are cool and fun, and will evaluate appropriately. You're speaking of an ideal society, which simply does not exist.

I also mentioned that parents should be involved with the evaluation process as well. They would also see the impact a good teacher has on a child's life.

So if I want a raise, I have to make sure not to scold little Johnny the next time he breaks my rules, because he might go home and tell momma and momma gives me a bad review.

No...just no. That's asinine.

Well, kids at my college (which is just a typical state school) do these as well and generally take them seriously.

And they didn't at my school. My anecdotal evidence trumps yours, because any flaw in your plan affects the ability of teachers to put food on their kids table. Sorry, try again.

By your logic, a student should be forced to hear a teacher say whatever (s)he wants? A 4th grader is supposed to discern between the fact and opinion of a teacher? Seriously?

What do you think they're doing now? When we grew up, we were told Pluto was the 9th planet in the solar system. We were told there were four main food groups. Both of these opinions have changed since I graduated.

School has always been based upon the idea of theory and opinions. The idea we're going to tell our teachers they don't get to voice their opinion because it doesn't agree with others opinions is blatant first amendment violation.

Even if that scenario came up, the black family can still go find another school.

Yes, but not as good of one. I wonder how many schools will be "filled" with those drug families come calling.

The "Class system" is far more engrained under the current system where that black family has no choice but to send their kids to the garbage schools.

But that's not the fault of the educational system, that's the result of other factors.

We're talking about improving education.

There are schools in the inner city that far out perform schools just blocks away from them.

And those same kids who did great in these inner city schools end up going to college where they are told that they must take remedial classes. Based on what you're saying, a straight A student in one school should be comparable to a straight A student in another. But that often isn't the case with these low preforming schools.

What are you talking about? You're rambling, and I feel you've completely missed my point.

You can't project the exceptions of Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs to the whole country.

Well sure I can. Why can't I? You're defending blanket statements on the quality of education. I'm proving that education has done just fine for those people. In my years as a teacher, I find student achievement is usually far more dependent upon parental influence and the desire of the student to perform well.

In fact, Bill Gates himself said this:

Yes...he said MANY of today's jobs. But not all. I've never once argued it's important to MANY jobs. But it's also not important to MANY jobs. So quit trying to tell my kids they are dumb because they excel in other areas besides math and science.

Oh, well obviously an appeal to authority trumps everything

By that logic, no one who isn't also a tax accountant can't question what I have to say on tax policy.

You're missing his point.

He's saying I'm right. Which I am. He's also saying I have a perspective you don't have unless you're actually a teacher, which is what I use to defend my platform.

I'm not right because I'm a teacher, I'm just able to strengthen my argument more, and have a more credible perspective, because I am.

 

[jmt225]

Sly has done a tremendous job in this thread. I learned a few things I had no idea about, and I'm certain he's accurate on his assessments on these things since he is actually, you know, an American educator himself.

But I just want to chime in for a second because I recently saw a movie called Waiting For Superman, which main objective was to prove how the American Education System fails our kids.

And the entire time I'm watching this overrated piece of garbage, I'm thinking to myself, "Where are the parents?"

Here is the fact of the matter, it's the PARENTS job to make sure their kids do well in school. Should teachers try hard? Yes, and most do, but even those who don't, they still get up in front of that class every single fucking day and impart knowledge to their students. It's up to the parents to instill into their children at an early age the importance of education and learning. If they don't, then they're kids most likely end up being a nuisance to the educating system and it is not the teacher's fault if they can't get through to them.

But from reading this thread I've learned from Sly that students are doing much better than the media leads us to believe. I can't believe more kids are in college now than ever... that's really astonishing when you think about it. I don't give a shit how many more people are around these days; you'd think with how "horrible" our public education system is and how barely anyone can afford college, that numbers would be down, but instead it's higher than ever.

Anyways, the point to my post is... it's the deadbeat, young, no good piece of shit parents out there who are to blame whenever you see kids not doing well in school, not the teachers. That is a 100% fact.

 

[Remix]

You use Linux every day, I would bet. You're using Linux right now. 75% of the world's Internet servers are Linux based, including this website. Entire countries are moving to Linux. The US Department of Defense is creating a version of Linux to be secure and portable on thumb drives. Mac OS shares the same parent as Linux (Unix).

Will the majority of the population ever have to know how to manipulate Linux? No, but they will use it all the time. And it's free, you don't have to buy it like you do Windows or Mac, so if people WERE to know how to use it, it would be to their great financial advantage.

It's Half past 1 and I've already learned my "something new" for the day.

Yes, but the people who use math for a living do so for the rest of us, just like people who create music do so for the rest of us. The idea math is more important for someone like me than music is wrong.

However, the people who make a living doing higher level maths are both larger in number and more influential to more people than the average musician. People going statistical analysis on the residents of the town of Framingham, Massachusetts ultimately dictate whether or not anybody in America (or any other country using that data) should be prescribed a statin or any other drug to prevent you having a heart attack.

I don't work at a school, so would I be correct in saying that manipulation of statistics ultimately dictates the direction of funding and whether or not some project to improve the school gets given the go ahead? Statistics is maths that goes beyond the basic but you can't walk thirty paces without seing something that hasn't been statistically analysed.

Exactly. And that's what the US education system is trying to do.

I can only appologise for the failings of the policy makers of the US Education System.

Right now, school evaluation is a very inexact science. The George W. Bush administration pushed through No Child Left Behind, but states were free to implement it how they wished, leading to irregularities in evaluations between states. Furthermore, the Obama administration is now granting states the ability to opt out of No Child Left Behind.

So the answer is pretty much a no.

That's interesting. Thanks for your time.

 

[RockFan89]

You obviously haven't done much more with a computer than get on Facebook. You have no idea how incredibly naive this comment is.

Have you ever installed an operating system and tweaked it by editing configuration files by hand to optimize performance? Have you ever built a web server, or even a web page? How about learning programming? Do you have any idea the logic and critical thinking skills it takes to build even a simple PHP application which connects to a MySQL database?

Learning how to use computers is a great way to learn critical thinking and solve problems logically and systematically. Just because you don't have the experience with it doesn't make it less true.

1) I'm a computer science minor.
2) I don't even have a Facebook page
3) Ask anyone in the computer science field, they had to take a bunch of math classes to know how to come up with and understand complex algorithms and subroutines. Computer programming builds off of the principles learned in mathematics. Sure the higher levels of math never come into the programming you've dealt with, but anyone who wants to make a career out of it has to learn math.

That's why there are college level math classes. If you wish to change your field, you take the appropriate college level class.

I don't understand why that's a difficult concept to grasp. Music builds on itself as well. Your ignorance in these subjects seems to the platform of your argument.

But you can't take college level classes until you've done high school level math. Colleges don't offer Geometry or Algebra. A kid who changes his mind doesn't have an option to switch to these fields (unless he stays back).

Okay, but that's not what you asked of me. You asked me how I would judge the success of a school. Quit trying to change the argument.

Another misunderstanding I guess then. I didn't mean what factors are important to school success. I'm saying what is the criteria you use to judge a successful school from an unsuccessful. You said a good school is one that maximizes a student's ability, but how would you determine that?

No they're not. I have several friends in the insurance business, and I can guarantee you they weren't compared with students from Asia.

Seeing as I actually work and talk with people in the corporate world, I'm pretty sure I understand this better than your friends. The outsourcing of white collar jobs is something that is continually increasing. It's not big now, but it will be by the time kids today graduate college.

But those type of students usually get lumped in the same classes. So now you're judging teacher performance of students with such hardships in their life.

So then use a different metric for those classes of students, like I said.

And since you don't want to use a student's performance or a student's/parent's opinion to judge a teacher, how would you measure a teacher's performance? Or are you someone who believes that there is no such thing as a bad teacher?

What do you think they're doing now? When we grew up, we were told Pluto was the 9th planet in the solar system. We were told there were four main food groups. Both of these opinions have changed since I graduated.

Ok, there's a difference between discussing what mainstream science states and your own opinions. By that logic, a science teacher should be free to use their classroom to say evolution is a complete lie and the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago and then proceed to use faulty evidence and logic to support and convince little 6th graders his opinion is true.

School has always been based upon the idea of theory and opinions. The idea we're going to tell our teachers they don't get to voice their opinion because it doesn't agree with others opinions is blatant first amendment violation.

I gave you a source that showed that the courts disagreed with you on that.

What are you talking about? You're rambling, and I feel you've completely missed my point.

If kids from the same economic status going to different schools get vastly different results, then obviously the specific school a child goes to plays a big part of that.

or

If you have two kids who both get straight A's in different high schools and go to that same college where one has to take remedial classes and struggles and the other takes typical classes and succeeds, then the logical conclusion is that the former student went to a bad high school where he didn't have to learn as much to do well. That would be a bad school.

That's my point. Yes, economic factor plays a big role, but so does the quality of the school. And there are so many stories like the examples above that show how the education system is failing the students.

Well sure I can. Why can't I? You're defending blanket statements on the quality of education. I'm proving that education has done just fine for those people. In my years as a teacher, I find student achievement is usually far more dependent upon parental influence and the desire of the student to perform well.

Yes, I agree the drive of the student is important. But if a driven student ends up in a lousy school where kids are held to lower standards or teachers are ineffective, what is he or she supposed to do?

Yes...he said MANY of today's jobs. But not all. I've never once argued it's important to MANY jobs. But it's also not important to MANY jobs. So quit trying to tell my kids they are dumb because they excel in other areas besides math and science.

The kids who are good in math are the most likely to succeed. Look at the kids who were in high school band and look at those who were in AP Calculus. Which group of kids is most likely to succeed? (And I know in my school, there was little overlap)

Sure a couple of kids will be great at music and have careers in that and some will be great athletes and have careers in that. But those are the outliers. Success in math and science are far greater indicators of success then music.

You also mentioned that more students are going to college is a sign of success. But the reason for that is because college is more of a necessary in the job market then in the past, plus if only about a half graduate in 6 years, how is that a success?

 

[Slyfox696]

1) I'm a computer science minor.

Congratulations. Now answer my question.

3) Ask anyone in the computer science field, they had to take a bunch of math classes to know how to come up with and understand complex algorithms and subroutines.

That's great. Also completely irrelevant.

You intimated working with computers doesn't involve solving problems logically and systematically, which is completely ridiculous. Please focus on the actual discussion and quit trying to change it to suit your needs.

But you can't take college level classes until you've done high school level math.

A)Yes you can
and
B) We're discussing how to revamp the educational system. Try and keep up.

Colleges don't offer Geometry or Algebra.

Funny, because I'm almost positive I had a College Algebra class...hmmm...who to believe...

Another misunderstanding I guess then. I didn't mean what factors are important to school success. I'm saying what is the criteria you use to judge a successful school from an unsuccessful. You said a good school is one that maximizes a student's ability, but how would you determine that?

Why do we need some official way to do so? Why can't each school evaluate whether a student has performed as well as they wish to perform?

Why is everyone so damned concerned about statistics?

Seeing as I actually work and talk with people in the corporate world, I'm pretty sure I understand this better than your friends.

You understand better the hiring policies of local insurance companies than my friends who are actually working there?

Somehow I doubt that.

The outsourcing of white collar jobs is something that is continually increasing. It's not big now, but it will be by the time kids today graduate college.

I agree, but as I told you earlier, that's not an educational problem, that's an economic problem.

If you want me to take your argument seriously, like I'm trying to do, you're going to have to remember more than just one post at a time.

So then use a different metric for those classes of students, like I said.

Which kind of defeats the entire point, does it not? You can't judge teachers equally, thus you're going to be subject to interpretations of quality.

Your argument fails. That's all there is too it.

And since you don't want to use a student's performance or a student's/parent's opinion to judge a teacher, how would you measure a teacher's performance? Or are you someone who believes that there is no such thing as a bad teacher?

Of course there are bad teachers. And I don't know if there is a "best" solution to teacher evaluation, because teaching is not a static art. Every year a teacher is in the field, he/she gets better at what they do. Every year a teacher is in the field, the students are different, with different backgrounds and needs.

You're getting caught up in the same mistake so many politicians are making, thinking there's a "one size fits all" solution. There's not. Every single student and every single teacher is unique. There is no teaching situation that is the same as any other. There is no learning situation that is the same as any other.

You have to be able to get your mind out of the current rut its in, and think beyond your current mindset.

Ok, there's a difference between discussing what mainstream science states and your own opinions. By that logic, a science teacher should be free to use their classroom to say evolution is a complete lie and the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago and then proceed to use faulty evidence and logic to support and convince little 6th graders his opinion is true.

I don't even understand how this relates to this topic.

A teacher should act responsibly. But if a teacher wants to say they don't believe in evolution, they have that right. It's as simple as that. They must teach the curriculum, but you cannot prevent them from saying they don't believe it.

I gave you a source that showed that the courts disagreed with you on that.

No, you gave me a snippet, and ignored the rest which disagreed with you.

Although the boundaries are not precise, there are limits to a school district's ability to control teachers' controversial speech in the classroom. Courts have sometimes ruled that schools may not punish teachers for uttering particular words or concepts in class that are otherwise consistent with the school curriculum, where the school has no legitimate pedagogical purpose for the restriction, or where the restriction harms students' ability to receive important ideas that are relevant to the curriculum.

Furthermore, you didn't post a case, that's a snippet from the ACLU which broadly states "Washington courts". Last I checked, Washington courts are not the same as SCOTUS.

So if I wanted to state I personally don't believe in Evolution, I can. You need to pay greater attention to your sources.

If kids from the same economic status going to different schools get vastly different results, then obviously the specific school a child goes to plays a big part of that.

Or maybe one child wants to change his economic status and the other doesn't. Do you think that would play a big part?

or

If you have two kids who both get straight A's in different high schools and go to that same college where one has to take remedial classes and struggles and the other takes typical classes and succeeds, then the logical conclusion is that the former student went to a bad high school where he didn't have to learn as much to do well. That would be a bad school.

Or maybe it's the student who struggled didn't work as hard. Or maybe the student who struggled didn't have a good connection with the teacher.

There are all sorts of different explanations. You're assuming the ideal student, one who works as hard as possible to be successful all the way through. For many kids, this is completely false. And if you shut down the school because kids who have no motivation are attending there, where are those kids going to go? To the second school. Do you think that second school is going to magically make those kids want to work hard? Hell no.

Like I said, you're missing the point.

That's my point. Yes, economic factor plays a big role, but so does the quality of the school. And there are so many stories like the examples above that show how the education system is failing the students.

You obviously are completely out of touch with how education works. Perhaps you're not the best person to go around claiming education is failing the students.

Yes, I agree the drive of the student is important. But if a driven student ends up in a lousy school where kids are held to lower standards or teachers are ineffective, what is he or she supposed to do?

I don't have an answer for that. All I would tell that student is to just work their ass off and achieve the best you can. Does that sound unfair? Sure. But there's no better reasonable solution, at least not one that's been offered in this thread.

The solutions suggested in this thread are simply unreasonable, the logistics of which are not doable.

The kids who are good in math are the most likely to succeed. Look at the kids who were in high school band and look at those who were in AP Calculus. Which group of kids is most likely to succeed? (And I know in my school, there was little overlap)

In my school, the kids who were in band.

I was in both. Well, we didn't have AP, we had Dual Credit Calculus, essentially the same thing, except for the AP exam. I don't really see what point you're trying to make though.

Sure a couple of kids will be great at music and have careers in that and some will be great athletes and have careers in that. But those are the outliers. Success in math and science are far greater indicators of success then music.

Success according to who? Are you now going to apply your idea of what it means to be successful to everyone else as well?

When are you going to understand what you think doesn't mean a damned thing? Quit trying to project your values onto everyone else. Have you not been paying attention in this thread to what I've been saying?

 

[RockFan89]

I'll make this my last post since beginning at this time of the year I don't have much free time to be online.

You intimated working with computers doesn't involve solving problems logically and systematically, which is completely ridiculous.

Not any where on the level of math. When it comes to technology classes in K-12 schools, you either have the class that focuses on using common applications or the ones that delve into programming. The classes that teach you how to use Microsoft Office and other programs just give tips on using the program and don't develop problem solving skills. Kids usually end up just following instructions in a book to get an assignment done.

With regards to programming, I took one course in Microsoft Visual Basic and another in Java in high school. The VB one was completely useless while the java class piqued my interest in computers, but neither pushed me to think as critically or logically as my precalculus and calculus classes.

Yes programming does involve some problem solving skills, but so does playing certain video games. That doesn't mean we should have kids skipping Math to take a class in Call of Duty.

Additionally, any technology skills picked up in those classes aren't very useful. Kids already know how to use relevant features in Word or PowerPoint. Programs also become way out of date by the time these kids enter the real world, so they'll just have to learn it again later.

Programming is also a low value skill unless you plan to make a career out of it. We don't live in the world of DOS windows anymore, technology is becoming more user friendly every day. I took 3 programming classes in college and they don't help me at all today.

A)Yes you can
and
B) We're discussing how to revamp the educational system. Try and keep up.

Yeah, and I was addressing the point that if we don't teach kids math they will be far behind when it comes to college.

Funny, because I'm almost positive I had a College Algebra class...hmmm...who to believe...

I took linear algebra in college...but I couldn't take that until after Calculus III. If the school you went to offered the same algebra I learned in high school, then I'd seriously question how good that school was. Most university's require students to have completed at least that amount of math before entering.

Why do we need some official way to do so? Why can't each school evaluate whether a student has performed as well as they wish to perform?

So let schools grade themselves on how well they do? I don't see the problem in that, why not also allow students to grade themselves as well

You understand better the hiring policies of local insurance companies than my friends who are actually working there?

Are you talking about an agent in a small insurance office working for a commission? I'm talking about the brains behind it all. The people who actually crunch numbers and determine what rates should be, not just sales men, obviously they can't be outsourced.

Which kind of defeats the entire point, does it not? You can't judge teachers equally, thus you're going to be subject to interpretations of quality.

I'm saying use different standards for the relatively small number of classes that fit under the exception.

Of course there are bad teachers. And I don't know if there is a "best" solution to teacher evaluation, because teaching is not a static art. Every year a teacher is in the field, he/she gets better at what they do. Every year a teacher is in the field, the students are different, with different backgrounds and needs.

You're getting caught up in the same mistake so many politicians are making, thinking there's a "one size fits all" solution. There's not. Every single student and every single teacher is unique. There is no teaching situation that is the same as any other. There is no learning situation that is the same as any other.

You have to be able to get your mind out of the current rut its in, and think beyond your current mindset.

I'm not saying there's a one size fit all. Teachers should have freedom in teaching methods, but results are results. If kids from one class can understand concepts better than others, the teachers should be held accountable. And I'm not saying to compare the kids from prep schools with those from the inner city, but you can control for economic backgrounds when making judgments.

I don't even understand how this relates to this topic.

A teacher should act responsibly. But if a teacher wants to say they don't believe in evolution, they have that right. It's as simple as that. They must teach the curriculum, but you cannot prevent them from saying they don't believe it.

My point was in regards to your point that teachers have all their first amendment rights while in a classroom. And I didn't say a teacher couldn't say they didn't believed in evolution, I'm saying they couldn't teach creationism in the classroom. Like you said, they must teach the curriculum which is in effect a restriction on free speech since they cannot teach things outside or contrary to it.

The part of the ACLU statement you posted doesn't contradict anything I said. I never said a teacher couldn't say certain words or ideas, I'm saying a teacher could never teach anything they want. Which is in effect a restriction on freedom of speech.

Or maybe one child wants to change his economic status and the other doesn't. Do you think that would play a big part?

Or maybe it's the student who struggled didn't work as hard. Or maybe the student who struggled didn't have a good connection with the teacher.

Yes, because straight A students who want to go to college are the type of students who have no motivation

In my school, the kids who were in band.

I was in both. Well, we didn't have AP, we had Dual Credit Calculus, essentially the same thing, except for the AP exam. I don't really see what point you're trying to make though.

I was in band as well (for 5 years up until 9th grade). I was the only one from band who ended up in our Calc BC class and only a handful ended up in our Calc AB class, thus little overlap between the 2 groups from my experience.

From everything I know, the kids in the calculus classes are doing far better (in general) than everyone else while the music students have shown no difference. A students performance in math, more than music, sports, English, history, etc. was/is the biggest determinant of success (no matter the field they chose). That's why teaching math is far more critical to a student's success then almost anything else.

Success according to who? Are you now going to apply your idea of what it means to be successful to everyone else as well?

Success as in having a successful and sustainable career. The kids who go on to be lawyers, doctors, accountants, professional musicians and athletes are successful. The people who have to live paycheck to paycheck, working minimum wage, spending the rest of their lives as waitresses, cashiers, janitors etc. are not successful. (Unless of course you have ADHD )

I'll just leave you with the best explanation I found after a quick google search for why Math is so vitally important.

For more than two thousand years, mathematics has been a part of the human search for understanding. Mathematical discoveries have come both from the attempt to describe the natural world and from the desire to arrive at a form of inescapable truth from careful reasoning. These remain fruitful and important motivations for mathematical thinking, but in the last century mathematics has been successfully applied to many other aspects of the human world: voting trends in politics, the dating of ancient artifacts, the analysis of automobile traffic patterns, and long-term strategies for the sustainable harvest of deciduous forests, to mention a few. Today, mathematics as a mode of thought and expression is more valuable than ever before. Learning to think in mathematical terms is an essential part of becoming a liberally educated person.

Source: http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/mathematics_departme/what_math/