Pwyl Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm really curious as to how much time you've spent in schools to make that statement. Sure, some teachers are better than others, and some stink....but the movement now is DEFINITELY towards tailoring instruction to hit on all the different learning types. It is individualized now more than ever and continues to move in that direction. I hope it didn't come across like I was criticizing the teachers. I have a 1st grader, and her teacher is great. I think most teachers are good. My concerns are actually not related to the teachers at all, or even the parents really, but towards how the "system" approaches education. Bang touched on several of the other points I was thinking, but more specifically I disagree with the notion of grade-years and progressing through them with passing grades in the various subjects. I think when you look at a subject like math, that it should be divided into sub-subjects, possibly loosely related to what is learned in the different grades, but without the "weekly test, midterm, final, pass with a C mindset". I think students should be able to and required to work through a subject until they achieve mastery of it, and then be allowed to move on to the next module in that subject. For example, in 1st grade math, you would master simple addition, be certified with a test, and move on to simple subtraction (perhaps overly simplified). Some students will be able to master simple addition in a couple of weeks, others will take longer, but they keep at it until they have mastered it. I would also decouple subject levels that are defacto coupled at different grade levels, and allow students to progress in each subject at their best possible speed. So you could have a math wiz doing long division in what would normally be 1st grade, while moving slower in spelling. I would also leverage the "math wiz" concept into a higher level of mastery which you might call "instructor", where kids who are ahead actually tutor kids who aren't, and earn some scholastic benefit for that. (again overly simplified... I'm at work so I don't have time to really get deeply into it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 ok, maybe i mis-read or read too much into your statement. i don't disagree with what you're saying, though lots of logistics would have to go into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 I think students should be able to and required to work through a subject until they achieve mastery of it, and then be allowed to move on to the next module in that subject. For example, in 1st grade math, you would master simple addition, be certified with a test, and move on to simple subtraction (perhaps overly simplified). Some students will be able to master simple addition in a couple of weeks, others will take longer, but they keep at it until they have mastered it. Practically, what do you do with a 14 year old who is working through material with 9 and 10 year olds? I think that gets to endzone_dave's question. "At what point do you get this kind of kid out of the classroom so that the other kids who do want to learn can." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Practically, what do you do with a 14 year old who is working through material with 9 and 10 year olds? I think that gets to endzone_dave's question. "At what point do you get this kind of kid out of the classroom so that the other kids who do want to learn can." At least at that point you're interested in why that 14 year old is either a) struggling with mastering the subject or not trying. And he's being treated as an individual, and not just a member of a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 ok, maybe i mis-read or read too much into your statement. i don't disagree with what you're saying, though lots of logistics would have to go into it. we wouldn't want to put that much effort into a real solution, though. Just throw money at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick6 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I have always said that the two things wrong with public education is standardized test and the parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 At what point do we say this isn't the governments responsiblity and back off on their expected role. Of course, we know this will never happen because that would mean less government and people accepting responisbility for their own situations. No, I expect we'll make it more and more standardized, more and more subsidized to the end detriment of the people they are attemtping to help and society as a whole. How many administrations are we going to go through this with? It's almost like the drug war, we always insist on fighting the symptom, we never treat the origninal problem Problem is, that is akin to "giving up", and that's something that I can't accept. At least treating the symptoms allows the posibility of climbing up for a better life. The problem is in role models. When all a girl knows is her hard-working mom who raised her all by herself, what is she to think other than, "Well, if it was good enough for mama, it can be good enough for me." Never mind that mama probably worked herself to the bone to try to give her daughter a better life than what she had. I've thought about this alot, and the problem is very much coming from home. A lot of parents simply view school as a babysitter.Unfortunately there's two sides to this, and a lot of people point fingers and blame lazy parents.. but the fact is a whole hell of a lot of parents work their asses off to keep the bills paid and groceries on the table in an ever more expensive world. When both parents have to work to support the family, that doesn't leave a lot of time to do the parenting, and while it's easy to sit back and say all the usual scoffs, people are only human, and after a 10 hour day and an hour+ commute, some folks don't have it in them to be Ward and June Cleaver. That's not an excuse... it's a part of reality. The days of Dad being able to go to work and mom stay at home are gone for most of us. My wife and I both work from home, and it is still a grind to make the time to do what's necessary for school. My son is succeeding, and in large part it's because we make the time. It's not easy. to make up the time spent on being a parent in the way I feel I should be, I pretty much work 7 days a week til about 10 or later. Just to give you some personal insight into it, you all know I make those cartoons, and you may have noticed that i hardly make any anymore. I simply don't have the time, and my available time has decreased steadily as my son has gotten older and school became more involved. Now there's marching band, sports, and frankly, a lot of learning on my part. He's a freshman, and his curriculum for math and engineering is beyond me. I can't imagine what it must be like for parents who work long hours, commute and then have to do this. As a father of a 4 year old, it is tough enough right now, and I know it will only get worse once he starts bringing homework home and we have to be on him about that. We have started teaching him stuff (he's surprisingly good at basic math) but eventually we will have to get into what he learns at school. They've set it up now in MD so that when you enter HS, you can choose a pathway, and then your courses will be geared toward that career path. I love it. When I was in HS, I remember when i was a junior my guidance counselor asking me for the first time if I had considered what i wanted to do after high school.Now they offer class groups and courses specifically designed to begin the education necessary for that particular career. By his junior year my son will be taking college level engineering courses. If they'd have separated kids based on the aptitudes they showed at younger ages, my son would likely not be able to take this engineering course, much less ace it. His math and science grades are both up as well. I say give them a well rounded education for the first 7 years, and steadily weed them into classes that fit their learning level and then in high school really focus them in. Considering that I went to 3 different high schools in 2 different school districts, I'm not sure how that would have worked for me. I know that I likely missed out on any opportunity to take AP courses because of the catchup that I needed to do with required courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 At least at that point you're interested in why that 14 year old is either a) struggling with mastering the subject or not trying. And he's being treated as an individual, and not just a member of a group. I agree with your point, Pwyl. The idea that they master one objective before being pushed on to the next sounds good to me. But people are going to get angry with the results and I don't think our government has the stomach to deal with the have nots in a system that doesn't pretend everyone is average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 This sounds like an excellent idea. So the kids with ****e parents continue to get screwed over in every aspect of their lives. Well the kids with crap parents have three choices, one buckle down themselves which you can do with some mentoring but if they are like the girl sneaking out then guess what you throw away your life you can get help when you want to fix it which is choice two. Choice 3 if the parents are bad enough you have an intervening agency. sorry but when I see parents begging for their kids to get into schools that are not plagued by drugs violence and teachers that do not see to care then I think they should not beg we should reward them and the kids that are in good schools that causing trouble and their parents do not care well these kids can switch places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I think when you look at a subject like math, that it should be divided into sub-subjects, possibly loosely related to what is learned in the different grades, but without the "weekly test, midterm, final, pass with a C mindset". I think students should be able to and required to work through a subject until they achieve mastery of it, and then be allowed to move on to the next module in that subject. For example, in 1st grade math, you would master simple addition, be certified with a test, and move on to simple subtraction (perhaps overly simplified). Some students will be able to master simple addition in a couple of weeks, others will take longer, but they keep at it until they have mastered it. I would also decouple subject levels that are defacto coupled at different grade levels, and allow students to progress in each subject at their best possible speed. So you could have a math wiz doing long division in what would normally be 1st grade, while moving slower in spelling. I would also leverage the "math wiz" concept into a higher level of mastery which you might call "instructor", where kids who are ahead actually tutor kids who aren't, and earn some scholastic benefit for that. (again overly simplified... I'm at work so I don't have time to really get deeply into it) I think at that age and at that skill level, there is very little gap in what people are able to learn with respect to certain subjects (taking out special needs kids, which are already taken out). The biggest differences are socioeconomic in nature and related to how much they know coming into school and how much help they get at home, but much of that is even taken into account by choices of where you live and other things and shows up across the board. I don't think there's much evidence at all, accounting for socioeconomic factors that many kids learn JUST math that much faster than others at that age and level. Solving problems that there isn't really evidence that they are problems (or affect very, very few kids) doesn't seem like a good use of resources to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 we wouldn't want to put that much effort into a real solution, though. Just throw money at it! not sure how you got that out of my post.....but you do understand that elaborate re-structuring aint free or cheap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I agree with your point, Pwyl. The idea that they master one objective before being pushed on to the next sounds good to me. But people are going to get angry with the results and I don't think our government has the stomach to deal with the have nots in a system that doesn't pretend everyone is average. I think that's because we're obsessed with the notion of tying a level of achievement with a particular age/grade level, and standardized testing etc. Which to a point is understandable, because education planners don't get to think about one student, they have to think about how to evaluate millions. And not only that, but they have to try to answer the question of evaluating successful curriculums, and more importantly teachers. So a first grade teacher is "graded" on how well her class does on the standardized test, instead of other, possibly better ways, and leads in some instances to teachers being conditioned to "teach to the test". Under my scheme, teachers would be graded on something like "average time to mastery" which would be the how long her charges took, on average, to move through the material and master it. It would have to be a bit of a rolling average, since students would be entering and finishing the modules at random times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Pwyl, so would you have each teacher in a school responsible for one aspect of each subject with students flowing through it at their own pace? So, for math time, you have 10 teachers and each teacher has their own sub-subject (addition, subtraction, etc.)? Then, for reading time, you have each of those 10 teachers responsible for a different level of reading? If so, how do you deal with bottlenecking or evening out the number of students each teacher would be instructing at any given time? Let's say that multiplication takes longer to master and 50% of the students are in that teacher's class at one time (at various levels). Speaking of various levels, how would that one teacher handle teaching 20 different kids who are all at different levels of her subject? You'd have one kid who might be in need of introductory lessons on day one while 10 are in week two and 9 are in their last few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Pwyl, so would you have each teacher in a school responsible for one aspect of each subject with students flowing through it at their own pace? So, for math time, you have 10 teachers and each teacher has their own sub-subject (addition, subtraction, etc.)? Then, for reading time, you have each of those 10 teachers responsible for a different level of reading? If so, how do you deal with bottlenecking or evening out the number of students each teacher would be instructing at any given time? Let's say that multiplication takes longer to master and 50% of the students are in that teacher's class at one time (at various levels). Speaking of various levels, how would that one teacher handle teaching 20 different kids who are all at different levels of her subject? You'd have one kid who might be in need of introductory lessons on day one while 10 are in week two and 9 are in their last few days. Well, it certainly starts getting more complicated when you get into the logistics of how you would organize instruction. But to even further complicate things, I would envision a rethinking of how instruction happens, and what a a teacher's responsibilities are with regard to guiding a student through attaining mastery of their subject. Like I said above, one way I would increase how much instruction is available is to allow/encourage more advanced kids to help instruct kids who are behind them. And I would also leverage the explosion in cheap technology for instruction, with interactive learning games/activities as well as presentations of the subject that are similar to the normal teacher-presented lessons, but pre-recorded/produced and available on demand. In short I would attack the delivery of the lessons on multiple fronts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 not sure how you got that out of my post.....but you do understand that elaborate re-structuring aint free or cheap? It was a jab at society, not you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Well, it certainly starts getting more complicated when you get into the logistics of how you would organize instruction. But to even further complicate things, I would envision a rethinking of how instruction happens, and what a a teacher's responsibilities are with regard to guiding a student through attaining mastery of their subject. Like I said above, one way I would increase how much instruction is available is to allow/encourage more advanced kids to help instruct kids who are behind them. And I would also leverage the explosion in cheap technology for instruction, with interactive learning games/activities as well as presentations of the subject that are similar to the normal teacher-presented lessons, but pre-recorded/produced and available on demand. In short I would attack the delivery of the lessons on multiple fronts. That makes sense. I didn't mean to come off as someone trying to shoot holes in your idea...those were just some questions that came to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Why can't you use the carrot and stick method, I have said it is a good idea to have contracts signed at the beginning of the year by the parents teachers and students on goals and behaviours for those parents and kids who refuse to hold up their end you can place them in schools that are near the bottom with those teachers who do not care and are there to collect a check. Assuming that a party to this pact would be a public school, this is not an enforceable contract in the legal sense and any quality lawyer could pierce the pact (though maybe not in time to really fix the specific situation). I guess a private institution could threaten expulsion and not be liable (though with vouchers or even any federal-based funding, a good lawyer may make a case for the expulsion to be a wrongful act). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Assuming that a party to this pact would be a public school, this is not an enforceable contract in the legal sense and any quality lawyer could pierce the pact (though maybe not in time to really fix the specific situation). I guess a private institution could threaten expulsion and not be liable (though with vouchers or even any federal-based funding, a good lawyer may make a case for the expulsion to be a wrongful act). I am not saying expelling them completely but if you have public schools that are performing at varying levels you do not need to keep the kids that are not doing anything in the good school if they see school as a way to kill time and their parents see it as a state babysitter and the teachers see it as just a paycheck you can take those people and put them all together and not owrry about heavy investment, but those people who really want to excel deserve the investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Sometimes I'm in the Tailgate and I feel like I am failing the reading comprehension portion of the SAT. Wasn't the main theme of the article the deterioration of the nuclear family is at the root of the education crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I am not saying expelling them completely but if you have public schools that are performing at varying levels you do not need to keep the kids that are not doing anything in the good school if they see school as a way to kill time and their parents see it as a state babysitter and the teachers see it as just a paycheck you can take those people and put them all together and not owrry about heavy investment, but those people who really want to excel deserve the investment. Neither was I when talking about public schools, only in the sense of private schools. You cannot in any legal sense do what you are proposing. Yes, you can do it in an under-the-table manner but if you get caught you better have a huge war chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Sometimes I'm in the Tailgate and I feel like I am failing the reading comprehension portion of the SAT. Wasn't the main theme of the article the deterioration of the nuclear family is at the root of the education crisis? Partially. It is now acceptable to be a one-parent household.The other point was that as a society we have enabled a generation (esp in areas that provide high welfare, like CT) and made it "easy" (I use that term in a relative sense) for a teenager to have a child and continue on with a normal life. While this is admirable, providing a good living with a child at 16 only encourages others to have a child at 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Neither was I when talking about public schools, only in the sense of private schools. You cannot in any legal sense do what you are proposing. Yes, you can do it in an under-the-table manner but if you get caught you better have a huge war chest. Yes you can there is not promise in the public school system that you will get to go to the school closest to you, there is no problem with the school saying since you are here to do nothing but cause trouble and not bother with your education and your parents are okay with this, you will now attend this remedial school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I think at that age and at that skill level, there is very little gap in what people are able to learn with respect to certain subjects (taking out special needs kids, which are already taken out).The biggest differences are socioeconomic in nature and related to how much they know coming into school and how much help they get at home, but much of that is even taken into account by choices of where you live and other things and shows up across the board. I don't think there's much evidence at all, accounting for socioeconomic factors that many kids learn JUST math that much faster than others at that age and level. Solving problems that there isn't really evidence that they are problems (or affect very, very few kids) doesn't seem like a good use of resources to me. I think I typed a response to this and accidently deleted it.. But I would anectdotally disagree. I watched the kids in my kid's class work on math, and some of them just got it immediately and were then bored, and others had to spend time really working on it. In 1st grade. (my kid was one of the "having to work on it" kids. She bangs her way through some science though) It also goes against my own experience of being in some classes bored out of my mind because I had already "gotten it", listening to a teacher drone on and on about it. You say that the biggest differences are socioeconomic, but that goes against what I learned in my HR class, which is that intelligence is the best predictor of job success (admittedly applying job success to school success) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I think I typed a response to this and accidently deleted it.. But I would anectdotally disagree. I watched the kids in my kid's class work on math, and some of them just got it immediately and were then bored, and others had to spend time really working on it. In 1st grade. (my kid was one of the "having to work on it" kids. She bangs her way through some science though) It also goes against my own experience of being in some classes bored out of my mind because I had already "gotten it", listening to a teacher drone on and on about it. You say that the biggest differences are socioeconomic, but that goes against what I learned in my HR class, which is that intelligence is the best predictor of job success (admittedly applying job success to school success) Well, your memories and your HR experience are certainly talking about at much higher levels (i.e. older ages) then simple things like basic math. And I don't know where you went to school, but long ago when I went to school there were some divisions by 3rd grade and by 5th grade there were division even with in a room based on topics. I was in math and reading at one level and spelling at another in 5th grade. And I'm not claiming kids ABSOLUTELY learn at the same rate for everything. I'm saying that most kids that learn better than the "average" kid generally are going to learn better at all subjects in general and the rates between them aren't worth creating a system that allows for a more rapid rate in only one subject (and somebody a head in all subjects can skip grades) considering the other problems the educational system has (For example, there is something called math learning disability, and it is possible your daughter really struggles with math because she has it, but it doesn't really affect enough kids to completely redo our education system given the problems that it has that we know are there vs. creating a whole new set of problems that we'd have to even diagnose). I'll bet most kids at the age find science easier than math. Given all of the clearly demonstrated problems that our school system has, spending time and energy to fix a "problem" that doesn't appear to be much a problem shouldn't be a major concern. If you look at the variation in the data, very little of it is inter-subject and inter-student that would result in you concluding this kid just stinks at math and so did poorly on this test is a good explanation for the variation that we see. The vast majority of the variation is across all subjects and student dependent and is generally related to things like physical development (I developed slowly and so had issues writing (and even filling in little ovals well) when I was young, but in terms of testing this affected be pretty much equally across the board unless you gave me an oral test.) and other issues related to maturity (which are then related to sex and age) and socioeconomic factors. In the context of the OP, I'd suggest the statistics with respect to early parenthood that these kids uncovered as a part of the writing their article should be given in some sort of "social studies" class and discussed in depth in 4th or 5th grade. Statistics like these and others related to not finishing high school, not going to college, and/or not learning a real skill (e.g. electrician, plumber, etc.) should be the basis of math classes (e.g. fractions, percentages, algebra, etc.) through much of middle school and into high school (and then of course it would be important to let those kids understand why those concepts are important even in the case of skilled laborers). Use the educational process to constantly remind the kids why they are there and why it is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Yes you can there is not promise in the public school system that you will get to go to the school closest to you, there is no problem with the school saying since you are here to do nothing but cause trouble and not bother with your education and your parents are okay with this, you will now attend this remedial school Yes, there is a problem with a public school saying that because "you are here to do nothing but cause trouble and not bother with your education and your parents are okay with this, you will now attend this remedial school" opens you up big-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.