Education Needs to Be Turned on Its Head

[Mott the Hoople]

In elementary school I see no need for teacher to have to take the time or make the effort to teach a 2nd grader about Drama or teach them to be able to distinguish between a Rembrandt or a Picasso. It is my opinion that certain things should be saved and introduced in higher grades after some basics are learned and learned well.

Please show me a second grade class room where that's being done?

 

[leaningright]

In this case your misusing the word liberal by using it as a right wing political pejorative. There's no greater means of intellectually handicapping a child then providing them a conservative education. There's pretty damned good reason why the overwhelming majority of our educational institutions, both private and public, are based on the liberal arts model. Because it not only works but it provides a broader, deeper, more versatile and adaptable form of education.

I disagree.

The authors criticisms are valid. He is not advocating eliminating skills training or discipline but he is correct in identifying why our schools are having troubles competing with the students of other developed nations and why so many are unprepared to perform modern college/university level work. To much reliance on skills training and obedience.

One can never be too skills oriented. And if you don't learn how to conform to rules you aren't going to be able to function in many workplaces. I don't agree that other nations teach their kids in the fashion that the author of the article describes. I have extensively studied some of the "highest achieving" educational systems around the world. They are all "skills training and discipline" oriented, especially in primary grades.

Our nations primary and secondary educational systems are not geared to teach the broad/liberal educational skills required for higher tertiary education and individual development. In short, they don't teach students to think, create or solve abstract problems. What they are geared to do is provide large numbers of obedient, literate and numerate workers for McDonalds and Wallmart and corporate cubicle customer service drones that can peform simple repetative tasks. The problem is, this system is not meeting the nations demands for highly talented individuals with multiple and versatile skill sets that this nation needs to be competative in our modern and highly technological world.

If schools are not teaching students to "think, create or solve abstract problems" in all subject areas they are not doing thier jobs. They indeed need to be reformed. But you cannot teach a kid to solve an abstract problem (in mathematics, let's say) who doesn't have the necessary skills to do any calculations that might be required when they figure out what to do.

Now, addressing the bolded part let me use part of your words here: "In this case your misusing the [things I have been trying to address] by using it as a

wing political pejorative. Seriously, this is how the left sees education when it focuses on skills and discipline which are necessary...very necessary early on in the educational process. If schools work correctly they will produce graduates that know how to get along in society (obey laws and such), how to go about changing things they think need changing without blatant rebellion, and how to get a job and be productive citizens.

Discipline in school is important but to much emphasis on conformity stiffles the natural instincts children have to explore and broaden their horizons. Learning skills is important but there is a limit to how far memorizing the multiplication tables will get you if you don't learn how to conceptualize a problem, model that problem mathametically, then formulate solutions and proofs to that problem. Skills training alone won't teach children how to do that. The same is true in science. Memorizing a bunch of facts, won't teach a child how to postulate a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, evaluate the variables being tested, analyze the data obtained and draw conclusions from that based upon the data and then apply those conclusions to solve other problems. This is why just learing science skills is of little value with out the practical laboratory experience of how to apply those skills.

I agree with everything here except the bolded part.

I hope I got everything put together right in this post. I've been trying to multi-task and am not really good at it. I don't disagree with you in all aspects but only in some.​

 

[leaningright]

pay raises based on performance standards by degree would be a piss poor method if students are still not being taught. All that kind of standard does is motivate teachers to continue going to night school for themselves.

I agree 100%.

 

[Topspin]

pay raises based on performance standards by degree would be a piss poor method if students are still not being taught. All that kind of standard does is motivate teachers to continue going to night school for themselves.

big freaking surprise that the guy who never stepped foot in a college class is pissing on degrees.
People are better skilled by each degree and will on average perform that much better you tool.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

pay raises based on performance standards by degree would be a piss poor method if students are still not being taught. All that kind of standard does is motivate teachers to continue going to night school for themselves.

It would be if you didn't evaluate performance. I'm not advocating that and Teachers are professionals. They should continue their education and stay current in their field. All professionals have to do that to maintain their licensing/certification. Educators are no different. So between licensing of educators and annual performance evaluations you can weed out the inept and incompetent and that's good, but how can it be used objectively to determine compensation? I think the best way to do that is by determing mastery of the topic they teach. What better way to do that for an educator then via academic credentials?

 

[Topspin]

Mott, did you get the 20% phd and 40% masters?
That seems ambitious because they could make so much more elsewhere.

 

[leaningright]

Please show me a second grade class room where that's being done?

Maybe I'm being a little facetious but there are certain liberal arts and cultural objectives (I just looked up Oklahoma's requirements) that are required to the point that the teaching of them takes away from time that should be spent learning things that will help an elementary kid succeed in Jr. High and High School. Each level ought to be geared toward success at the next level.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

big freaking surprise that the guy who never stepped foot in a college class is pissing on degrees.
People are better skilled by each degree and will on average perform that much better you tool.

you fucking dumbass. didn't your college teach your stupid ass to read?

try it again and get back to us when you think you've learned something.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It would be if you didn't evaluate performance. I'm not advocating that and Teachers are professionals. They should continue their education and stay current in their field. All professionals have to do that to maintain their licensing/certification. Educators are no different. So between licensing of educators and annual performance evaluations you can weed out the inept and incompetent and that's good, but how can it be used objectively to determine compensation? I think the best way to do that is by determing mastery of the topic they teach. What better way to do that for an educator then via academic credentials?

but again, if you rate performance based on the scholastic level of the teacher and not the students they are teaching, you're not providing any benefit to the shool district other than paying more money.

 

[uscitizen]

Maybe I'm being a little facetious but there are certain liberal arts and cultural objectives (I just looked up Oklahoma's requirements) that are required to the point that the teaching of them takes away from time that should be spent learning things that will help an elementary kid succeed in Jr. High and High School. Each level ought to be geared toward success at the next level.

I think students should be encouraged and pushed to advance at their own rate.
If a student is ready for college after grade 10 they should move to college level courses.

Grades 11 and 12 should be pretty much replaced by junior college.

Lets teach by capability not by a mass production approach.
Sure we will need a side path to give some extra help to keep up or catch up with the rest, but do not cause the brilliant ones to slow to the pace of the slow ones.
And some should be guided to a technical vocation.

Leave no child behind, just let the better ones leaver the rest behind.
That is life.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

big freaking surprise that the guy who never stepped foot in a college class is pissing on degrees.
People are better skilled by each degree and will on average perform that much better you tool.

In general that's true and it does provide an objective criteria.

 

[leaningright]

but again, if you rate performance based on the scholastic level of the teacher and not the students they are teaching, you're not providing any benefit to the shool district other than paying more money.

Let me also pose this problem that is often encountered by administrators. Many administrators hire teachers who are not as highly educated or that have fewer years of experience in order to "save" the school district money. Many boards are only interested in the bottom line at the end of the year. Sad but true. Once again, I am for consolidation of the administration of school districts.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott, did you get the 20% phd and 40% masters?
That seems ambitious because they could make so much more elsewhere.

That was just a crude example to make a point Topper.

 

[leaningright]

I think students should be encouraged and pushed to advance at their own rate.
If a student is ready for college after grade 10 they should move to college level courses.

Grades 11 and 12 should be pretty much replaced by junior college.

Lets teach by capability not by a mass production approach.
Sure we will need a side path to give some extra help to keep up or catch up with the rest, but do not cause the brilliant ones to slow to the pace of the slow ones.
And some should be guided to a technical vocation.

Leave no child behind, just let the better ones leaver the rest behind.
That is life.

I agree with everything here, especially the bolded part. That is one of my pet peeves. So much of the time the slower ones cause the retardation of the progress of the ones who are on pace or ahead of pace. Makes me mad the way the state says you have to deal with them.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Did we read the same article?

The current education system is in a shambles because the current "memorize and regurgitate for the test" has failed. We don't teach students to think, be independent, or even how to learn & study. We spend so much time focused on nonsense that we have graduated generations of kids who were not taught to think for themselves.

And are the kids learning to construct sentences now? Or are they being taught how government works? A simple examination of todays public shows they are not.

One problem is that we put so much emphasis on grades, instead of on studying. Although this may sound like wishy washy "you did your best" stuff, really, if you study, you'll do your best. Saying that getting away without studying or doing anything makes you talented just encourages people to cheat and take shortcuts. If they're truly talented, they should move on to things that require them to study harder, not sit around and play video games.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

but again, if you rate performance based on the scholastic level of the teacher and not the students they are teaching, you're not providing any benefit to the shool district other than paying more money.

Sure you are. You're providing them with better educated educators and that directly correlated to compatence. Student performance should certainly be a factor but were back to how you measure that? Standardized tests? Individual improvement? There is data to back up my premise. Primary and secondary schools with higher ratios of teachers with graduate degrees tend to have higher student performance rates. Particularly when those graduate degrees are in specific subjects.

We also want to avoid social stratification. Let's say you have an educator with an MS in mechanical engineering from Purdue. If his pay is going to be determined by student performance, wouldn't this talented individual be better off teaching in a upper middle class or wealthy community? Why would he/she teach in a poor area where poor student performance due to cultural issues would decrease his earnings? Don't we want to attract talented people likes this to poorer regions to help reverse the cultural issues that limit student performance?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

1. Eliminate social promotion so that kids are accountable for learning what they're supposed to.

Grade retention should be limited to the classes a student has failed. Making a kid repeat an entire grade because they failed math is so retarded I don't see how any adult could take it serious.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Discipline in school is important but to much emphasis on conformity stiffles the natural instincts children have to explore and broaden their horizons. Learning skills is important but there is a limit to how far memorizing the multiplication tables will get you if you don't learn how to conceptualize a problem, model that problem mathametically, then formulate solutions and proofs to that problem.

I really don't see a value in memorizing multiplication tables in the day of calculators. At best children are just going to forget it after they get into algebra and are allowed to use calculators.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sure you are. You're providing them with better educated educators and that directly correlated to compatence. Student performance should certainly be a factor but were back to how you measure that? Standardized tests? Individual improvement? There is data to back up my premise. Primary and secondary schools with higher ratios of teachers with graduate degrees tend to have higher student performance rates. Particularly when those graduate degrees are in specific subjects.

you're not saying anything I don't agree with, but to assume that this is the case should be the false premise.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I really don't see a value in memorizing multiplication tables in the day of calculators. At best children are just going to forget it after they get into algebra and are allowed to use calculators.

which must explain why my kids constantly ask me the answers to simple math problems, because they've lost access to a calculator. damn shame they didn't memorize those tables.