The Best Way to Improve Education

[skeptic]

Maybe it is simply my age, but to me, having the "basics" down pat first if absolutely the most important issue. It is obvious to me that the kids who for whatever reason simply "learn" their times tables, for example, have far fewer problems later. It is obvious that kids who learn to read, and "sound out" words early, are generally more successful going forward in every subject. Fragmentation, and not enough focus in the first two or three grades appears to have very negative effects as the children progress (or it keeps them from actually progressing at grade level).

 

Some students will simply get it more quickly, but moving forward before they do is asking for failure, discouragement, and problems later.

 

JMHO

[grmaerika]

Thanks for the explanation of "everyday math". Yes, that is what we use here. It does seem like a big jumble , but glad to hear it will get repeated and re-used.Seems kind of like how Sesame Street was a fast paced show that jumped blip , blip, blip to educate kids.They encourage the kids to get on the everyday math website also, which I do not like. I don't care if they use it at school, but at home I want my Grandson to learn without the computer.This is only first grade. I think they can do the same work with pencil and paper at this level and get more writing practice in. Also the computer automatically types from left to write. I'm finding he is having problems because he is writing the numbers from right to left. There is just more thinking that goes along with doing things the old fashioned way, which I think is good for kids brains.OK, I know i am already obsolete, but I just don't see that all the technology is really improving education when it comes to the basics.Do they still teach cursive writing in school?

[Lisabob]

To your last question: Not really. They introduce it and do a little practice in 2nd-3rd grade but that's really it. Or at least, that is how it is around here. I wish they did emphasize this a bit more. No matter how much people use a keypad, being able to write legibly is a skill that will never go out of style.

 

 

 

 

[Lucky_scouter]

Charter School= Bad idea. How is it fair to take from the kids who don't have a charter school near them? I live in rural America and no matter where you take "the kid" or "the parents" they are still the same kids and parents. The concerned parents and hard-working kids will do well nearly anywhere. Maybe in urban areas there is a larger issue with safety and so maybe those should be broken up. I remember Alfie Kohn and some other education "experts" saying that no high school should have more than 500 kids enrolled in it.

 

I am also a public school music teacher and the combined GPA of my students is a 3.645. The kids started in music just like everyone else and in a dead heat academically. ( Again, rural USA and out of 100 kids in each class, I pull 65-70 of them.) I find instruments that they can play, get donations so they can play and bring all of them along sith steps of successes. As far as I'm concerned, I get all the "good Kids" because I tell them they are and they become what you tell them. (I am not seeking an award here.) They have all of the best and worst teachers in our district and still managed to have high GPA's. My graduating seniors have an average GPA of 26.8 (5 points above the national average) and they aren't in a charter school. I'd never stand by while our state took from the rural to give to the urban.

 

I just wish that people would look around before they made wild guesses and suppositions about what educations does and doesn't do for kids.

[packsaddle]

This one seemed appropriate to bring back to life for this topic:

"Studies have found that roughly 40 percent of students planning engineering and science majors end up switching to other subjects or failing to get any degree. That increases to as much as 60 percent when pre-medical students, who typically have the strongest SAT scores and high school science preparation, are included, according to new data from the University of California at Los Angeles. That is twice the combined attrition rate of all other majors."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science-majors-change-their-mind-its-just-so-darn-hard.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

 

The article has to do with a fundamental problem in STEM. It goes way beyond the performance of K-12 schools, or even the level of preparedness of students admitted to college.

[le Voyageur]

America's educational system is stuck in the 19th century with it's high school turning out young adults with little, to no job skills or experience. And, SOL's are a con game....

The solution for those high schools is to add a 5th year...3 years of academics, and liberal arts, followed by two years of job training, and skill development. Or, for those who will continue on to higher education, college prep work and advance studies....

At all levels from pre K up, courses should include the study of foreign languages, mathamatics, science, and philosophy...my 2 cents...

[sailingpj]

"At all levels from pre K up, courses should include the study of foreign languages, mathamatics, science, and philosophy...my 2 cents... "

 

I totally agree with that. What does it say about our educational system that we have 12 years of learning english, then most college degrees requires an additional 1-2 years of english or writing.

 

The biggest problem with most math course that I have seen is that they don't teach logic. Logically analyzing a problem can lead to the right answer even when you don't remember the right way to do it. Take a simple multiplication problem: 9*12, now say you forgot you 12 times tables so instead you think 9*11=99 99+9=108 108=9*12.

 

A little bit of logic and understanding of how multiplication works goes a long way.

 

I have been tutoring middle schoolers in math, and none of them have any understanding of how multiplication works. It is just some magic thing that does what it does. Very few of them get that 5*5=5+5+5+5+5. They understand it when I show them, but it is not something that has been taught to them.

[packsaddle]

The point of the article is not the usual hand-wringing over K-12 failures but rather to point to the students who ARE well-prepared for college, and who CAN be successful, but who CHOOSE to transfer to less-challenging fields. This, to me, says more about the society which as gotten the K-12 performance it asked for and whose value of education is low enough that even very bright students who 'made it' despite the K-12 experience...decide not to excel in STEM anyway. It's as if they are merely following the predominant social anti-intellectual trend.

I am reminded of the recent words of an academic coordinator for an athletics program: that there are almost no fields, anymore, for which their players can pass the admissions standards - sociology being just about all that's left.

[vol_scouter]

Packsaddle,

 

Interesting article. On the one hand, it makes sense to try to make the curriculum more exciting so the Universities are doing the right thing. On the other hand, those basic courses are fun! The freshman and sophomore physics, chemistry, and mathematics courses are fun!!!! If youth do not like them, perhaps they are not in the right field. Also, why work hard when you can be an investment banker and make tens to hundreds of millions of dollars when folks in STEM careers are in the $100k to $200k range. They are smart enough to do the math. This society denigrates intellectuals and makes fun of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. Carrying or throwing a prolate spheroid is much more valued than Nobel Prizes.

[Mr. Boyce]

I have just completed reading Diane Ravich's book on her career as an education policysetter. She's made me a bit skeptical about many of the efforts of the past 20 years.

 

Of my own accord, I can only offer two recommendations:

 

(1) pay teachers more money. This will broaden the range of the field's attraction, and help draw in young people who otherwise might get sucked into law.

 

(2) use psychological research to find how kids develop good stick-to-it, stay on task, skills. A kid with an iron butt, able to make himself stay on task, is likely to have a much greater education.

[BartHumphries]

Speaking as someone who had the chance to instruct hundreds of kids this summer, (and in other years as well) here's what I've found.

 

Generally, if you teach to the lowest level, with the idea that "no child will be left behind" you'll barely manage to get the essentials in and most kids will be standing around bored, because most kids are faster than the slowest kid.

 

Generally, if you teach to the highest level, then more kids master whatever it is that you're teaching and you can then assign them to work with the slower kids. I don't think anyone will argue with the idea that "more teachers is generally a better learning environment" and that teaching something to someone else is the best way to really cement what you've learned.

 

Generally, when teaching to the highest level, the end result is that everyone will get the essentials and that some will go above and beyond and really master the subject, gaining a greater depth of understanding and ability to put into practice than they could possibly have had if you were teaching to the lowest level.

 

The California Teacher's Association and the National Education Association generally agree with this as well.(This message has been edited by BartHumphries)

[jrush]

Well, this will be an unpopular opinion, but if it was up to me to fix public education

 

- remove mandatory attendance requirement

 

- split schools into "general ed" and "technical ed" starting at 7th grade.

 

"technical ed" schools will have:

focus on math/science/technology/literature curriculums

parents will be required to join PTA

intramural sports

semiannual "up or out" testing

 

"general ed" schools will have

focus on math, reading and writing

parents have option of joining PTA

varsity sports

cosponsored by local businesses

 

 

 

[Eamonn]

As I have posted in the past, my teaching career didn't last very long.

So maybe I'm not the best person to be adding my two cents.

Add to that my stint was 30 years back!

I've come to terms with the fact that kids learn differently and learn different things than I learned as a student and tried to teach as a teacher.

I'm not certain that all the changes are for the better?

But time will tell.

 

I never went into teaching because I thought that I'd get rich!

Back then and over there the Dust-bin-men (Garbage collector) made more that a teacher.

While of course some of my reasons were very selfish. - Yes I liked all the holidays and time off and the great working hours.

But, the main reasons I got into teaching was that I liked kids and I loved English History.

My big mistake was in thinking that everyone loved English History and that kids were all lovable.

The school was at the time and for the time state of the art! A brand new building with all sorts of wonderful facilities. A Drama Hall, five gymnasiums, countless workshops, art rooms and 5,000 Students.

You might have seen the school if you watched the final serious of the PBS Prime Suspect?

I think to be fair, at the time the English education system was in turmoil with lots of change and lots of new ideas.

The old time teachers didn't like all the change and the parents weren't sure what the heck was going on.

I'd been educated in a very strict, no nonsense way in a old world type school where teachers were called "Masters" , kids were seen but never heard and the reward for not doing what you were told was that you got whacked!

I'm not now and never have been in favor of whacking anyone!

But one of my main reasons for quitting was the feeling I had that I was out there all alone -Eamonn V The Students.

I yearned and wanted support from the guys at the top but it just wasn't there!

I wanted and needed the powers that be to listen to my concerns.

That just wasn't happening.

Maybe knowing what I know today I might be better able to manage the few trouble makers who made life sheer hell for myself and the students who wanted to work.

Sending them off to have a cozy little chat with a nice kindly counselor and then sending them back too class just didn't work.

At the time I really thought that having mixed abilities working side by side was a great idea. - I was wrong! It was a real nightmare! It just didn't work.

Strange as it might sound and maybe because I'm a lot older and maybe a little wiser? It's far easier to teach the inmates in jail.

 

In my book some ways that might make education better would be.

Make sure that the teachers get the support that they need from school boards, head teachers. Don't leave them stranded in a room full of unruly students. Remove the unruly and unwilling students as quickly as possible so the teachers can teach.

Get away from this stupid idea that everyone needs a college education. -They don't.

Some students will get much further ahead learning a trade and mastering skills that will always be needed in the real world.

Take a long hard look at what is really happening in the elementary schools.

Kids who can't read, can't count can't do the basics need to be held back for their own good. Sure it upsets the parents but it's better for the kid in the long run.

Give the grades that are earned, not grades that keep people happy.

There is nothing wrong with being "Satisfactory" Yes that might mean a lot less "A Students" and a lot more "C Students". But if the cap fits....

Find a way to get parents, students and teachers to understand that School is a place of work, not a place where kids go to be entertained.

At the risk of being overly harsh!

The time for allowing kids with an alphabet of learning ailments has past, its got old.

When these kids grow up and have to work and earn a living there isn't going to be anyone making special allowances for them.

So get over it!

Eamonn.

[skeptic]

Eamonn; Always the voice of reason. Thanks.

[jrush]

Eamonn,

 

Bottom line, there will always be those problems with the education system as long as a publicly-funded education is considered a right, rather than a priviledge.

 

Many parents aren't involved because they don't have to be.

Many students aren't involved because they don't have to be.

The oversight system requires schools to keep students on the grounds as far as they possibly can.

The oversight system in place forces schools to graduate everyone they possibly can, no matter what.

 

Look, I taught for a year. ISS was limited to the number of seats in the ISS room. If ISS was full, punishment was downgraded to detention. OSS counted against the school's attendence. If the attendence % didn't allow for OSS, it wasn't given. Conceivably, you could have an OSS offense (such as fighting) downgraded to detention and a call to momma. I kid you not, we had physical assaults on teachers (caught on security camera) that never made it to a tribunal. I don't fault the school or even system administrators...they don't want to fall on their swords. I don't even blame teachers that cheat the standardized tests. You stand to get fired anyways if the kids who skip class every other day fail it.

 

I don't even blame the oversight system that practically forces schools to keep violent students in the classroom and practically forces teachers & administrators to dope standardized tests.

 

Why? Because that oversight system is supporting the requirement to keep kids in public school until the age of 16-18 as a practical matter unless they are incarcerated. If they wish, they can choose to stay in school, just hanging out and scoring the free breakfast and lunch, into their 20's.

 

 

The first step in "fixing" public education is to make it a priviledge which can be lost. Any other proposal is destined to fail because compulsory attendence undermines the entire system. Whether you propose federalizing education and get the states out of it, or "statizing" it and getting the feds out, either way, compulsory education undermines it...because you are forced to keep kids in the classroom until it is legally feasible to be rid of them...and that level is pretty much incarceration.

 

My suggestion would be that the government guarantees you an education for either 6 years or age 12, whichever comes first. After that, your education is a priviledge. Truant half the semester? You're done. Punch a teacher? You're done. Bring a weapon to school (a real weapon, not nail clippers), you're done. Fail the end of year promotion test (unless you're special ed), You're done. Stay at home, walk the streets, whatever...but tax dollars will no longer be wasted in further bid to educate you.