Study:US is losing ground in education. [Archive]

Don Corleone

09-21-2005, 15:06

This is the $1,000,000 question over here Kagemusha. We've long trailed the rest of the Western world and it would appear we're beginning to lag behind some third world nations as well.

There's several different schools of thought on this.

Some would argue that it's because teachers are doing a poor job. Even though we're spending the money, teachers waste time in class by talking about extraneous things (such as diversity, gay rights, etc). They'd also say our education system no longer rewards excellence or discourages underperformance. In an effort to make all children feel accepted, children are forced to conform to each other's limitations, guaranteeing that all children are limited to the lowest common denominator.

Others would take the exact opposite approach. They would say that the fact is, even with the money we're spending, we're way behind and not spending anywhere near enough. Our class sizes are too large, there's not enough computers, textbooks, aides and other resources available. They would say that poor self image is causing kids to abandon hope and give up and by nursing their self image, by abandoning grading systems, children would perform better.

I think there's some truth in both viewpoints. There's also two other factors: 1) I think the average American is a worse parent than the average European. I'm about as pro-American as one can get, but I think this is one way we lag and it shows in the development of our children. We're not willing to make sacrafices and actually donate time and take our child's learning as our personal responsiblity. There ARE Americans that exhibit this, I'm talking about populations data here. 2) For a number of reasons, due to both Democratic and Republican policies, American schools tend to be more violent and less secure than schools in other developed nations. We can argue the causes for it all day long, but we have to face facts when it comes to the effects.

Kagemusha

09-21-2005, 15:18

el_slapper

09-21-2005, 15:20

And what worries me is that France seems to be following USA's path. Far behind, but exactly the same path :embarassed:

And when I'll have children, I'll have to explain my protestant love that our children shall go to the catholic(i.e. private, most private schools in France are catholic) school to have some future ~:eek: :embarassed:

*---------------------------------------*

Anyways, one of the problems seems to be the lack of respect towards the teachers. Most western countries use some foreign teachers, & every one coming from the 3rd world is shocked by the lack of respect shown by both the students & their parents. 3 reasons I see(and maybe others):

1)loss of prestige of the profession of teacher. Teachers are underpaid compared to the "winners" of today's time.
2)loss of discipline. Excess of discipline is dictature, but it seems that it's been over-compensed.
3)increase in origins of knowledge. today's kids can learn through books, TV, internet..... and also from school.

Point 2 could be corrected, but will face many political oppositions. Points 1 & 3 are inherent to west's world today's essence, & seem unchangeable to me. In other words, I can see how to limit the problems, but not how to solve it.

Crazed Rabbit

09-21-2005, 15:26

In an effort to make all children feel accepted, children are forced to conform to each other's limitations, guaranteeing that all children are limited to the lowest common denominator.

This is a very important reason. The schools fall over themselves making every remedial class for morons who are lazy and stupid, and spend a fraction of that effort on teaching the smart kids.

Crazed Rabbit

Don Corleone

09-21-2005, 15:31

Thank you for the indormation Don. :bow: The article also mentioned the diversity between schools over there.How big diversity are we talking about,because we are talking about the basic´s of learning here?I understand that on higher education the choosing of right school can be crusial.But on basic schools?

Diversity can be an issue. Our schools are funded at the local level, so if you live in the poorest neighborhood in the country, chances are you receive a more meager educational spending than say a kid attending school in Beverly Hills. As El Slapper said, many American parents who can afford to choose to send their kids to private schools. All of this would explain why we have a larger standard deviation than other countries, but not a lower mean.

If you mean how much class time is spent in distractions, as I said 'some' would argue this (not necessarily me). I don't honestly know how much time teachers spend reading "Heather has Two Mommies" and stuff like that. Generally, when those arguments come up, they tend to be anecdotal extrapolated to the system at large. "The reason kids are doing bad is because teachers spend all day talking about racial equality. I know this, because my kid brought home a homework assignment on the Civil Rights movement". Again, this is 'an' argument, not mine.

The fact is both the Left and the Right are going to have to slaughter some sacred cows if we want to fix the problems with our education system. I don't see that happening by either side.

monkian

09-21-2005, 15:41

Isn't a massive part of the educational budget spent on sports rather than actual academic education ?

Franconicus

09-21-2005, 15:50

I know that there is a big diversity in the US. Is there a difference in the education between East and West, North and South?

Kagemusha

09-21-2005, 15:50

So it looks pretty stagnant.I think one answer to basic education problems for all our countries could be the return to basics.I have also noticed that my sisters children,who are now 4th and 5th grade have some problems on basic skills.The children are tought complex things before grasping the basics.I can understand what that does to a childs self confidence if he or she is more fragile ,then others.I also think that the children that are adopting things faster then other shouldnt be left to stand around.There should be more special groups for those children.So when i read what i just wrote,first thing that comes to my mind is more money.So we are where we left from. :dizzy2:

Gawain of Orkeny

09-21-2005, 15:53

Get rid of the damn teachers union and your halfway there.

Franconicus

09-21-2005, 15:57

Don Corleone

09-21-2005, 15:58

Isn't a massive part of the educational budget spent on sports rather than actual academic education ? NO! In fact, that's a big sore point over here, that many schools don't even offer physical education class anymore (that, art & music are the first things to get cut).

I know that there is a big diversity in the US. Is there a difference in the education between East and West, North and South? The biggest difference isn't North/South East/West. It's urban versus suburban. Remember, America is populated very differently than Europe. Over here, everyone saves up to move OUT of the cities, leaving behind the rich, who can afford to send their kids to private schools and the poor. The middle class are out in the countryside. Because of this, you can begin to understand why urban school districts underperform suburban ones. Not that there's a direct correlation between money available and performance. Rural schools receive less money then suburban ones, but in general, tend to outperform them.

Kangemusha... the reasoning you're going through is what the debate about American education over the past 30 years has done. Good questions, have you. Answers, equally good, you have not. :bow: (Well, neither do we, so I don't mean that as a dig)

Don Corleone

09-21-2005, 16:06

My wife's friend and her husband went to Texas to work as teacher for one year. They said that the teachers are judged with the mark the pupils get. So every teacher tries to improve the marks (not the performance). Before a test every question and solution was explained to the pupils. Then the test was run. Even then the result was very bad. So she started to help the pupils even during the test. Is this common?

In Germany there is no real conceppt to judge a teacher.

You're talking about standarized testing. This has been an effort to put some level of accountability on teachers. While the idea seems sound at first, the results have been mixed, at best. The idea is that if the teacher is doing a good job, their kids should be able to pass basic aptitude tests. If their kids can't, then it's clear the teacher isn't doing their job. (Also, substitute school district for teacher). While I agree with the basic premise, there has been no consensus on what is important for kids to learn and what isn't. As a result, the testing process itself has become rather onerous, and too time consuming as a portion of the educational experience. There's also some things on basic educational aptitude tests that I doubt a lot of college educated adults would get right (for example, in the 4th grade one, a sample question: what is the difference between a codependent clause and a subordinate clause).

Gawain raised another issue we have, that our teacher's union has the goal of making teacher's lives easier, not producing better teachers. They resist any efforts to improve the basic qualifications to be a teacher.

All that being said, nobody wants to be a teacher, and even those that do won't stay at it for long. Despite all the money flowing into the school board, teachers don't do all that well salary wise (of course, they do get a 3 month vacation every year, something none of the rest of us get). They also don't get much respect and they don't have much authority. I was beaten by my teachers for talking in class (of course, they were nuns). Now I'm not saying that was right, but my point is, if you're worried about getting a week of detention for being 2 minutes late to homeroom, the idea of skipping class never enters your mind. Discipline in public schools is non-existant, and most school boards/administrators, to appease parents and avoid lawsuits, hamstring principals and teachers from disciplining even the worst offenders. It's impossible for anyone to learn in an environment where the school bully beats up the teacher, let alone his classmates.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-21-2005, 16:07

Don C:

Pretty good summary. I'd add in that teachers are hamstrung by increasing regulation and extraneous requirements heaped upon them in this era of unionization and the Department of Education. You rightly point to the biggest single issue, however, as being parental involvement. If the parents don't push education, most kids will never discover it on their own. Then school becomes one more thing to be endured rather than utilized.

Sadly we live in an era where a significant proportion of Americans confirm that they do not read for enjoyment (beyond noting the game scores at the bottom of a sports broadcast screen) and read only what is absolutely required of them professionally. Take the following comparison.

One of the most popular books in recent history, the latest in the Harry Potter series, sold well over 10 million copies in the U.S. alone (perhaps 18 million) -- in a nation of more than 270 millions.

In contrast, Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense sold over 500,000 copies while our population at the time was roughly 2.5 million people -- at least 30% of whom were illiterate! The implied readership of this pamplet is over half the total population -- virtually everyone who could read had read it! Still more who could not read would have gathered to listen to one of the local literati who could.

We are drowning in available information, and most Americans can't be bothered to do more than look at a few pictures and listen to some carefully primped talking head drone on about Brad Pitt or J-Lo.

AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Plus our students are burdened in high school with the daunting task of having to master basic algebra and geometry. Trig, Calculus, Advanced Algebraic functions, Advanced Chemistry, and all of Physics are usually optional subjects. Is it any wonder our first year college attrition rate is so appalling?

Sorry, heading off to do some paperwork, I'll start blowing capillaries if I continue this much longer.

Seamus

Gawain of Orkeny

09-21-2005, 16:18

Plus our students are burdened in high school with the daunting task of having to master basic algebra and geometry. Trig, Calculus, Advanced Algebraic functions, Advanced Chemistry, and all of Physics are usually optional subjects. Is it any wonder our first year college attrition rate is so appalling?

In my day we burdened wiith all these things and led the world in education. We had 3 types of classes back then. Regents classes. The hardest but needed to go to college. Basic classes. Easier but you had little chance of furthering your education and finnaly remedial. This was reserved for those who were somehow handicapped.And it wasnt like those type classes today. No one wanted to be in it as most who were in them could be considered retarted. There was no bilingual education. No special classes for every little thing. No special rules put in by the federal government. No teachers union. Again to me its a matter of too much federal intervention in our schools.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-21-2005, 17:16

I hear you Gawain.

When I escaped High School in 1982, I did so with far more than the required number of "credits." A credit was considered to be one year of one subject.
18 credits over 4 years were required for a diploma.

Required: 4 English, 3 History/Government, 2 Science, 2 Math, 2 Physical Education/Health, .5 Business (usually typing) .5 Driver's Education, and 4 "electives" from the aforementioned or from Foreign Languages, Music, Business Principles, Art, Construction, or Cosmetology.

The Maximum available in Math or Science was 5, English was 4 (with only one Advanced version course), History 3 (no advanced), Business 2 (no economics). Few things in the curriculum were compelling, and only 3 or 4 teachers truly challenged me to perform.

I spent far more time during my high school years playing D&D than on studying and still managed a 2.8/4.0 grade average (not impressive). The saddest note is that my 2.8 put me in the 13th percentile of my graduating class. 86% of the class had lower grades -- and this was among those getting diplomas, the drop-outs were long since gone.

Fortunately, I managed to wake up before attending college.

Seamus

BDC

09-21-2005, 17:55

Schools here get money as long as people pass. So their aim is to make as many pass as possible, at the expense of people who actually have a real chance of doing well if some effort is just put into it.

My biology AS class started at 20 people. At the end of the year 2 dropped it voluntarily despite passing, 10 failed completely and 2 were kicked out because they only got an E. So 50% of the class got absolutley nothing from it, and dragged everyone else down simply because a C at GCSE is considered good enough to try and do an A level in a subject...

yesdachi

09-21-2005, 18:18

Many good answers here, most of them are at least partially true as to why the US is falling behind. I will list a few of the major reasons I think we are.

1. We have lowered our standards. In an effort to allow everyone the chance to get an “A” we have like DC said, lowered our common denominator. Its ok if all kids can’t get an “A”.
2. Parental involvement is poor. Perhaps because our families are forced to have both parents work or because there are so many divorced families. Either way schools need to accept this and adjust the curriculum accordingly.
3. Teachers are not as good as they should be. Partially their fault, partially the systems fault. On a personal level I think most teachers live in a “school” bubble and are out of touch with the real world. The teachers in college were rather refreshing in comparison.
4. The total lack of any standard teaching system. There are standard testing systems but for teaching we leave it up to the school system and IMO this is wrong. I went to 3 different schools in the 6th grade and in each one the books were all different. The 6th grade was a long time ago but from talking to parents with school age kids this is still pretty common. I am all for a totally standard teaching system for K-12. We need to look at what we want our kids to know when they graduate and work backwards from there across the country, urban and rural. If some schools need help then they should get it, we should do whatever is necessary to get the kids to the level we want them to be at upon graduation.

Well that’s my top 4 reasons. ~:)

Samurai Waki

09-21-2005, 19:39

The reason why I didn't do to well in school wasn't a matter of intelligence. I didn't feel challenged (Ironically the reason why I didn't do my homework then even though I knew how to do it was because I felt I was wasting my time). I think that alone is a serious issue in American Schools, Urban Schools also tend to follow hip-hop culture which dumbs down a persons ability to speak and write english correctly. When I moved from my High School to a Catholic High School I immediately noticed that people acted much more intelligeably, and instead of being a number like I was in public school I was actually a student. I went from a grade point average of 2.1 at a public school to going to a 4.0 at Catholic School, and the classes were definantly harder.

Xiahou

09-21-2005, 19:42

All that being said, nobody wants to be a teacher, and even those that do won't stay at it for long. Despite all the money flowing into the school board, teachers don't do all that well salary wise (of course, they do get a 3 month vacation every year, something none of the rest of us get).I don't know how their salary is in NC (I don't think too far off the national avg. around 45k), but I think they're compensated well enough. Most teachers get benefits that are almost unheard of in the private sector and, as you mentioned, get 3+ months of vacation a year. Many teachers I know of even work other jobs over the summer for additional income.

The important point, to me at least, is that throwing more money at education clearly does not equate to better performance. I work in and around the school "industry" and I feel part of the problem is federal, and to a lesser extent, state funding (interference) in local schools. That is to say, it seems most district adminstrators primary concerns are about dotting I's, crossing T's and jumping thru the appropriate hoops to get as big a slice of the federal funding pie that they can. Make sure you have as many kids as possible on free/reduced lunches, because that means Title1 money. Make sure you train them score properly (not necessarily higher) on the standardized test because, of course, it means more money. Make sure you spend as much money as you can on IT, because it can mean federal reimbursement and, yup, even more funding next year. I've seen some schools with data centers that are probably bigger than many corporations.

Waaay down on the list, if it all, are concerns about whether or not their students are receiving the best education possible. It's like a vicious cycle, we've got to spend as much money as we can, so we can get more money, so we can spend more....ect. I went to Catholic school k-12, where teachers make half the pay, facilities are old/outdated and we needed to sell candy bars to fund the football team... yet, I received a far superior education to what my friends in public school did. :shrug:

Big King Sanctaphrax

09-21-2005, 20:05

At least you can take solace in the fact that your universities are the best in the world.

Xiahou

09-21-2005, 20:10

We'll probably have them dumbed down before too much longer. ~;)

As they become more and more viewed as a 'must have' for everyone the government will invariably stick its nose into them more and more until they're thoroughly screwed up too....

Crazed Rabbit

09-21-2005, 20:12

Meh, not when they are sponsering George Galloway talks.

And the quality is going down, due to political correctness and the need to have majors on every leftist's pet cause. And in one of the classes at my college (I'm not in it, but friends are), the teacher had an in class essay, where students had to get all the info either from the book or from her lectures-no outside info whatsoever. Why? Becuase she doesn't want to have to verify it. And some of the stuff she didn't talk on and its not in the book.

Crazed Rabbit

PanzerJaeger

09-21-2005, 20:14

If you compare US private schools to others around the world, I think you'll find there is some of the best education in the US. I got an excellent primary education in America through private schooling.

In general, public schools are full of teachers who don’t care and kids who care even less. (Of course there are exceptions, especially in rural areas.)

That’s ok though, because society needs a certain number of labor-type people who don’t have any aspirations other than getting married and having a nice little life.

If everyone had an excellent education, it would challenge capitalism, as there would be no labor class.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-21-2005, 20:22

I don't know how their salary is in NC (I don't think too far off the national avg. around 45k), but I think they're compensated well enough. Most teachers get benefits that are almost unheard of in the private sector and, as you mentioned, get 3+ months of vacation a year. Many teachers I know of even work other jobs over the summer for additional income.

Actual time not in class and not in preparation/grading is about 11 weeks, call it three months even with Nat'l holidays and the like. Moreover, in school systems where continuing education for educators is emphasized, this can be largely taken up with course work (admittedly, not all systems are so constituted). 45k, which is about average, represents 75% of the quote unquote normal US salary, but teachers are not readily employable in summer occupations (college students will work for less at the same jobs ~:) ). Is this compensation appropriate? Depends on who you ask.

The important point, to me at least, is that throwing more money at education clearly does not equate to better performance. I work in and around the school "industry" and I feel part of the problem is federal, and to a lesser extent, state funding (interference) in local schools. That is to say, it seems most district adminstrators primary concerns are about dotting I's, crossing T's and jumping thru the appropriate hoops to get as big a slice of the federal funding pie that they can. Make sure you have as many kids as possible on free/reduced lunches, because that means Title1 money. Make sure you train them score properly (not necessarily higher) on the standardized test because, of course, it means more money. Make sure you spend as much money as you can on IT, because it can mean federal reimbursement and, yup, even more funding next year. I've seen some schools with data centers that are probably bigger than many corporations.

Waaay down on the list, if it all, are concerns about whether or not their students are receiving the best education possible. It's like a vicious cycle, we've got to spend as much money as we can, so we can get more money, so we can spend more....ect. I went to Catholic school k-12, where teachers make half the pay, facilities are old/outdated and we needed to sell candy bars to fund the football team... yet, I received a far superior education to what my friends in public school did. :shrug:

This is SPOT ON. What you are describing is the bureacratic politics model in action. This is, to some extent, inevitable in any bureacratized organization or coalition, but it has been grossly exacerbated by the heightened federal involvement of the last 30 years.

Seamus

yesdachi

09-21-2005, 20:31

We'll probably have them dumbed down before too much longer. ~;)
Funny you mention it. The first half of my psychology class in college was a “refresher” so the instructor could make sure that we would understand what she was going to be teaching in the second half of the class. She wasn’t very confident in the public school system ~D . It was an elective class I took at a community college. Too bad it was a transfer class for me and only counted as a class passed and credits earned, I could have used a boost in my GPA the A would have given me ~;) .

I really don’t think that the bigger colleges and universities will lower their standards much, too much pressure from the real world to produce smart grads.

Zharakov

09-21-2005, 20:33

Force the children to do better.

If they fail. Punish them... I believe some of the problem lies with the fact that many perents are too soft on there children. Hit you'r child, and they will do everything in there power to never be hit again.

Don't abuse the child. But hit them.

Duke of Gloucester

09-21-2005, 21:15

This thread seems to be an excuse to re-hash some of the old myths about eductational standards. Firstly if you read the article carefully, I think it says that standards in US schools are improving, but not as quickly as those in other countries.

Xiahou Waaay down on the list, if it all, are concerns about whether or not their students are receiving the best education possible. It's like a vicious cycle, we've got to spend as much money as we can, so we can get more money, so we can spend more....ect.

I do not know about the US, but I think that this is very probably unfair. I have taught for a long time, and the number of people I met who did not care about whether students get a good education can be counted on the thumbs of one hand. I am not saying every teacher and educational manager is effective, and hard working, but I am saying that almost all of them care about education. I don't think the US is that different from England. However it would be fair to say , of educational managers, that their concern for students is not always matched with the wisdom to make correct decisions, and sometimes we all lose sight of what is important.

Yesdachi On a personal level I think most teachers live in a “school” bubble and are out of touch with the real world. The teachers in college were rather refreshing in comparison.

You won't be surprised that I find this comment really irritating. The truth is that most teachers are in contact with students from a wide range of backgrounds, whose parents have a wide range of occupations and none. Teachers probably have a better idea of the range and variety of the "real world" than people who normally make this comment. This attitude is one of the reasons that respect for teachers is not as high as it could be. Remember, those children going in and out of school are part of this real world we are talking about. (Not having a go at you, Yesdachi. For all I know you could be a professor of sociology at Michigan state university and have a very thorough knowledge of the real world.)

The total lack of any standard teaching system.

This would really put me off teaching, having to use someone else's methods and not being able to use my own creativity and inspiration would cut down on the inspiration and creativity of my students. I think then my job would become what it has never been, boring.

PJ in general, public schools are full of teachers who don’t care and kids who care even less. (Of course there are exceptions, especially in rural areas.)

No, the exceptions are those who do not care.

That’s ok though, because society needs a certain number of labor-type people who don’t have any aspirations other than getting married and having a nice little life.

This might have been true 20 years ago, but modern capitalism requires knowlegeable and skilful workers, ready to learn, co-opperate and show initiative. This is why the US is right to be worried about falling behind.

BDC Schools here get money as long as people pass. So their aim is to make as many pass as possible, at the expense of people who actually have a real chance of doing well if some effort is just put into it.

School funding in England is complicated. For students under 16 schools are funded acording to the number of students, getting more money for older students. On top of that there are direct grants from local and national government, some to all schools, others to schools that take on specific projects, such as becoming a specialist school, and some, quite large amounts in fact, go to schools whose achievement is low, to give them extra support. In this way fewer passes will get you more money, provided parents don't stop sending their childern to your school. Post-16 funding is per student per course, so your school would get money for each Biology AS student in your school. They get 50% for each student who starts, 40% for each student who finished the course and 10% for each student who passes. Very little funding actually relies on passes.

I don't follow how getting as many as possible to pass can be "at the expense" of anyone, let alone those who have areal chance of doing well. However, if you are too obsessed with exam performance, you will end up teaching people how to pass exams and neglect their wider education. This is a serious weakness in English schools.

BDC

09-21-2005, 22:11

I don't follow how getting as many as possible to pass can be "at the expense" of anyone, let alone those who have areal chance of doing well. However, if you are too obsessed with exam performance, you will end up teaching people how to pass exams and neglect their wider education. This is a serious weakness in English schools.

I agree. However it doesn't help one bit if you know everything to do with a subject then don't get into university because you get poor exam results. It's the whole system that's flawed rather than just a weakness in schools.

A Levels need a good looking at.

Vykke

09-21-2005, 23:24

It's easy to find problems with American public education, isn't it?

I agree with a lot of the points that'd been brought up so far. One thing that's only been touched on so far is the pressure to "mainstream" everyone; that is, put them in regular classes instead of having special classes and schools for the very disruptive, mentally handicapped, etc. I don't know about the prevalence of this attitude across the rest of the country, but it's pretty widespread here in Texas. Nobody wants their kid to be singled out by the school as being incapable of performing up to the level of everyone else.

The result of this is that a lot of kids end up in the regular classes who probably shouldn't be, and this means means that the teacher has to spend more time dealing with these students and meeting their needs, at the expense of all the other kids. This problem is especially exacerbated by the large population of kids here in the Southwest who don't speak English, or can only do so in the most rudimentary fashion. In my opinion, mainstreaming them is ridiculous, but that's what they do (in addition to having them attend English classes). Very few teachers speak Spanish, so needless to say, either they end up learning nothing, or the whole class has to be slowed down while bilingual students translate for them.

Kongamato

09-22-2005, 00:11

My point is weak, but have any of you wondered if it might be an "Eye of the Tiger" situation? Maybe students don't give a crap about their future because they've never had to spend a night in the cold or go without food for a long period of time. They have not been introduced to the consequences of lethargy.

A way to change this is to show them instructional videos covering the strong studying and working habits of the developing eastern nations, lecture sessions on the new global job market, and to top it off, a nice field trip through Bay City and Saginaw, Michigan to demonstrate just what will happen to this country and its people should we remain lazy in the classroom.

AntiochusIII

09-22-2005, 01:00

Hey, if you guys don't care about the (will be) skyrocketed suicide rates then go for it the East Asian way; the Japanese-Taiwanese way. Transform society in a way that passing schools, HARD schools, and spending extreme efforts in highly competitive situations is to satisfy societal pressure/demand just to have a chance to live on. Modernize the selective breeding and let the weak "die." Of course, it's very painful and I, as a student, would not like that. And no, this is not a joke.

But yeah, the Asians are smart myth probably have something to do with this. I'm Asian by blood, after all, and they say I'm smart, while I was just a mediocre kid (among the "best", though) back in the country of my birth. I expect that, now that I've breathed too much of American air, I'd stumble and fail in the pressure and the sheer academic demand that I would've faced in the society which I left.

However, from the perspective of a student from the Southwest of the United States (the area dubbed as "worst in the nation" academically), I'd say that the problem lies more in the organization (counselors [those whose role is to manage and counsel the students, and help deal with their issue], compare to teachers, are basically incompetent idiots. They are always "busy" and I couldn't see they really work for once) than the teachers. There is funding problem sometimes (lack of textbooks can and will hamper your learning capability, especially in a language class (i.e. French and Japanese) - personal experience) and I often got this "pointless" feel to homeworks. I am, arrogantly as it sounds, a better writer than many of my "classmates," and nowadays I tend to write sarcastically/satirically/politically "offensive" for a school standard when homework is something about writing in a generic topic [ex: topic is about heroism. Who's your hero? Well, my response is the (fake and pointless) analysis of how heroism is subjective and I don't believe in it, added with attacks on the percieved "heroes" of the epic tales]. Others, I presume, would simply abandon any attempt to do the work whatsoever. Motivation among the students, it seems, is extremely lacking. I am lucky that I have a clear sight of my "future" as a motivation, and, a mixed blessing as it is, has little daily distractions.

Papewaio

09-22-2005, 02:02

AntiochusIII

09-22-2005, 02:12

The problem with Taiwanese education it is rote learning test and answers.

Teach a kid A then B and you would expect in the west that they can synthesize C. No you have to rote teach the synthesis and the C. All this in rote learned column format. Everything from Chinese (where rote learning characters is practical) to Science (where rote learning makes you a parrot not a scientist).

The result is great linear workers but a destruction of innovators and those who think outside the box.That's exactly what "reformers" in my old country complained about, but though the problem was real (and creativity requires much more rebellious and determined a spirit in the "East" than the West to survive, at least in many countries), I never doubt the true motives of these so far unsuccessful "reformers." ~;)

Papewaio

09-22-2005, 02:27

A child will do far better getting some exercise and being made accountable for their school grades then either giving them all As or Hothouse environment where they just do test after test and then go to private schools to relearn the same tests.

I have to say the Taiwanese kids study long and hard yet do not learn as much per hour as the could do if they actually studied fundamentals rather then taking tests.

Taiwan 2 hour class:
5 minute roll call.
20 min Teach a concept, practice.
20 min Teach a concept, practice.
15 min test
10 min break while the teacher marks the test.
20 min Teach a concept, practice.
20 min Teach a concept, practice.
10 min record marks and homework for the kids.
After the two hours anyone who didn't get at least 80% have to repeat the test until they do.

Problem being is that is one of the after school classes that is more learning a concept then just rote learning test papers.

Most private schools were:
Repeat tests for two hours until they get 100%.

It is not learning a concept it is memorising a set of answers. A braindump, vapour certification, paper cert etc as it is termed in western education.

Strike For The South

09-22-2005, 02:28

Study:US is losing ground in education.

Meh whaddya gonna do ~:cool:

ICantSpellDawg

09-22-2005, 03:46

i find that both the most intelligent and unintelligent forum posters come from the US

probably because we are in the majority here, but i am reffering to both liberal and illiberal posters

eh, maybe not - i just came up with this idea right now and didnt really think about it too hard

Seamus Fermanagh

09-22-2005, 04:10

Some of the smartest people I know, who have since gone on to have wonderful careers, did atrociously within our school system.

Nowadays especially, with the internet, those who truly want to learn will learn regardless of whether or not the schools are doing a good job. Those that don't want to learn will wind up going to a trade school, or something.

Honestly, this isn't as big a problem as people make it out to be.

If this is true, and I fear it may be, then why should I, and every other tax-payer, continue to fund government schools at ever increasing levels?

Seamus

Lemur

09-22-2005, 05:28

Hit you'r child, and they will do everything in there power to never be hit again. Don't abuse the child. But hit them.
I am learning more good parenting techniques on this board ...

Papewaio

09-22-2005, 05:33

Zharakov the reason in the West parents don't hit a child is that it is quite possible to end up in jail for doing so and losing your children to foster care.

Azi Tohak

09-22-2005, 06:30

GC, I won't consider the Internet a worthy source of knowledge. Is there lots out there? Sure. But I daresay there is far more crap.

``The very best schools in the U.S. are extraordinary,'' McGaw said. ``But the big concern in the U.S. is the diversity of quality of institutions - and the fact that expectations haven't been set high enough.''

I am glad we all seem to agree that expectations are not high enough. Did I deserve some of the As I received? Nope! But I got them anyway, just because the teacher thought I tried harder than others. But where did this come from? Why is it that feelings are such a big part of America these days? Why can't children be told they're failing? Have psychologists really emasculated society enough to think that every single thing that happens to a person will scar them for life? I do not care about the feelings of 99.9% of the people I come in contact with. If I care about anything at all, I care about what they THINK.

Zharakov, no. Don't hit the idiots. Just don't coddle them anymore. If a child lacks the discipline, so be it. Stuff them in the courses they need to be productive, but don't waste time and money with children who refuse to learn. A teacher cannot make a child learn. And nor should the teacher. If a parent fails, well... that is unfortunate but that is a failure. If parents are too lazy, dumb, preoccupied to teach their children, so be it. The parent is a failure and the child will be too, unless the child has some spark of ambition. And I believe all children have that spark. For some, the spark is extinguished early on (like girls playing dumb to fit in), and that is tragic. But that is how schools work.

Azi

Gawain of Orkeny

09-22-2005, 07:30

You shouldn't. IMO, Public education should end about halfway through highschool. At that point, it should be easy to decide whether or not you want to go to college or not, and if you do want to go to college instead of, say, a tradeschool, they should evaluate on an individual basis (and the funding to allow enough teachers to do this is the only thing I would push for) whether someone is fitting for college. If not, there are always community colleges one can go to in order to make themselves better suited for college.

I dont know how it is where you live but here we have a thing called BOCES. Its for kids who would rather learn a trade than go to HS. Its a good reason why 90% of kids who graduate here go on to college and more than 90% graduate. In someplaces in the US the education is verygood.

Yawning Angel

09-22-2005, 10:02

Ironside

09-22-2005, 11:50

And a damn shame that is. Obviously it's wrong to break your kids nose, or punch him in the face, but a good smack on the ass with a belt will teach you not to steal from the cookie jar right-quick. :bow:

No it will teach them to steal it when you don't see it, and to put the blame on thier younger sister. ~;)

bmolsson

09-22-2005, 13:59

Just a small note, isn't all western nations loosing ground in education towards the developing countries ? And that due to support from the western nations themselves ?

el_slapper

09-22-2005, 14:46

Gawain of Orkeny

09-22-2005, 15:52

The problem with that is that to reach some of the highest points of our educational system--i.e. Law School, Medical School, ect. you need more than what you can get from a simple trade school. And oftentimes one isn't ready to make that choice until well into Highschool.

Does your system account for that?
.

Well you can always go to community college if you change your mind.

yesdachi

09-22-2005, 16:28

My original statement was…
On a personal level I think most teachers live in a “school” bubble and are out of touch with the real world. The teachers in college were rather refreshing in comparison.
It is a page back, I repeat it only for others convenience.

You won't be surprised that I find this comment really irritating. The truth is that most teachers are in contact with students from a wide range of backgrounds, whose parents have a wide range of occupations and none. Teachers probably have a better idea of the range and variety of the "real world" than people who normally make this comment. This attitude is one of the reasons that respect for teachers is not as high as it could be. Remember, those children going in and out of school are part of this real world we are talking about. (Not having a go at you, Yesdachi. For all I know you could be a professor of sociology at Michigan state university and have a very thorough knowledge of the real world.)

Really irritating or not I still stick by it ~D , but let me tell you why :bow: .

13 years of school + 4-8 years of college = around 20+ years of being in school and then add another x amount of years actually teaching, in a school, heck, outside of summers most teachers really haven’t ever been outside the “school” environment, ever.

There were many teachers in my school that had been teaching for 15-25+ years many of them in the same classroom for most of that time. None of them ever worked in an office, factory, or anywhere else in the “real world”. They were almost all active in the school functions and political maneuvering within the school system but no “real world” experience.

I don’t care how many different kind of kids or their parents teachers interact with its not like being “out there”. As a senior, I asked my economics teacher, partly in fun but with some genuine curiosity, so what’s it really like “out there”? He responded, half jokingly, How should I know I’ve been “in here” for 20 years. :martass:

Needles to say the adjunct teachers and even some of the professors I had in college were considerably more insightful than most of my teachers in school.

Anyway…

As far as a standard teaching system goes I would never think to take away a teachers ability to interject their own creativity and inspiration into their class. The teacher’s personality is what can really make learning fun ~:cool: . But I think that a standard week-by-week syllabus of what needs to be learned and what texts were mandatory across the country would be really helpful. I could even see a future where 25% of a class was a video or something with the core facts of the lesson and the remaining 75% was left to the teacher to drive home the message of the lesson. I am just really in support of having all students of the same grade knowing the same basic things at around the same time. :scholar:

Duke of Gloucester

09-22-2005, 20:52

I think one of the harder problems in education is judging how well students are doing. I can't speak for the US, but in the UK we have had something like 20+ years of continually improving pass rates and % getting top grades at GCSE (16 yr olds) and A level (18). There are two schools (sorry couldn't resist ~;) ) of thought on this, the exams are getting easier or the kids are doing better.

I am fairly firmly of the former opinion, I have done some teaching of 1st year chemistry university undergrads and there has clearly been a trend of students having less basic subject knowledge as well as an increased expectation that everything should be handed to them on a plate.

Personally I blame successive governments setting targets and publishing league tables that force schools to train people how to pass a test and not teach them the subject.

As a Chemist, how scientific are you being about this? Is it not true that applications to Chemsitry degree courses are declining? Has your college/university dropped the grades it requires for Chemistry courses? Might this not explain why your students have less basic subject knowledge? All levels of education have a certain contempt for the phase below them. The funny thing is that when I was an undergraduate over 20 years ago, I remember my tutor making the same complaint about a basic lack of knowlege shown by those starting the course in the year below me.

As for the "handed on a plate" bit, unfortunately this is true, and your diagnosis of the cause is correct. The damage is done at GCSE and you can't do much at A level to put it right.

Duke of Gloucester

09-22-2005, 21:56

Really irritating or not I still stick by it ~D , but let me tell you why :bow: .

Stick by it all you want, you are still wrong. You are following cliched idea held by people who
1. Extrapolate knowledge of teachers who school to a whole profession, in the process forgetting the good teachers they had and only remembering the one or two they didn't respect.
2. Believe that offices, factories etc. are more real than schools.
3. Think that teachers don't exist out of school. Of course they do. They have homes, friends, husbands, wives, children, all of whom are real and they face the same problems and joys as everyone else
4. Have the idea that being a teacher is similar to being a pupil, so teachers haven't ever left school.

None of the above bear close scrutiny. Now you could be saying that teachers do not have much insight into what it is like to be an accountant, baker, chemsit etc. All true, but then an accountant won't know what it is like to be a baker, so, following the same argument, accountants don't live in the real world either. No one does.

A real weakness in your argument is that you seem to think that college tutors are more in touch with the "real world", but these are the people for whom the phrase "ivory tower" was coined. Let us be fair. We all live in our own, very small part of the real world and out knowlege of the rest of it could be better.

Kagemusha

09-23-2005, 03:07

is Finland a developing country because we are the number one in this study?

el_slapper

09-23-2005, 09:59

is Finland a developing country because we are the number one in this study?

Vietnam & Cuba are not far in terms of quality of schooling, which means it is not ENOUGH for building a good economy. But, indeed, it helps a lot.

yesdachi

09-23-2005, 16:46

Stick by it all you want, you are still wrong.
As far as my experiences go, I’m right ~D . Perhaps your experiences have led you to a different conclusion :bow: . I don’t mind agreeing to disagree in this case because of personal experience, that’s all I am judging my “bubble” statement on anyways.

Many of my teachers were in this bubble:
Spent their entire life in school learning or teaching
Always have benefits, including health, life and a retirement plan
Always have holidays off, plus spring break, winter break, summer break, etc.
Almost all union workers
Almost all democrats
Plus schools are their own little environments, designed for students and teachers to effectively live there 7-10 hours a day.
Throw in the fact that they have minimal contact with anyone outside the school environment (grocery store and gas station doesn’t count) and that’s a life in a bubble.

Now I agree that just about anyone that has worked a job for a long time is also in a bubble of their own too.

Many of my instructors in college were only part time and had “real jobs” in the field they were teaching. They were better able to relate classroom lessons with real world applications and would move the lesson structure to devote more time to more important areas. Most of my schoolteachers taught the same lessons from the same syllabus with the same texts for years, my mom had some of the same teachers I did and they taught the same class with the same books. The result was that I learned more usable knowledge from instructors that were more in touch with the real world than from those in the school “bubble” (outside the initial learning to read, write, spell, add, etc.).

ah_dut

09-23-2005, 18:32

My teachers in the main (refering to sciences in the main here) worked in their field before giving up and teaching. So I wouldn't really say they live in a bubble (though you might from their out of date english :wink:)

Pape is right, rote is not good for inovation etc but that's obvious. Oh well, I think it's better to discuss then teach by rote but I just hate rote with a passion. It's a big waste of time in most subjects (though I can see it's applications in maths and it is taught that way.) I am expected sraight A*s (damn high expectations) do I work hard? hell no, am I ''clever and gifted'' in any special way? probably not. It's just that kids have it so easy these days that they don't even bother to do their homework (note, I am a kid and also do my homework.)

Seriously school is easy these days, you can rack up 30% of your GCSEs to get a C before you step into an exam hall and 50% constitutes an A in some subjects. At times it's pathetic. I mean I have to work for that A* but not nearly as hard as I could/should. I go to a ''good'' school by the way. Without mentioning it's name, Mr Blair though it fit to send his children there