City Journal: Nobody Gets Married Any More, Mister

[stevenaa]

One thing the article points out is that the kids have more than enough resources to succeed. But politicians preach and preach that more money needs to be spent on education. They are too afraid to point out the obvious that parenting is the main culprit in poor performing kids, not lack of resources or quality of teachers. I wish politicians would stop wasting our tax dollars.

We have a new Highschool built my daughter will be attending next year. It is ridiculously lavish. They have a complete courtroom for mock trials. They have a medical ward. It's out of control. Money that could have been spent much more effectively.

[Riggo-toni]

One thing the article points out is that the kids have more than enough resources to succeed. But politicians preach and preach that more money needs to be spent on education. They are too afraid to point out the obvious that parenting is the main culprit in poor performing kids, not lack of resources or quality of teachers. I wish politicians would stop wasting our tax dollars.

+1

[Pwyl]

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.

My memories are from all grades, starting in first. And it was an HR class, not experience. I'm actually a systems engineer, I don't have the right temperament to be in HR The observation was that intelligence was the best predictor of job success. I just apply that observation down the scale into school as well.

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.

Interesting, but not really germane to what I'm talking about. (hopefully I'll be able to articulate it better later in this post)

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.

I find it interesting that you would go straight to "math learning disability" when presented with a factoid that my first grader had to work harder at it than some of her peers. She's better at science because she enjoys remembering factoids and reciting them. You see "math learning disability", I see kids that are at different developmental stages and mathematical aptitude while being in the same age bracket.

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.

.

I think that you lose sight of the individuals when you start talking about variations and standard deviations and bell curves.

You say that we shouldn't spend time and energy to fix a "problem" that you think doesn't exist, what I'm saying is that part of the problem is that students aren't treated like individuals by the system(any teachers reading this note I say system and not teachers ). There are real and legitimate reasons for this, resources being what they are.

I approach the problem from the perspective what would be the very best way to educate a single student, and try to extrapolate a system of education to apply to all students from there, as opposed to trying to educate the "average student". You say that there isn't much variation between students, but that doesn't mesh with my observations from my years of school, and watching my kids and family's kids amongst their peers. Maybe the variation being measured in your studies are measuring what the kids do as opposed to what they can do. :shrug:

If you just had one student to teach, you would take the approach I'm presenting because it would be the most efficient way to work them through their subjects(think about a student with multiple tutors, one for each subject). I would just use technology and a new approach to how teachers present the lessons and manage the student's path through the work to achieve the same effect among multiple students.

But all that being said, I did caution that I disagreed andectodally, and I still don't think I'm articulating this well... I do better with a whiteboard where I can draw flowcharts and data flow diagrams :pfft:

[PeterMP]

My memories are from all grades, starting in first. And it was an HR class, not experience. I'm actually a systems engineer, I don't have the right temperament to be in HR The observation was that intelligence was the best predictor of job success. I just apply that observation down the scale into school as well.

I seriously doubt you actually remember much about first grade.

I don't disagree, but intelligence covers all fields not specific to math or whatever subject. People that are more intelligent will do better across the board.

If you just had one student to teach, you would take the approach I'm presenting because it would be the most efficient way to work them through their subjects(think about a student with multiple tutors, one for each subject). I would just use technology and a new approach to how teachers present the lessons and manage the student's path through the work to achieve the same effect among multiple students.

Why not just hire individual tutors for every student for different subjects?

"Pretending" you are doing something you aren't doing is very likely to have very major problems.

What you are doing is completely revamping a system that has already existing issues that we can easily identify that doesn't do anything to address those issues (you aren't fixing the issues related to those raised in the article), which is going to introduce new problems.

It is a kin to tearing down a house that has major foundation issues without addressing the foundations to fix a minor leak in the roof and who knows what problems will occur in the new build.

[Larry]

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.

So your suggestion is that if a kid isn't doing well, then you should place more disadvantages on him, and write him off?

[stevenaa]

So your suggestion is that if a kid isn't doing well, then you should place more disadvantages on him, and write him off?

I think there's a difference between a student who isn't doing well, and one who isn't giving any effort and never will.

[PokerPacker]

I seriously doubt you actually remember much about first grade.

I don't disagree, but intelligence covers all fields not specific to math or whatever subject. People that are more intelligent will do better across the board.

Well that's just not true. Different people have different specialties. Personally, I'm a math/science person. In school, I was always ahead of the curve in that department. Not so much in English. I was never that great at reading into things. I remember one time when there were a select group of us in an advanced reading class and everyone in that class (I think there were 5 of us) got a B on the exam except for me, who failed it. My reading comprehension was just not to their level. I was still ahead of the basic class, sure, but I was not at the level of those kids. On the other hand, I would've wiped the floor with most of them in math.

As for skipping grades, that is something that just doesn't really happen. Fortunately, though, the elementary school I attended had a system of trying to challenge us with a GT program, and various accelerated classes they'd produce when they saw a group of students needing something more than the base class could provide.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 10:23 PM ----------

I think there's a difference between a student who isn't doing well, and one who isn't giving any effort and never will.

But how do you distinguish the two? There was a kid who I went to school with from elementary school through high school. In elementary school, he was the most ornery kid in class and he had a nasty reputation. He was always angry, always getting into trouble, always ignoring the teachers... etc.. By the time high school rolled around, he wasn't so much the aggressive nasty kid we grew up with. He'd left behind that troubled little kid, graduated, and moved on to college.

[PeterMP]

Well that's just not true. Different people have different specialties. Personally, I'm a math/science person. In school, I was always ahead of the curve in that department. Not so much in English. I was never that great at reading into things. I remember one time when there were a select group of us in an advanced reading class and everyone in that class (I think there were 5 of us) got a B on the exam except for me, who failed it. My reading comprehension was just not to their level. I was still ahead of the basic class, sure, but I was not at the level of those kids. On the other hand, I would've wiped the floor with most of them in math.

As for skipping grades, that is something that just doesn't really happen. Fortunately, though, the elementary school I attended had a system of trying to challenge us with a GT program, and various accelerated classes they'd produce when they saw a group of students needing something more than the base class could provide.

So I'm wrong, but you were out performing the vast majority (about 80%) of the students in reading comprehension?

If that's wrong, I'll take being wrong.

And in math, you were what, the top 5% of the students?

Most school systems by 3rd grade have divisions such as gifted and talented programs.

[Pwyl]

I seriously doubt you actually remember much about first grade.

Memory is a funny thing. I remember first grade pretty vividly, but I couldn't tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday. And anyway, I don't really have to base my thoughts on my own 30-year-old memories of being bored in 1st grade, since I am currently raising a first grader, and have spent some time in her class just watching the kids learn.

I don't disagree, but intelligence covers all fields not specific to math or whatever subject. People that are more intelligent will do better across the board.

I think you're focusing a little too tightly on an item that I would have as mostly an aside. I do think that students develop at different speeds in different types of subjects, but that facet isn't central to my idea. Allowing students to progress at different speeds in different subjects is more of an organic outgrowth than a goal to strive for.

Why not just hire individual tutors for every student for different subjects?

I don't think this is a serious question I've already conceded the resource scarcity that makes this extreme impossible.

"Pretending" you are doing something you aren't doing is very likely to have very major problems.

Not sure what you mean here...

What you are doing is completely revamping a system that has already existing issues that we can easily identify that doesn't do anything to address those issues (you aren't fixing the issues related to those raised in the article), which is going to introduce new problems.

I'm not doing anything except spouting some ideas I've been mulling on a football message board. I don't make school policy, even in my little town

It is a kin to tearing down a house that has major foundation issues without addressing the foundations to fix a minor leak in the roof and who knows what problems will occur in the new build.

I think it's more like examining the needs of the people living in the leaky house and determining that the house isn't meeting the needs of the residents as closely as it could. And noting that it's not actually a house but an enormous dormitory with 400 bunk beds in a single long room, and a single bathroom ( ). I want to give all the residents of your mythical house their own little bungalow, crafted especially for them to meet their needs perfectly.

---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 09:42 PM ----------

Well that's just not true. Different people have different specialties. Personally, I'm a math/science person. In school, I was always ahead of the curve in that department. Not so much in English. I was never that great at reading into things. I remember one time when there were a select group of us in an advanced reading class and everyone in that class (I think there were 5 of us) got a B on the exam except for me, who failed it. My reading comprehension was just not to their level. I was still ahead of the basic class, sure, but I was not at the level of those kids. On the other hand, I would've wiped the floor with most of them in math.

That's funny, I was the exact opposite. I tested off the charts in reading comprehension in 6th grade, so they put me in an 8th-grade level reading class, but I still tested about average in math.

[PokerPacker]

So I'm wrong, but you were out performing the vast majority (about 80%) of the students in reading comprehension?

If that's wrong, I'll take being wrong.

And in math, you were what, the top 5% of the students?

Most school systems by 3rd grade have divisions such as gifted and talented programs.

I wouldn't quite put myself in the top 80% in reading. Maybe I was, I don't remember all the folks that weren't in the other class, but I'm sure there were a few that could've gone. But yeah, top 5% sounds about right in math. But while yes, there is a tendency for there to be kids that are ahead of their class, they're not gonna be ahead in everything. Especially, for example, history, where you can only really do as much as you are exposed to. Its things like that that make grade-skipping not very feasible, because you have to be ahead in everything to really be considered for skipping, and even then, its rare that they'll pull the trigger on something like that. With the system of different levels of different classes, I could've been doing, say 6th grade math and 5th grade reading while I'm in 4th grade and continue with my normal history studies. Of course, there are logistics to work out, but I think its an interesting system.

I can't tell you how much I loved the jump from elementary school to middle school (despite no short Mondays and no recess) because of how the classes were less standardized and I could take honors classes (science and English were bundled though; couldn't take one without the other :/) and not be (as) slowed down (Math was still a bit slow, especially 'cause I had a teacher who didn't understand some basic mathematical concepts such as double negatives). I think part of it may have been that we didn't have a base class we were stuck with and just had different course teachers. I dunno, maybe I just needed elementary school to be set up a little more like middle/high school.

[PeterMP]

I think it's more like examining the needs of the people living in the leaky house and determining that the house isn't meeting the needs of the residents as closely as it could. And noting that it's not actually a house but an enormous dormitory with 400 bunk beds in a single long room, and a single bathroom ( ). I want to give all the residents of your mythical house their own little bungalow, crafted especially for them to meet their needs perfectly.

Except you aren't meeting their needs because you aren't doing anything about the largest variation in the data, which are socioeconomic.

What does the bungalow look like for the kid that comes from a single parent home where the parent works 3rd or 2nd shift and so gets very little to no supervision at home after school?

It is a bungalow that allows and even accepts those students can fall behind because they just aren't able to perform at "grade" level. They just "learn" slower.

Of course, people the vast majority of the people that study education will tell you that is false.

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 08:15 AM ----------

Especially, for example, history, where you can only really do as much as you are exposed to. Its things like that that make grade-skipping not very feasible, because you have to be ahead in everything to really be considered for skipping, and even then, its rare that they'll pull the trigger on something like that. With the system of different levels of different classes, I could've been doing, say 6th grade math and 5th grade reading while I'm in 4th grade and continue with my normal history studies. Of course, there are logistics to work out, but I think its an interesting system.

We're always going to have issues with the top 5% of kids or so. However, we compete will at the top end. Our largest problem is that our middle is slipping into the bottom. Any overhaul that doesn't address that problem is going to be a failure.

[DRSmith]

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.

Not if you have shown that niether you nor you parents care about your education.

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 08:32 AM ----------

So your suggestion is that if a kid isn't doing well, then you should place more disadvantages on him, and write him off?

If a kid is not doing well because they are choosing to not do well

No one for instance made the girl go out at night and come to school and sleep

I am not talking about kids with real learning disabilities or kids doing bad or are in abusive homes I am talking about kids no matter their situation who along with their parents hold not value on an education, they do not need to be poor there are many kids that come affluent or well to do families who show little regard for an education.

Knowledge is not something owed to people, societey benefits from having an educated populace but that populace had to value the knowledge available.

[Pwyl]

Except you aren't meeting their needs because you aren't doing anything about the largest variation in the data, which are socioeconomic.

What does the bungalow look like for the kid that comes from a single parent home where the parent works 3rd or 2nd shift and so gets very little to no supervision at home after school?

It is a bungalow that allows and even accepts those students can fall behind because they just aren't able to perform at "grade" level. They just "learn" slower.

Of course, people the vast majority of the people that study education will tell you that is false

My idea isn't directly related to solving the socioeconomic divide in the data you're talking about(I think it would indirectly help though). I haven't seen whatever study(s) you're referencing, so I don't know what variables they're correlating to socioeconomic status. I would guess that it's the relationship between a socioeconomic metric like income/family situation and standardized test scores and/or grades. You've already conceded that intelligence is at least a large part of how quickly a student can progress through a subject, and that's what I'm concerned with. (I don't really care about how students are testing in the current system)

You ask about how a "bungalow" (I think I'll drop this analogy since it's cumbersome and replace it with "personal education plan") would look like for a kid with a poor home situation. I would think that the answer would be obvious. You would go through a discovery process to try to find out what makes the kid tick. Try to find his motivational pressure points. Get to know him as an individual. When you're done with the discovery process, you build an educational plan for them. If they're good at studying solo, it could include lots of library time. If they learn better by hearing a lesson presentation, it could include more of that kind. If they need more personal supervision from a teacher, that would be applied. It would be tailored to their individual abilities and needs. I would also revisit the plan regularly to track their progress and make revisions as necessary if anything isn't working. The plan would be heavy on using technology to deliver educational content in varous forms, including recorded presentations, drilling, progress tracking, and testing for mastery.

I think you're going to find a fairly widely scattered capability of students' ability to learn, both at exactly the same age, and noting that in traditional grades there's a widely scattered age bracket. Some of that will be due to their home situation, some of it due to their level of intelligence. When you get them in school, the reasons shouldn't matter. As long as they're not completely disengaged from even trying, the educational process should be able to work with them to move them through their required subjects.

These educational plans wouldn't "accept" that students can fall dangerously behind. While there is the recognition that students can and will progress at different speeds, there would still be expectations around how long a student should take for a subject module. If a student isn't progressing appropriately, we approach that student as an individual to discover why, and revise his/her plan to try to compensate.

ETA- I will have to concede that these ideas are dependant on a student having at least a shred of interest in succeeding in school, or at least a motivational hook that can be pulled to create interest(be it sports, or whatever). Students that are completely and utterly disengaged might need a different approach.

[PeterMP]

You ask about how a "bungalow" (I think I'll drop this analogy since it's cumbersome and replace it with "personal education plan") would look like for a kid with a poor home situation. I would think that the answer would be obvious. You would go through a discovery process to try to find out what makes the kid tick. Try to find his motivational pressure points. Get to know him as an individual. When you're done with the discovery process, you build an educational plan for them. If they're good at studying solo, it could include lots of library time. If they learn better by hearing a lesson presentation, it could include more of that kind. If they need more personal supervision from a teacher, that would be applied. It would be tailored to their individual abilities and needs. I would also revisit the plan regularly to track their progress and make revisions as necessary if anything isn't working. The plan would be heavy on using technology to deliver educational content in varous forms, including recorded presentations, drilling, progress tracking, and testing for mastery.

Intelligence is important, but it generally shows up across all subjects.

And all of this would take a huge influx of resources related to getting to know kids, figuring out what works for them, setting up a plan, and then constantly revisiting the situtation (where on the surface you could imagine your original plan didn't require more resources just a different marshalling of resources).

Which we don't do for the same reasons we don't hire private tutors for every student for different subjects.

Talk to anybody in the field about early childhood education and they will tell you when looking at schools the single most important thing you should look at is the teacher/child ratio.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED354992&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED354992

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED441003&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED441003

Essentially that is true because it means more one-on-one time with a teacher for your child, which means they get to know your child better, which means they get to know what works for your child better (among other things) (I think you are also greatly overestimating the ability of most young children to stay on task indepdendtly).

In a world where teacher/student ratios were closer to 10/1 rather than 20/1 (and over that in many cases) and a person could take large parts of days to get to know each kid and how they learn and then constantly re-evaluate that information, your plan would be great, but that's not going to happen.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

The truth is that we want to talk about behaviors and "morals" as if they exist in an economic vacuum. You can't fix the problem if the solutions (e.g. jobs, affordable higher ed, affordable housing, affordable daycare, etc.) are ignored in favor of moral outrage. Every generation has claimed kids were out of control, morals were gone, media was filth, etc. I think the difference we see now is there is more of a government safety net that agitates taxpayers and less of a structurally sound economy that gives a hand up rather than a hand out. And no before anyone chimes in, less economic regulation, lower taxes, and just cutting people off to sink (most likely) or swim is NOT the answer. Somehow we have to figure out how to fix the economy for everyone, not just those at the top. We have to find a way to keep our standard of living in this nation. Without those fixes, it only gets worse.

[DRSmith]

The truth is that we want to talk about behaviors and "morals" as if they exist in an economic vacuum. You can't fix the problem if the solutions (e.g. jobs, affordable higher ed, affordable housing, affordable daycare, etc.) are ignored in favor of moral outrage. Every generation has claimed kids were out of control, morals were gone, media was filth, etc. I think the difference we see now is there is more of a government safety net that agitates taxpayers and less of a structurally sound economy that gives a hand up rather than a hand out. And no before anyone chimes in, less economic regulation, lower taxes, and just cutting people off to sink (most likely) or swim is NOT the answer. Somehow we have to figure out how to fix the economy for everyone, not just those at the top. We have to find a way to keep our standard of living in this nation. Without those fixes, it only gets worse.

You fix part of the moral issues you have and you put and end to the need for daycare often times

Of course if you really implement morality you start removing a lot of the higher costs as people seek not their self interest but the interest of all

[Pwyl]

Intelligence is important, but it generally shows up across all subjects.

You're still overly hung up on this item. I disagree, but it's not important. The difference in intelligence and developmental level across different students is the main point.

And all of this would take a huge influx of resources related to getting to know kids, figuring out what works for them, setting up a plan, and then constantly revisiting the situtation (where on the surface you could imagine your original plan didn't require more resources just a different marshalling of resources).

I think you're overestimating the amount of resources needed to implement my plan. I think that's largely my fault because, while I mentioned that it would involve a complete rethinking and reorganization of the teacher's responsibilities and hierarchy, I didn't give any details. It also involves a complete rethinking of how school time is scheduled, and the hierarchy of the teacher structure. (I don't know that I have time to really get into it though )

Talk to anybody in the field about early childhood education and they will tell you when looking at schools the single most important thing you should look at is the teacher/child ratio.

In the current system. My plan would involve a complete rewrite of how content is delivered, how progress is tracked, and how mastery is recorded. It would involve leveraging technology to replace some of the traditional content delivery, as well as peer tutoring, and any other methods that seem appropriate for a particular age group.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED354992&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED354992

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED441003&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED441003

Unfortunately your links aren't loading for me at work, I'll try to look at them later. If you want to discuss summarys of what they convey, I'm ok with that too.

Essentially that is true because it means more one-on-one time with a teacher for your child, which means they get to know your child better, which means they get to know what works for your child better (among other things) (I think you are also greatly overestimating the ability of most young children to stay on task indepdendtly).

In a world where teacher/student ratios were closer to 10/1 rather than 20/1 (and over that in many cases) and a person could take large parts of days to get to know each kid and how they learn and then constantly re-evaluate that information, your plan would be great, but that's not going to happen.

Again, this is in a traditional class room. My idea replaces the traditional class room and teacher-student relationship with something else. Traditionally, the teacher is the main conduit for both the delivery of lesson content and one-one one coaching. That is why the ratios mean so much. I want to start from scratch, and define new roles for professionals in the teaching environment. One such role would be something akin to a guidance counsellor, this would be the person who interacts with the student to craft their plan, and guide them through the overall educational process. Another role would be a subject teacher, who helps the student learn math for example, utilizing all of the technological tools available. You might think of it as some of the concepts of Montessori(just the ones I've put forward here, I don't buy into all of the Montessori ideas) on information system steroids.

(I think you are also greatly overestimating the ability of most young children to stay on task indepdendtly).

Actually my ideas don't make any estimate on that at all. The children's ability to do so would be ascertained by the discovery process, and an appropriate level of independant study would be added to their plan. In my personal life, I definitely don't overestimate this, as my first grader is particularly chatty amongst her peers

[Elessar78]

It's just sad the cycle that these pregnant students are in. As someone pointed out earlier Season 4 of The Wire deals with this issue. Unfortunately a vast majority of people imitate the environment they grow up in—it's "normal." In a cold/evil way, maybe we have to go Darwin on this population. Indirectly, the government subsidizes this kind of lifestyle. Lest I be accused of being racist, I live in a rural area where this is a predominantly white issue. It's not good for anyone. Not the teen moms, not their kids, not the tax payers on the other side of the country/state. Not for the education system, apparently.

[PeterMP]

I think you're overestimating the amount of resources needed to implement my plan. I think that's largely my fault because, while I mentioned that it would involve a complete rethinking and reorganization of the teacher's responsibilities and hierarchy, I didn't give any details. It also involves a complete rethinking of how school time is scheduled, and the hierarchy of the teacher structure. (I don't know that I have time to really get into it though )

In the current system. My plan would involve a complete rewrite of how content is delivered, how progress is tracked, and how mastery is recorded. It would involve leveraging technology to replace some of the traditional content delivery, as well as peer tutoring, and any other methods that seem appropriate for a particular age group.

If we start with the assumption that most young children won't be able to stay on task independently, is there any reason to believe that "teachers" won't be the directly involved in however you deliver the information (even if it is done using "technology" there will need to be a "teacher" to over see that the children using the "technology" stay on task)?

If that's the case, then you don't decrease the number of "teachers" significantly, and you have to hire all of the "guidance counselours".

When you first described your plan, it really sounded like a simple shift in rescoures. You were going to "allow" students to move at their own pace with "instructional modules". However, that just allows students that fall behind to just stay behind, which is really our biggest problem.

This type of thing has actually worked well at some colleges (talking to people that run those facilities and they will spend a lot of time talking about students taking "ownership", even "ownership" of the "learning" space/infrastructure, however, even they don't require fewer instructors (you still need somebody there to make sure they stay on the proper task (i.e. provide some direction) and to answer questions) and do generally require more technology so more costs.)

However, then you really are talking about people that should be able to pretty well self-motivate/stay on tasks.

And if they don't, then you just fail them, and they don't get a college degree.

If we say that is an unacceptable course of action at lower levels AND the students are less likely to stay on task/self-motivate (especially across disciplines), then you have issues.

Those issues are going to require man power that we would generally associate with "teacher"/student ratios.

And if your "teachers" aren't going to set up educational plans, then you have another group of people you have to hire, that must interact with the "teachers" and the students.

Let's imagine a scenario. We have 20 kids learning to multiply.

One group is doing so by "playing" a computer game, one group is doing so by watching a video (presumably these people learn well in a traditional setting), another groups is quitely sitting in a library reading their book individually, and a fourth group is part of some "peer" mentoring workshop/learning program where people are using smart boards and the like.

You still need people to keep an eye on these groups and to answer questions from these groups (instructional questions about multiplication and "procedurel" questions about the different methods (e.g. I'm not sure what I am suppossed to be doing in this part of the game.).

You still need people that carry out the assessments and to "grade" the assessments.

Those are your teachers. Student/teacher ratio will matter.

Then you are still going to need people that will spend one-on-one time with the students and review the assessments to determine which approach works best for them.

Those are "different" people.

[Pwyl]

If we start with the assumption that most young children won't be able to stay on task independently, is there any reason to believe that "teachers" won't be the directly involved in however you deliver the information (even if it is done using "technology" there will need to be a "teacher" to over see that the children using the "technology" stay on task)?

Teachers should have more time for keeping the kids on task since they're no longer doing the bulk of the content delivery, progress tracking and testing. I would also change the physical layout of the classes to allow for grouping of kids working on the same subject, and would require either personal netbook or slate type school machines, or logins to desktop machines (age might be a factor here for durability of the machinery). The students would have their content (in the form of lessons, in whatever forms seem appropriate for the age) delivered via their personal technology device, which would also deliver quizzes and tests, and keep track of their progress.

When you first described your plan, it really sounded like a simple shift in rescoures. You were going to "allow" students to move at their own pace with "instructional modules". However, that just allows students that fall behind to just stay behind, which is really our biggest problem.

Yes this is the core of the plan(the bolded part). Most of the rest is bolted on to try to answer the types of questions you're asking. The idea is to educate the kids as individually as possible, which should allow for better and earlier identification of problems that are holding them back.

(I want to go ahead and apologize for the scattershot delivery of my idea... it's really just something I've been kicking around and a lot of these addendums are partially baked)

And if you take a step back and see that you're no longer beholden to the concept of grade years and set schedules for lessons, you realize that you can now freely tinker with the concepts of how you distribute school days throughout the year, and how vacations can be taken whenver by both teachers and students, since they're not missing scheduled work by being gone at any point and can pick right back up where they left off when they come back. (don't get off on a tangent with too much dissection of this, it's just an interesting corrolary to the overall concept )

This type of thing has actually worked well at some colleges (talking to people that run those facilities and they will spend a lot of time talking about students taking "ownership", even "ownership" of the "learning" space/infrastructure.)

However, then you really are talking about people that should be able to pretty well self-motivate/stay on tasks.

And if they don't, then you just fail them, and they don't get a college degree.

If we say that is an unacceptable course of action at lower levels AND the students are less likely to stay on task/self-motivate (especially across disciplines), then you have issues.

Those issues are going to require man power that we would generally associate with "teacher"/student ratios.

And if your "teachers" aren't going to set up educational plans, then you have another group of people you have to hire, that must interact with the "teachers" and the students.

I don't know that I would go as far as calling this plan "self-ownership". It has some of that built in, but it's still much more guided than that. And it definitely would incorporate the concept of engaging the student's interest in learning, and making the content delivery and quizzing etc. more "interesting". (a quiz can be in the form of a computer game, as long as it clearly tests the concept under consideration).

Overall, you have a concern about the students staying on task. I think much of that can be addressed as part of building the student's educational plan. You would choose methods of content delivery that best suit each student's personality and interests.

ETA-

Sneaky pmp, added on after I started my reply

Response to the added portion:

I like your idea of imagining a scenario. Your multiplication scenario seems very close to what I have in mind. I think you're overstating how much teacher interaction is needed on the grading side though. Especially with a subject like simple math. Students would take their "test" on a computer (either in a testing center, or on their personal device depending on the hardware strategy of the school) and the system would return a grade immediately, as well as record it in the student's records. I will definitely concede that some subjects like English (on the paper writing side) and higher grade levels would get more intensive as far as teacher requirements go. You can't really technologize the the teaching of writing.

Also, I don't deny that student/teacher ratios will always be important.

Your scenario and subsequent thoughts demonstrate to me that you're understanding my idea pretty well, you just seem to have concerns with its application, and the viability of making it workable in the real world. Thanks for taking the time to pick at my ideas

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Pwyl,

What does your proposal (or idea) do for the teaching profession then? Don't you believe that it dramatically decreases their significance and impact in our kids' lives as they are becoming just supervisors and not really responsible for delivering content? If that's true, how do you change their education/salary/etc?

[Fergasun]

"Go Darwin on this population"?

Let's look at some things going on right now. Right now there is a $1B effort to bring football back to Los Angeles. Concurrently, right now there are events going on building hype to the Super Bowl. As a society, we care more about football than education. If we gave the attention we give to education that we give to sports, pretty sure things would be different; but we simply, don't care. Or else we wouldn't spend so much money and time supporting football teams.

There's no doubt in my mind that the cost of this failing educational system, or simply in total, failing urban system costs more to society even dollars to dollars than the NFL makes... that is to say the cost to society of those failings is $2T a year, (or -$2T), however the NFL is something like a $.5T business. But the $.5T is tangible, fungible money... the -$2T is spread, hidden, and obscured. There's an incentive for a small group of folks to come together and make $2T... not much incentive for a large group of people to come together and try to save the $2T.

I've never heard an "urban center leader" say, "Let's try to make our city so great that we usher in an era of 'reverse, white flight', that we make this place a place where people come back from the suburbs and feel safe, secure, and comfortable living in." Whether its expectations or lack of expectations, or smaller dreams, smaller visions... no one can put a finger on it, because if we could it would be easier to solve. Of course how can folks think about those issues when they are having such a hard time surviving and living as it is...

[SnyderShrugged]

Homeschooling looks more attractive of an option every day. wish I had the means to do it

[authentic]

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_1_teen-pregnancy.html I quit teaching because I came to the conclusion that the education system is at odds with what the rest of society expects of and projects onto children.

This is the reason why my wife is going to stop teaching. There are way too many agendas which does not involve the best interest of the children.

[DCsportsfan53]

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. To me, wasting billions on ineffective methods and subsidizing poor choices is not a worthwhile effort. Focusing on the end symptom side of a problem is just not an effective way of going about something and to me saying "but we have to do something is not a justification especially when we're talking about justifying government power and intervention at the cost of many, many billions to the tax payers. Take that money and invest it in ways to bring real jobs and opporunity back to the average blue collar person so they can afford to raise a family in the first place.

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 03:25 PM ----------

Homeschooling looks more attractive of an option every day. wish I had the means to do it

Eh....that depends on a lot. My parents thought so too, turns out it was emotional crutch for my mom who felt abandoned by a piece of **** spouse who didn't do his share. I know a lot about history because of it, particularly Roman and Greek history because that's what my mom liked, but the degree of emotional trauma and loss of ability to develop peer social skills at a crucial development time in my life far outweighed any of that, though. It took me years and years to revocer from that decision by my parents.

Remember that in the long run, much moreso than the intectual knowledge and facts you learn in grade school, it's about developing social skills and work habits. That's really the purpose of it. Speaking as someone who went through it, it's extremely hard to replicate those things in a home setting.