Education Part ll

[JOEBIALEK]

This is the second part to an earlier writing about education in the United States. As you may recall, I advocated for the privatization of all schools from kindergarten to graduate studies. This piece will focus on the curriculum that needs to be followed.

Everytime I encounter someone in the workplace, I am reminded of just how much we have failed to properly educate United States citizens in the fundamentals of communication: reading, writing and speaking. Few would argue that the time is long overdue for the United States to "get back to the basics" of a fully functional education system. We need to exclusively focus on the development of communication skills from kindergarten to eighth grade along with annual testing that measures apptitude and interest. Training in mathematics should be limited to addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Unless communication skills are fully mastered, there is no need to advance to high school.

For those who graduate to high school, the emphasis could evolve into a curriculum of philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, science and religious studies. Books such as "For Dummies" and "The Complete Idiot's Guide" could be used to foster an understanding of different religions. Athletic activity would be strictly confined to cardio vascular exercises and all sports would be eliminated. While there would still be an emphasis on communication skills, the focus would now be on developing a foundation of basic knowledge so as to be able to graduate to college. Testing for apptitude and interest would continue through high school increasing the chances of picking the right field of study . Those not continuing on to college would enter some type of apprenticeship training for the purpose of learning a trade. For those who do graduate to college, the student would continue to study an advanced version of the same curriculum as high school but only for the first two years then they would complete their education by strictly focusing on coursework designed to train them in their field of study. Nearing graduation, internships would be required to begin the transition to the working world. Think of how different our society would be if our education system could just teach the fundamentals of reading, writing and speaking.

[DrHibbert]

I agree that there should be a bigger focus on communication skills. But I also think we should make an effort to help children understand the importance of good communication. Nearly everyone I went to school with was convinced they were a poor speaker. It was cooler to say, "yeah, I always freak out in front of other people" or "I just don't care what I get on papers." They lived up to this expectation when forced to speak in front of their classmates, because it is nerdier and is more work to invest yourself in a speech or paper and to admit that you really do care what people think of it.

I think that the biggest part of public speaking is confidence, and this applies to other communication skills like writing and performing. If we can instill confidence and enthusiasm in our children, we will have won half of this battle.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK


Dude, you want to privatize education, but you want to require them to teach what you want them to at what level you want them to? How do you propose we enforce that? What do we do with the students that fail to learn? And what about the ones that can't afford it?

[Jackal]

I think most of the problem is parents not giving a shit. There are too many kids out there that are not valued family members. A lot of accidental children and people who feel burdened with them and treat them like dogs, so why would they care about their future, their school work or anything about them?

I'm proud to say I planned my child and do everything in my power to be a responsible mother.

A lot of them are more concerned with extr-curricular activities. Sports, gymnastics, clubs so many children are being forced into all that crap at age 4 and never get a break. And some of these kids have problems with speech, math, spelling that goes untreated year after year. There's wacko parents that have the idea, as do their kids, that their kid could grow up to be a sports superstar and be rich. People are just dumb, that's why education fails with their kids.

Only about 5 teacher's I ever had, seemed to like kids and their jobs and tried to inspire greatness. Most seemed like lifetime losers that couldn't get real jobs to me. They seemed out of touch with reality and didn't notice they should be trying to teach responsibly. No patience, no skills themselves, so how could they teach me anything about life?

We can all think of idea's and grand plans to fix the world's troubles. But they will never work because people are lazy and some don't care about anything.

There are people who see no problem with their kids not knowing these things. They just figure they can always work at McDonald's.

[Static Split Screen]

I agree completely with Jackal.

There's so much damn emphasis placed on tests. Tests are not a true measure of intelligence. If it's multiple choice, the kid has a chance of getting it right just by LUCK.

They overwork kids. They want them in sports, and clubs, and have part-time jobs. When I'm working and going to school, I'd kill for a 40 hour workweek.

[Nak Nak]

Problem solving exercises are where education should be at.

[Static Split Screen]

Yeah, memorizing facts aren't going to get you anywhere, I've already forgotten most of what I've memorized for tests.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Static Split Screen
There's so much damn emphasis placed on tests. Tests are not a true measure of intelligence. If it's multiple choice, the kid has a chance of getting it right just by LUCK.

I'll tell ya what the real problem is, and it's one of those things that is so blatant that I couldn't believe I didn't think of it before...

In most Ohio colleges that certify teachers, they have to read this book that explains it all.

You're right, it is testing that is the problem. Sort of. More specifically, it's the way we treat grades.

It's best explained in example form... In American school systems, if you get an "A" in, say, Algebra I, but you get a "C" in, say, American Literature, what is the reaction of the teachers? And after they consult with your parents, what will their reaction be? It's always this:

"You need to work harder in your American Lit class!"

The question is... WHY SHOULD YOU WORK HARDER IN THE SUBJECT FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO NATURAL TALENT OR INTEREST?!

Why is the emphasis placed upon your weakness?

Seems much more logical to see that if a student is gifted in Algebra, he's going to pick a career that involves that subject. So why are we not focusing on developing that to its greatest extent?

That is the primary problem. We pick the "everyone should be the same" route, which is... well, illogical.

Lord knows how many geniuses our system has burned out.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by Jackal
Only about 5 teacher's I ever had, seemed to like kids and their jobs and tried to inspire greatness. Most seemed like lifetime losers that couldn't get real jobs to me. They seemed out of touch with reality and didn't notice they should be trying to teach responsibly. No patience, no skills themselves, so how could they teach me anything about life?

We can all think of idea's and grand plans to fix the world's troubles. But they will never work because people are lazy and some don't care about anything.

There are people who see no problem with their kids not knowing these things. They just figure they can always work at McDonald's.

The problem with education stems from the old adage that "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach"

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Jackal
Only about 5 teacher's I ever had, seemed to like kids and their jobs and tried to inspire greatness. Most seemed like lifetime losers that couldn't get real jobs to me. They seemed out of touch with reality and didn't notice they should be trying to teach responsibly. No patience, no skills themselves, so how could they teach me anything about life?

You must have lived in one shitty school district if that's really true.

There was one teacher I had that was just horrible. It seemed that he lost his drive to teach and it was pathetic. What's worse is that he taught chemistry, the subject my mom teaches in the neighboring school district. It sucked. Turns out, he was about to retire, so that was his problem.

But you know, I can't recall a single teacher -- not even him -- that wouldn't stay after class with me to help me understand the lesson if I'd asked.

The real underlying problem is, I think, that some kids just never speak up. A student must show interest in learning, and then the doors will open up. They aren't gonna be force-fed.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Spaced
The problem with education stems from the old adage that "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach"

Bullshit.

You become a teacher because you want to teach.

It is not something to fall back on. A teacher must be proactive and interested enough to dedicate years of study and the rigors of certification before you can even think about competing with others for positions.

My mother has a Masters +45 (a dissertation away from a Ph.D.), and about 25 years of experience. She expressed a desire for teaching Chemistry even though she was assigned Biology, and she eventually got it. And if you think your school homework is a chore, you can't forget that grading tests and homework for hundreds of students is no fun either. But she does it because she loves to teach.

As for my father, well... He was extremely successful as a journalist, eventually becoming copy editor of the Sports Page of the Columbus Dispatch, the main Columbus newspaper, which ranks 36th in daily circulation among the nation's newspapers at 252,564 copies/day. He started as a Journalist with a Bachelor's and ended up with a Master's in Journalism and a Bachelor's in English. As his career had begun to wind down, he'd gotten out of that race and earned a teaching certification and taught at various high schools before becoming an instructor at Ohio State University. He brought his experience to the school paper's newsroom and became the Student Advisor as well as an instructor for the University's Photojournalism classes.

He did not do it because he was unsuccessful. Quite the contrary, he did it because he wanted to share his knowledge with new writers.

There are indeed shitty teachers out there. And maybe some have fallen back on it as a second choice. But to make that choice is to take on something that's a lot more demanding than you seem to understand.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Nak Nak
Problem solving exercises are where education should be at.

Exactly. :yes: Problem solving... allowing kids to be free to do things for themselves instead of robotic dictation... It keeps them interested, shows them how their learning can apply to life by making it hands on.

When I lived in Lorain Ohio (suburb of Cleveland) -- the first 8 years of my life -- my mother was a Chemistry teacher at Lorain High School. Because of her position, she became aware of a little experiment the school district was undertaking at the time. They took one elementary school and set it aside and made it into a Montessori school, "Palm Montessori Academy". It was also bilingual -- half english, half spanish -- which, in itself, made it unique. (Lorain has a HUGE Puerto Rican minority.) But it was the whole Montessori bit that was the really important thing.

They taught three grades in the english wing... Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade. They picked kids from all of the different parts of the city to ensure that they got a diverse group of students ideal for experimentation. (I remember, the school was actually on the whole other side of town, and Lorain's pretty big... The bus ride every day was like... Ugh.)

Mom is really big into education (obviously) and she is a firm believer of the Montessori Method, controversial as it may be. So she entered me into the lottery for students to be chosen, and I got picked! So my first three years of elementary were based upon the Montessori method. Now, I'm no genius, but I really think that having that base affected me in a profound way (in that I do consistantly test quite a bit above average on all the standardized tests I've ever taken). I credit my successes, at least in part, to that experience.

Perhaps most concisely defined by this link on wikipedia, the philosophy of the Montessori Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori) is this:

The Montessori method is described as a way of thinking about who children are. As a philosophy, it emphasizes the unique individuality of each child. Dr. Montessori believed in the worthiness, value and importance of children. Comparisons to norms and standards measured by traditional educational systems are discouraged in Montessori practice. Instead, Montessori adherents believe that children should be free to succeed and learn without restriction or criticism.

As an educational approach, the Montessori method's central focus is on the needs, talents, gifts, and special individuality of each child. Montessori practitioners believe children learn best in their own way at their own pace. The driving concept is the fostering of the child's natural joy of learning. This joy of learning, according to Montessori theory, is an innate part of any child; when properly guided and nurtured it results in a well-adjusted person who has a purpose and direction in his or her life. Children who experience the joy of learning are believed to be happy, confident, and fulfilled. In essence Montessori helps bring forth the giftedness of each child.

The main goal of Montessori is to provide a stimulating, child oriented environment that children can explore, touch, and learn without fear. In fact, in a Montessori classroom everything is oriented to the child: there is no teacher's desk or teacher's side of the room, because the teacher is only guide and facilitator, never dictator or director. An understanding parent or teacher is a large part of this child's world. The end result is to encourage life-long learning and reinforce the pleasure of encountering and mastering a new skill or idea. The child thus retains and reinforces his or her joy of learning, rather than having it buried under rote memorization or mass production, and is free to explore his or her own path and purpose in life.

Seeing as how it's kinda hard to nail down a purely problem-solving method of teaching, I think the closest thing to it is the Montessori Method.

According to that link, there are about 3,000 private schools that utilize the method, and a small chunk of public schools as well, though it's too chaotic for most to accept because a student's progress cannot be constantly measured by any standardized method like chapter tests or anything.

I loved that school. It was just fun. When we moved down to Columbus, I went to the nearest elementary that was divided into "Contemporary" and "Informal" classrooms. I was in the "Informal" program, which is a lot like Montessori, but still relies on testing. It was a real rude awakening for me. I did fine grade-wise, but that was when I started to look at school as most of my peers did... A serious drag.

[Spaced]

:-o Sorry, I wasn't being awfully serious. I'm the last person to rely on generalisations, and meant no disrespect to any educators. I'm in research myself and have every chance of ending up as an academic.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Spaced
:-o Sorry, I wasn't being awfully serious. I'm the last person to rely on generalisations, and meant no disrespect to any educators. I'm in research myself and have every chance of ending up as an academic.

It's all good. :)

I was thinking about it too, but I dunno.

My mom's family, four adults, they're all teachers. One of my aunts is a principal, too. But man, I just don't have the patience for it. I'm too much of a perfectionist, and because the subject I'd teach would have to be something related to history, it would be hard to find students who are really interested in learning it enough to make it fun.

[Jackal]

I think they would help if you asked, and they probably did care and if there was a problem I'm sure they would take notice. But in general they didn't try to connect and interact with the kids and make learning fun. Some did, and those are the 5 I remember.

I was always studying and mentally collecting info about the teacher's and trying to figure them out. I usually made up whole lives and stories about who they really were. So unless a teacher really stuck out as a weirdo, they didn't interest me.

[Static Split Screen]

Originally posted by vordabois


The question is... WHY SHOULD YOU WORK HARDER IN THE SUBJECT FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO NATURAL TALENT OR INTEREST?!

Why is the emphasis placed upon your weakness?

Seems much more logical to see that if a student is gifted in Algebra, he's going to pick a career that involves that subject. So why are we not focusing on developing that to its greatest extent?


I COMPLETELY agree with this. I really like languages. Even working around my minimum requirements of math/science etc, I will have taken 9 language classes by the time I graduate. BUT, if I didn't have to take the math and science which I really don't like and KNOW I won't pursure a career in, I could be much more proficient at languages.

My mom says education now is loosely based on the idea of education from the greeks, about how you have to learn a braod range of subjects to be truly "Educated" I think it's bullshit. Especially in college. You just DID four years of general education!

[JOEBIALEK]

good points...

[ramblingrose]

My best friend is a primary school teacher of 5/6/7 year-olds. She has to do the SAT tests with them. The majority of kids in the school where she works come from the sort of background Jackal describes, ie their parents don't give a shit. They come into her class barely able to speak or go to the toilet without help, and she is expected to get them to a certain "standard", ie whatever crap the tests actually measure. If not enough of them meet the target, she and the school cop for it. There is no adjustment for the standard of the children when they came into the class, so they might have improved much more than the kids at another school with a more middle-class intake, but the school is still judged as performing poorly.
On the first day of term I asked her what her new class were like. She made suicidal gestures whilst pouring herself a large whisky and told me she asked "who can write their name?"
ONE KID was able to try, he wrote a P the wrong way round and got stuck. This is after a year of full time schooling.
It's not the kid's fault if they aren't being encouraged at home (and the teacher who takes the first class is crap) but they do understand they are being measured and she has to deal with seven-year-olds who are in tears because they think they're going to "fail". What's the point in that? Put them off before they've even begun, why don't you, and make the jobs of teachers so thankless they either leave or get so stressed they teach badly. League tables mean nothing, the school I went to had higher GCSE results than the one most of my friends did, but they all loved school and went on to university. I hated it and didn't, despite getting higher grades.
Erm, I've forgotten what my point was now. I blame the education system. I did try to edit this but lost the will to live. I'm sorry.

[Jackal]

I'm not sure why they even test the kids. In every school there's dumb, neglected, idiot kid's and intelligent, eager to learn children. So the whole point of saying a school is at any level by pooling all the scores together is useless.

[DrHibbert]

I agree with you for the most part, Rose (is it Rose?), but it's still pretty appalling when kids get to the 5th grade and they still can't read or write, or when they graduate high school and can't put sentences together right.

I'm definitely on your side of the No Child Left Behind fence. But your teacher friend needs to keep doing the best she can to motivate these kids, even the stupid ones, to learn to read and write.

[ramblingrose]

Yay, she tries so hard, I love her anyway but I love her when she gets all cross about school. I just wish that there were enough people like her to help all these poor kids who are just going to get trampled. :(

[negatifzeo]

Originally posted by Static Split Screen
I COMPLETELY agree with this. I really like languages. Even working around my minimum requirements of math/science etc, I will have taken 9 language classes by the time I graduate. BUT, if I didn't have to take the math and science which I really don't like and KNOW I won't pursure a career in, I could be much more proficient at languages.

My mom says education now is loosely based on the idea of education from the greeks, about how you have to learn a braod range of subjects to be truly "Educated" I think it's bullshit. Especially in college. You just DID four years of general education!

It's not bullshit, it's the whole point. A college degree says that you are an educated member of society. You've acquired the knowledge to be given that status. What about this is hard to understand, or merits disagreement? People focus on college as a career, and the need to specialize. This is the problem with our education system. It's not the system itself(not that it's perfect), but the values of the people in it. How many times do I hear parents telling their kids "History is a waste of time", or "You'll never use Geometry"..... That's so irresponsible. Just because you're an idiot doesn't mean your kids have to be. And don't get me started on the poor kids that have been brainwashed since birth into Christianity, whose parents teach them that science is the devil. Ugh... Bottom line though, the point of the education system, especially college, is to get a better understanding of the world around you and grow as a human being. At least that's what it should be. Oh, and college should be free. Realistically though, it's pretty damned close to free for anyone that wants it. OK. I'm done now, for real.

[Spaced]

While it's fine to tailor you education to your strengths later in life (it's only logical), I believe that primary education should still have a general basis covering many areas. You can't discover a proficiency in a particular subject until you are introduced to at least its basics.

[Jackal]

I want to go to college for.....listening to music!!!!....yes yes yes yes yes....smile then grin and twirl and fly away! SCORE.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Spaced
While it's fine to tailor you education to your strengths later in life (it's only logical), I believe that primary education should still have a general basis covering many areas. You can't discover a proficiency in a particular subject until you are introduced to at least its basics.

Completely agree.

Requiring an english major to be proficient in Calculus is pretty ridiculous.

[Smith Comma John]

Originally posted by vordabois
Completely agree.

Requiring an english major to be proficient in Calculus is pretty ridiculous.

you've got to work both sides of your brain though.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by flutter
you've got to work both sides of your brain though.

I'm not against that.

Well-rounded students are ideal. However, when it comes to a point where a person is kept from excelling or even leading his place within society due to "working the other side of your brain", we've got a problem.