Chris Hayes: Are American Schools Really Failing? [And, are China's schools really that great?]

[AsburySkinsFan]

try his one

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/02/1408777111

 

The main finding is that, although intelligence accounts for more of the heritability of GCSE than any other single domain, the other domains collectively account for about as much GCSE heritability as intelligence. Together with intelligence, these domains account for 75% of the heritability of GCSE. We conclude that the high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits, not just intelligence.

That's not the study that I saw, this one specifically measured the external variables in education, parental involvement, teacher training, curriculum, school environment et al.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I liked ix's post, but I liked it with respect to we get what what we expect/deserve, and if we want more from our education system, we have to expect/demand more.

 

 

With that said, I'm not a big a fan of "hard" general eds in general.  And am not a fan of the current structure of gen eds at least with respect to science from what I've seen of them at the institutions I've been at.

 

Why are people taking your class?

 

Do you really want them to learn geology?

 

Is making your class harder from a geology perspective going to change their lives at all?

 

I'd argue that what we want from science gen eds is for people to understand the practice of modern science in the United States (which is essentially the same way it is practiced in whole world currently), including funding approaches/mechanisms, the peer review system, and learn/practice some scientific thinking skills.

 

When I look at the issues we have with climate change, I don't think the problem is that people's college science gen ed wasn't hard enough.  I think it wasn't properly focused.

 

And for people that didn't go to college, the problem isn't that their 10th grade non-college prep biology class wasn't hard enough.

 

Now, in that context, the class might end up being harder.

 

But if I was a member of your department, I'd be very much against making the gen ed geology class harder from a purely a geology stand point.

 

We should ask ourselves what we want from the science gen eds (and all gen eds) and make them meet that requirement.  If that goal is easy for the students to achieve, then I don't see the need to move the goal posts just to make it harder.

 

I think the goals of the science gen eds are currently badly misplaced.  Though, I worry less about them then the non-college prep high school science classes.

 

That isn't directly your issue because you are teaching at least some science majors, but you should think about what the purpose of your class should be and try and meet that purpose.  How hard it has to be depends on the purpose.

 

(Two additional points:

 

1.  I've been informed that there is a gen ed physics class that is fairly well populated where I work now where the last 2 semesters everybody has gotten an A.  That's ridiculous.  Now, you could argue that the goal(s) of the course is that easy for the students, but I also think you have to have a goal for the course that is worth while, and I have a hard time believing that the goal(s) for any class are so easy that everybody gets and A and that the goals are worth while.

 

2.  I had a "human geography" class as an under grad.  Easiest class I ever had.  I took the final without studying for it at all, still got a high B on it, and an A in the class.  But the class had value, and I'll tell you I remember more from that class even though I don't really use any of the information then a "harder" current events class that I also had (the only things I remember about that class is that I was very disappointed because "current events" started with the Vietnam war and ended with the 1st Reagan administration and this was the early 1990s, I had to read a "Bright Shining Lie" in it, and that I didn't get an A in the course.)

 

Teaching isn't about making a class hard.  It is about identifying the objective(s) of your course and then doing what needs to be done to meet the objective(s) in the most efficient way possible with respect to the students (actually make the course as easy as possible for the students).  If you can meet the objective(s) and make your course "easy", then do it.

 

I've seen way too much of, let's make this hard just for the sake of making it hard in my life time, which only frustrates students and frustrated me as a student.  Teaching is about explaining/teaching and if you are good at it, then that should actually make things easier.  A class should have worthwhile goals.  The goals should be clear to students, and students that achieve those goals should get good grades.

 

 

I had two semesters of Organic chemistry.  I got an A in both, but realistically, I could have done more work/learned more.  I have a PhD in Chemistry (realistically doing biochemistry).  I do biochemistry.  What was a throw away class in computer sciences has had more impact on my life than all of the Organic Chemistry I had.  Making my organic chemistry class harder would not have positively benefited my life at all, and I doubt it would have positively affected many of my classmates lives either.

 

 

Given today's society, broadening people's educational background (i.e. requiring more classes) makes much more sense to me than deepening it.))

Fabulous response. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

 

To your first point, I agree entirely. At my undergraduate university they actually had separate "science for non majors" classes. I think this was a fabulous idea. It kept the non science majors out of Biology and Chemistry 150 (so that they could really have it tailored for them), and it allowed the non science majors to fulfill their gen ed requirement with a class that was focused towards the appropriate skills.

 

I'm not a huge fan of the fact that, at my university, I have many of them mixed in together haphazardly. For me, there are two skills that I absolutely MUST pass on to every student:

 

~ Basic understanding of the scientific method and the fact that science is self correcting

~ Basic understanding of how to identify, search for, and analyze peer reviewed literature and how to properly scrutinize anything else

 

Then, there are two things that I HOPE to pass on to every student:

 

~ Basic understanding of geologic time, how it is calculated, and why it can be trusted

~ Basic understanding of paleontology (I mostly teach historical geology) and how it straddles the line between geology and biology and why it is useful for both

 

The problem I have with my dynamic is that I have about 45% non scientists, 45% scientists in other majors, and 10% scientists in a geology or earth history major. 

 

The first 45% struggle to grasp peer reviewed sources so epically that success moving beyond those first two points is quite limited. The second 45% are science majors, and I want to have strong expectations for them. Even if they never remember how to identify granite, I want them to be able to write a lab report in the model of a peer reviewed journal. But many of the ones I talk to have an "I just need to offset that C in organic chemistry" attitude to my class. 

 

And they succeed. Because my class is easy. Like super easy. And I don't necessarily think it should be "harder" as much as I think it should include less busy work and more discussion and hands on work. My frustration mostly stems from the fact that we rarely get beyond Comprehension in Bloom's Taxonomy.

[elkabong82]

Education system doesn't do enough tiered learning. Too many are lumped into one generalized setting in a classroom and usually the lower level kids slow progress for the higher levels and the higher levels prevent the lower kids from progressing at a comfortable level. Add on top of that behavior issues and crowded classrooms of 30+ and it's a perfect storm for lower levels staying behind and just getting pushed through the system and mid-tiers doing just enough to get by.

 

To fix the situation we need more teachers. But that requires more money. Money for education should be distributed evenly across the entire state instead of going off property taxes and districts, ensuring the poor schools stay poor and the rich schools stay rich. Not easy to take education seriously when the quality of your school is a joke. 

 

Poverty is also a problem. Kids stuck in it don't have the resources other kids do and they don't see an escape from the life they are in. Their educational problems are generational and cyclical. 

 

This country needs to have a national emphasis not on improving education through testing, but on improving the quality of schools, hiring more teachers for smaller and better differentiated classrooms, and continually expressing the intrinsic value of education.

 

All that being said, other countries game the system, European countries don't face the same situations we do simply by geography and demographics, and though the system needs to improve it's also not as bad as some say.

[twa]

That's not the study that I saw, this one specifically measured the external variables in education, parental involvement, teacher training, curriculum, school environment et al.

 

this one does as well, whole lotta variables go into success

 

I like Elkabongs more tiered learning ,something that can also be addressed thru teachers aides and tutoring programs

I prefer standardized testing as a measure but with more individualized instruction. and flexibility 

[PeterMP]

The first 45% struggle to grasp peer reviewed sources so epically that success moving beyond those first two points is quite limited. The second 45% are science majors, and I want to have strong expectations for them. Even if they never remember how to identify granite, I want them to be able to write a lab report in the model of a peer reviewed journal. But many of the ones I talk to have an "I just need to offset that C in organic chemistry" attitude to my class. 

 

I teach a senior/junior biochemistry class where there are biology majors that have had multiple semesters of college level biology, and then I have people from other backgrounds (e.g. engineering) that have had no biology since high school and for many of them that equates to 5 years.

 

I've been trying for years to get another class offered that would require a biology pre-req (from my perspective a sophomore level bio class would be nice) that then would split the course in 2 do different populations based on their biology background.

 

In doing this, we don't have to actually teach more because there are already multiple sections of the course offered (there is no change in student contact hours).

 

But there is resistance at the administration level to do this.

 

It isn't even clear to me why.

 

Too much differentiation can be a bad thing, especially early on.  Having separate freshman (general) chemistry class for biology, biochemistry, and chemistry majors is problematic because people tend to switch in between those majors through sophomore year and if they have different classes freshman year, then that makes it harder.

 

But that isn't really the case here.

 

This year, finally, I think maybe it is going to be split it for next year (realistically, these things have to be planned a year out).

 

My approach has always to tell the students to complain to their academic adviser and that includes the people that think it is really easy (presumably some of them are unhappy with having to waste their time on this super easy course for them) and the others that are not as well off based on the background.

 

If enough complaints enter the system from different points, the more likely it will be changed.

 

(This actually ties back into my experience as a TA.  I taught the lab for chemistry for fashion majors as a TA.  That wasn't what it was called, but 85% of the students in my labs were always fashion majors.  They used to ask me why the had to take chemistry.  I told them I could see why it made sense for them to take chemistry (colors are really determined by chemistry and fabric properties are really determined by chemistry), but I didn't see much of the point of the experiments that they were doing as fashion majors (how to separate sand, from salt from barium sulfate), but that they should complain to their academic adviser because it wasn't like I was able to do anything about it.   Apparently my last year teaching, one of the students took me seriously, started a petition, and the lab at least was going to be re-organized the year I graduated.)

 

And I do think this ties into ix's point.  We need to expect/demand more.  If there is no reason to not split the course, then why isn't the institution splitting it?

 

Well, partly it isn't because there aren't enough complaints to split it.  The students (or parents if they are paying for it) aren't demanding it.

[PeterMP]

Education system doesn't do enough tiered learning. Too many are lumped into one generalized setting in a classroom and usually the lower level kids slow progress for the higher levels and the higher levels prevent the lower kids from progressing at a comfortable level. Add on top of that behavior issues and crowded classrooms of 30+ and it's a perfect storm for lower levels staying behind and just getting pushed through the system and mid-tiers doing just enough to get by.

 

To fix the situation we need more teachers. But that requires more money. Money for education should be distributed evenly across the entire state instead of going off property taxes and districts, ensuring the poor schools stay poor and the rich schools stay rich. Not easy to take education seriously when the quality of your school is a joke. 

 

Poverty is also a problem. Kids stuck in it don't have the resources other kids do and they don't see an escape from the life they are in. Their educational problems are generational and cyclical. 

 

This country needs to have a national emphasis not on improving education through testing, but on improving the quality of schools, hiring more teachers for smaller and better differentiated classrooms, and continually expressing the intrinsic value of education.

 

All that being said, other countries game the system, European countries don't face the same situations we do simply by geography and demographics, and though the system needs to improve it's also not as bad as some say.

 

I have siblings that teach in the public school system, and this is where I start to have issues.

 

People need to be tiered, but you have to be careful when, where, and how to tier them.

 

Where I went to school, they had a talented and gifted program starting in 3rd grade.

 

I didn't go to a good school system, but I didn't make the cut.   They actually then eliminated the program so those kids that had been tiered out got mixed in with the rest of the population.

 

It turned out that the kid that happened to be the smartest kid in the class ended up being my best friend in 6th grade, mostly because we both got stuck in a class where we didn't know anybody else, and we ended up sitting next to each other.

 

Seriously, that changed my life.  If he had been in the talented and gifted program, he would not have been in my 6th grade class.

 

On another point, a guy that I had actually been friends with for years and had been competitive with, but had drifted away for some reason ended up taking an advanced biology class as a junior in high school (so this is 11th grade optional advanced biology).

 

This guy didn't end up going to college and today does carpentry.

 

But me, him, and another guy that I was friends with (who went on to get a PhD in chemical engineering), started competing over our grades in that class.  The guy that didn't go to college beat two future PhDs.

[PeterMP]

this one does as well, whole lotta variables go into success

 

I like Elkabongs more tiered learning ,something that can also be addressed thru teachers aides and tutoring programs

I prefer standardized testing as a measure but with more individualized instruction. and flexibility 

 

It really is amazing.

 

I have two daughters.  The older one is going to be a really good student.  She learns well.  She listens.  She wants to be taught.

 

She isn't intuitively super smart, but she can and will learn and will work.

 

The other one doesn't have the attention span for it.  The fact that she's the younger one means she's already picking some things up.

 

She knows what addition is (she's in kindergarten and they are still working on drawing numbers) because she hears me test my older daughter.

 

But she can't pay attention for two minutes.  I can't teach her to tie her shoes.  Everything turns into fight.

 

Now, she's super creative and actually already does good impressions of multiple people/characters.

 

The older one is going to be a good steady solid and even above average student and the employee I suspect.

 

The younger one is going to be boom or bust.

 

I've favored a system of 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off.  You cover some topic(s) really quickly.

 

Then test.

 

The ones that got it, go do something else fun/interesting/special for them for two weeks  Something that is off a branch that won't be covered in the next year or two at least.

 

The ones that don't go back and have something for two weeks to help them fill in the gaps.

 

Bring them all back together, introduce the next topic(s) and do it again.

 

I don't know anywhere actually doing this, and I don't know if it would work, but if I were running a school system, it is what I would try.

[elkabong82]

I have siblings that teach in the public school system, and this is where I start to have issues.

 

People need to be tiered, but you have to be careful when, where, and how to tier them.

 

Where I went to school, they had a talented and gifted program starting in 3rd grade.

 

I didn't go to a good school system, but I didn't make the cut.   They actually then eliminated the program so those kids that had been tiered out got mixed in with the rest of the population.

 

It turned out that the kid that happened to be the smartest kid in the class ended up being my best friend in 6th grade, mostly because we both got stuck in a class where we didn't know anybody else, and we ended up sitting next to each other.

 

Seriously, that changed my life.  If he had been in the talented and gifted program, he would not have been in my 6th grade class.

 

On another point, a guy that I had actually been friends with for years and had been competitive with, but had drifted away for some reason ended up taking an advanced biology class as a junior in high school (so this is 11th grade optional advanced biology).

 

This guy didn't end up going to college and today does carpentry.

 

But me, him, and another guy that I was friends with (who went on to get a PhD in chemical engineering), started competing over our grades in that class.  The guy that didn't go to college beat two future PhDs.

 

Believe me I understand that one has to be careful when doing tiers, but that it needs to be done even more so than currently with gen ed. vs. gifted. When I was in middle school there were teams that students were broken up into and they were tiered. Problem is kids know each other and quickly figure out what group is the smart one and which is the dumb one. People don't like their kids' feelings being hurt, so everyone is mixed together and progress is slowed. 

 

The team thing was the problem, doing an overall grouping. Some kids are behind in everything, but most are behind in 1 or 2 and can do fine in the rest. The subjects themselves need to be tiered. For example, in middle school you'll have 2 options for math: general and honors. That's it. So all the kids who just miss out on honors level, all the kids in the middle, and all the low achievers and learning disabled kids are all thrown together in general math, in a class usually of 30+ kids, and it's an environment where very few teachers can operate efficiently. 

 

With more teachers you get smaller class sizes, which makes them more efficient, and you can have tiered subjects. Even if you're not in the gifted/honors program, there are still always kids who perform very well in regular ed. and challenge each other. That gets hampered though when the teacher can't advance in the lesson to match their ability because too many lower levels hold it back, but if the teacher does move quicker for their sake then the lower levels get left behind and/or give up. 

 

A classroom size of 15-20 that can all progress at about the same and some have the chance to excel and jump up a tier is a much better situation than 30 some kids with some barely able to do 2nd grade math and others who are near-honors level all crammed in together.

 

It also wouldn't hurt to have "professional development" classes in elementary, middle, and high school where behavior management, social skills, and studying/organization skills are learned.