Balls: Scott Walker has 'em

[a completely inoffensive name]

To cøaim that your education system is "broken", a "wreck" etc etc is nonsense.

If it is, then no education system in the history of mankind anywhere in the world has ever working. The fact is that education is tugging along nicely amidst all the hyperbole and daydreaming about a glorified pt that has never been.

The fact is that kids today learn much, much more than they did back in the 50's. And kids ten years from now will learn even more than kids today learn. Thus if wwe want to improve our (already good) schools, then we must look to the future, not bring back the flaws of yesterdays system.

To be quite honest, what you just said is nonsense. I doubt you have ever sat in on the typical American classroom and I doubt you have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to the atmosphere and the culture within the American classroom. America is falling behind, that is because our system is broken. To say that kids today learn more then they did back then and same with the kid of the future is quite foolish. You obviously don't know about how American schools has been pushed since the adoption of the "No Child Left Behind", kids are increasingly being taught to do well on a test. The kids are not learning, they are practicing to be good test takers and their motivations to learn beyond the basic curriculum's (math and english and science to a lesser degree) are completely gone. Please don't run your mouth about the undermining American culture towards education when you are sitting in your arctic paradise funded by oil profits.

[HoreTore]

Which of our two countries is the leading superpower in the world, if I may ask?


But yes, I really agree with your comment regarding testing. I can't stress that enough.

[Vuk]

To cøaim that your education system is "broken", a "wreck" etc etc is nonsense.

If it is, then no education system in the history of mankind anywhere in the world has ever working. The fact is that education is tugging along nicely amidst all the hyperbole and daydreaming about a glorified pt that has never been.

The fact is that kids today learn much, much more than they did back in the 50's. And kids ten years from now will learn even more than kids today learn. Thus if wwe want to improve our (already good) schools, then we must look to the future, not bring back the flaws of yesterdays system.

They learn more than in the 50s? Really? Maybe in Norway, but take my word on it friend, not in the US.

[HoreTore]

They learn more than in the 50s? Really? Maybe in Norway, but take my word on it friend, not in the US.

How many of those attending school in the 50's speak a second language?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Which of our two countries is the leading superpower in the world, if I may ask?


But yes, I really agree with your comment regarding testing. I can't stress that enough.

Our becoming a superpower has to do with taking advantage of being one of the few countries not bombed to hell after WW2 and thus having a jump start on the manufacturing sector by decades. We have been going downhill since the 1970s when Europe and Japan had fully rebuilt their economies and started competing on a fair ground. Our education's last reform was during the space race scare which means that our school system has remained relatively the same since the late 1950s-early 1960s.

Just because we became strong and are riding o nthat strength we have built, doesn't mean that we are not falling behind and that our school system is fundamentally flawed in a way that produces less capable students then other countries. We are not producing completely ignorant students, we are simply not beating most of the industrialized or post-indust. world, which means the system is broken.

[Vuk]

Which of our two countries is the leading superpower in the world, if I may ask?


But yes, I really agree with your comment regarding testing. I can't stress that enough.

Truth is HoreTore, and I don't mean to come off as an @$$ (though I know that I will), unless you are an American, have been schooled in America, or have visited and studied the American schooling system, you really have no place arguing about it. Not to sound conceited, but it is such a complex issue, and one that most Americans do not come close to understanding, and what people hear about the US and our education system in Europe is absolute Bollox (I know, I studied in Europe and couldn't help but to laugh when my professors talked about American culture, politics, education, etc., because it was nothing but a bunch of Hollywood stereotypes, and outdated misinformation. The truth is that 99.9% of Europeans know jack-squat about the American education system, though they may think that they know a lot.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How many of those attending school in the 50's speak a second language?

This is a terrible question. American kids don't truly learn a language unless it is Spanish because that is the only one that is "practical". Again, you comment on America with a cultural bias and ignorance from being in Europe. Europeans learn multiple languages and continue to know them because you can walk 100 miles in any direction and find someone who can speak a different language then you.

Again, this even highlights why the system is broken, we are forced to "learn" a language, but when the test is over, ask someone to speak 5 sentences in a different language and you get blank looks.

EDIT: Like Vuk said, I don't mean to be a jerk or anything, but just as I don't comment on how Norway's culture works, I would expect you to know that education is saturated with issues stemming from how American culture works.

[Vuk]

How many of those attending school in the 50's speak a second language?

How many modern high-school graduates can read English? Never mind figure out a complex math equation. In the US (esp in the 50s), knowing a second language has really not been that important (because it would not be as useful as other pursuits...and for many, not at all), however most students in the 50s could read and write, and could do complex math by time they graduated high school. THAT is important. Kids nowadays cannot even read. Heck, most modern kids couldn't tell you the capitol of their own state.

Our becoming a superpower has to do with taking advantage of being one of the few countries not bombed to hell after WW2 and thus having a jump start on the manufacturing sector by decades. We have been going downhill since the 1970s when Europe and Japan had fully rebuilt their economies and started competing on a fair ground. Our education's last reform was during the space race scare which means that our school system has remained relatively the same since the late 1950s-early 1960s.

Just because we became strong and are riding o nthat strength we have built, doesn't mean that we are not falling behind and that our school system is fundamentally flawed in a way that produces less capable students then other countries. We are not producing completely ignorant students, we are simply not beating most of the industrialized or post-indust. world, which means the system is broken.

Absolute BS. America was the dominant superpower before WWI, never mind during and before WWII. WWII gave us a large competitive advantage, but we were top dog before that.

[Vuk]

This is a terrible question. American kids don't truly learn a language unless it is Spanish because that is the only one that is "practical". Again, you comment on America with a cultural bias and ignorance from being in Europe. Europeans learn multiple languages and continue to know them because you can walk 100 miles in any direction and find someone who can speak a different language then you.

Again, this even highlights why the system is broken, we are forced to "learn" a language, but when the test is over, ask someone to speak 5 sentences in a different language and you get blank looks.

Exactly, to be competitive in the job market in Europe, and to communicate with you neighbors and tourists you really need to learn multiple languages, but it is mostly (and used to be completely) impractical in America, as you will most likely never need to know another language, and will never have the opportunity to speak it and fully learn it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Absolute BS. America was the dominant superpower before WWI, never mind during and before WWII. WWII gave us a large competitive advantage, but we were top dog before that.

Depends on how you are defining the terms. We were a major world power since the Spanish-American war but we had strong isolationism in our foreign policy, so our clout was probably not on the level of a true super power. After WW1 we emerged as an influencing world power that was increasingly only becoming isolationist in politicians rhetoric only and after WW2 and the development of the atomic bomb we became a superpower. I hold that a superpower is a country that has the military strength to pacify the entire world to a degree many times. No doubt we were strong for a long time before then, but we were one competitor among many.

[Vuk]

Depends on how you are defining the terms. We were a major world power since the Spanish-American war but we had strong isolationism in our foreign policy, so our clout was probably not on the level of a true super power. After WW1 we emerged as an influencing world power that was increasingly only becoming isolationist in politicians rhetoric only and after WW2 and the development of the atomic bomb we became a superpower. I hold that a superpower is a country that has the military strength to pacify the entire world to a degree many times. No doubt we were strong for a long time before then, but we were one competitor among many.

True, but since the 1850s our technology and industry far surpassed the rest of the world. I think that the world would have payed attention to anything America did. The way I see it, being a Superpower does not demand interference in the world, but simply having the power that when you do interfere, you can influence everyone else and are recognized as the most powerful.

[a completely inoffensive name]

True, but since the 1850s our technology and industry far surpassed the rest of the world. I think that the world would have payed attention to anything America did. The way I see it, being a Superpower does not demand interference in the world, but simply having the power that when you do interfere, you can influence everyone else and are recognized as the most powerful.

Our industry was on par since post Civil War, our technology wasn't really surpassing anyone until WW2. If I remember correctly, the Japanese Zero planes were roughly on par with American planes until the end of 1942 when we started building better ones and the Japanese stagnated in improving their technology. Countries always have some technology others don't and vice versa.

[HoreTore]

Truth is HoreTore, and I don't mean to come off as an @$$ (though I know that I will), unless you are an American, have been schooled in America, or have visited and studied the American schooling system, you really have no place arguing about it. Not to sound conceited, but it is such a complex issue, and one that most Americans do not come close to understanding, and what people hear about the US and our education system in Europe is absolute Bollox (I know, I studied in Europe and couldn't help but to laugh when my professors talked about American culture, politics, education, etc., because it was nothing but a bunch of Hollywood stereotypes, and outdated misinformation. The truth is that 99.9% of Europeans know jack-squat about the American education system, though they may think that they know a lot.

What theories do european educators follow? The ones developed, for the most part, in the US. We may be more alike then you realize, and certainly more alike than those professors think.

But I see no real reason to continue this debate, as I my opinions seem to be thought of as completely irrelevant, misguided and stupid, before I have even raised any.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What theories do european educators follow? The ones developed, for the most part, in the US. We may be more alike then you realize, and certainly more alike than those professors think.

But I see no real reason to continue this debate, as I my opinions seem to be thought of as completely irrelevant, misguided and stupid, before I have even raised any.

Umm, you have already stated your opinion. You said the claim that the American education system was broken is nonsense. You said kids today learned more then kids in the 1950s. We said, no because the culture towards learning in America is different. I would like to hear more of your ideas, but you shouldn't walk into a topic wrapped in American culture and say, all this is nonsense.

[Vuk]

What theories do european educators follow? The ones developed, for the most part, in the US. We may be more alike then you realize, and certainly more alike than those professors think.

But I see no real reason to continue this debate, as I my opinions seem to be thought of as completely irrelevant, misguided and stupid, before I have even raised any.

It was not your argument for reforming the education system that I said was misguided, but your assumptions about the American education system. You probably know as much about it as I do the Norwegian one.

[HoreTore]

Umm, you have already stated your opinion. You said the claim that the American education system was broken is nonsense. You said kids today learned more then kids in the 1950s. We said, no because the culture towards learning in America is different. I would like to hear more of your ideas, but you shouldn't walk into a topic wrapped in American culture and say, all this is nonsense.

I said the hyperbole term "broken" was nonsense as I understood it, and you have confirmed that, since you explained that you used it to mean "not keeping up with other countries", which I wouldn't go so far as to call "broken"(however, you will of course put a different meaning into words than I will). I understood that statement along the lines of a "broken" economy(for example), would mean an economy like the one in Zimbabwe. With that understanding, you can't call the american education system "broken". If, on the other hand, you call the current american economy "broken", then I would see your point that the american education system is also "broken".

My point was that calling the American education system as broken as the zimbabwean economy was nonsense. But that wasn't what you meant.

My second point wasn't a statement, it was a question intended to further debate and an opening to help you along the way to understanding my point/position, which instead ended up being dismissed without being explored.

[Vuk]

I said the hyperbole term "broken" was nonsense as I understood it, and you have confirmed that, since you explained that you used it to mean "not keeping up with other countries", which I wouldn't go so far as to call "broken"(however, you will of course put a different meaning into words than I will). I understood that statement along the lines of a "broken" economy(for example), would mean an economy like the one in Zimbabwe. With that understanding, you can't call the american education system "broken". If, on the other hand, you call the current american economy "broken", then I would see your point that the american education system is also "broken".

My point was that calling the American education system as broken as the zimbabwean economy was nonsense. But that wasn't what you meant.

My second point wasn't a statement, it was a question intended to further debate and an opening to help you along the way to understanding my point/position, which instead ended up being dismissed without being explored.

Unfortunately HoreTore, the US economy is in a lot better shape than the US education system. (and that is not saying a lot) When people are entering college barely being able to read, I call that a broken system.

[HoreTore]

When people are entering college barely being able to read, I call that a broken system.

And yet the arrow for literacy statistics point up?

The difference between then and now is that "the dumb people" were left on their own or took up a trade, where they are now pushed into college. And still, this is the same scenario we have over here, isn't it?


Btw, my current bed-time reading is "Democracy and Education", by Dewey... Guess his country of origin

[a completely inoffensive name]

I said the hyperbole term "broken" was nonsense as I understood it, and you have confirmed that, since you explained that you used it to mean "not keeping up with other countries", which I wouldn't go so far as to call "broken"(however, you will of course put a different meaning into words than I will). I understood that statement along the lines of a "broken" economy(for example), would mean an economy like the one in Zimbabwe. With that understanding, you can't call the american education system "broken". If, on the other hand, you call the current american economy "broken", then I would see your point that the american education system is also "broken".

My point was that calling the American education system as broken as the zimbabwean economy was nonsense. But that wasn't what you meant.

My second point wasn't a statement, it was a question intended to further debate and an opening to help you along the way to understanding my point/position, which instead ended up being dismissed without being explored.

I forgot to edit out all the parts I wasn't responding to. I am planning on furthering discussion on what you said, but I am busy at moment. I will post again about your opening later tonight.

[HoreTore]

I forgot to edit out all the parts I wasn't responding to. I am planning on furthering discussion on what you said, but I am busy at moment. I will post again about your opening later tonight.

Well bah, I'll just continue my rant

My point, was that the diversity of information students today learn has increased from the 50's. An average 14-year old today can to some degree debate the difference between buddhism and his/her own religion, while the average from the 50's wouldn't have much knowledge. The second language thingy may have been wrong, I was under the impression that US students started learning a second language as teens... Another area is computer stuff, which obviously wasn't a fator back then.

But Louis has put forth this argument before, much better than I am able to now.

Anyway, second point, the tests. This is certainly an area where I feel I have enough knowledge, since we are bringing in a system of testing here as well, and the comments I have read about the american tests(including what you have just said) largely mirror the feelings I have towards our own tests, in that teaching is focused towards doing well on these tests as opposed to learning "for the sake of learning". I haven't yet teached a class subject to such tests so I don't have personal experience as such, but I have been involved(passively) in the process "behind the scenes" for other classes.

The intent and idea behind the tests is that the teacher will focus on how to get everyone to perform better. In practice however, the school will focus only on those between two grades, whom the school feels will be able to improve. The "normal" students, the best students and the worst students subsequently gets less focus, as the focus will be on the "climbers". Students whom the school believes will get top scores on these tests will get less attention and less opportunity to progress, as they represent no source of income for the school, and the same goes for those the school thinks will not progress by a desired amount.

Finally, there is the difference between getting the correct answer without understanding the underlying process that leads to the correct answer. It is perfectly possible to memorize that 6 times 7 is 42, without getting much understanding of the concept of multiplication(which is hard to check with a standardized test). When all that matters is the end result, the focus will be on the end result, thus a school will be more likely to get their students to memorize 6 times 7 instead of getting their students to understand the process.

Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of what was stated in The process of education, the US response to Sputnik. At that conference, the top US sceintist found that(among a dozen other things) learning by memorizing stuff is a bad strategy, not only do we actually memorize much, but the very process stiffles creativity. Thus they concluded that education should be about learning the processes needed to understand why 6 times 7 is 42, not just that it is 42.

When I say that the American education system is good, it is mainly because of that conference, as their conclusion basically turned all our schools upside down. But at the same time, I am aware that we may be moving away from those conclusions, and that this process isn't driven by scientists like before, but by politicians.


And lastly, do note that I in no way wish to push my views or believe that I am stating facts or anything like that. This is my trade, and my focus is to learn and get better at it, not prance around thinking I'm Mr. know-it-all. I'm looking for opposing views that I can learn from, not confirmation that "I'm right". I apologize if I come across like that.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Memorisation is important as well. You can't learn to speak English if you refuse to memorise. You can't learn math if you refuse to memorise either.

Also, the concept of quite a few things is not relevant until you start studying a particular discipline, rather than learning its accumulated knowledge.
For instance it is not necessary to teach highschool students about lambda calculus in order to let them solve simple recurrent expressions and find closed form solutions.

[HoreTore]

Memorisation is important as well. You can't learn to speak English if you refuse to memorise.

No idea how people teach language, I don't do it. So, my comments won't touch on those subjects...

You can't learn math if you refuse to memorise either.

ONLY after the reasoning behind is fully understood. Children should never memorize the multiplication table, for example, until they have understood what multiplication is. But after you understand it, yeah, there's no harm in memorizing it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

ONLY after the reasoning behind is fully understood.

But this is kind of interesting: it is easy to see what you mean with multiplication (even though the example is actually quite flawed because once you move on from positive integers the logic breaks down, and it ought to crash hard in your first year of any technical study worth its salt); however how do you explain this with division?

Multiplication can be defined inductively (which I guess you are doing: letting the kids consider it repeated addition) even if it is really not, but division offers no such explanation that stands up to even casual scrutiny.

Children should never memorize the multiplication table, for example, until they have understood what multiplication is. But after you understand it, yeah, there's no harm in memorizing it.

Nah they should just look up the logs and do the addition.

Seriously though, from a “understanding” point of view if you understand what you are doing when fiddling with logs you inherently understand multiplication. So I do think the log method is better than just summing values from memorised tables, occasionally forgetting to “carry over” (or whatever it is called in English?) those extra values and getting the wrong answer out.

[HoreTore]

But this is kind of interesting: it is easy to see what you mean with multiplication (even though the example is actually quite flawed because once you move on from positive integers the logic breaks down, and it ought to crash hard in your first year of any technical study worth its salt); however how do you explain this with division?

Multiplication can be defined inductively (which I guess you are doing: letting the kids consider it repeated addition) even if it is really not, but division offers no such explanation that stands up to even casual scrutiny.



Nah they should just look up the logs and do the addition.

Seriously though, from a “understanding” point of view if you understand what you are doing when fiddling with logs you inherently understand multiplication. So I do think the log method is better than just summing values from memorised tables, occasionally forgetting to “carry over” (or whatever it is called in English?) those extra values and getting the wrong answer out.

Multiplication as a serial addition is one kind of multiplication, multiplication represent other things too. A student will have to understand all of them.

I don't see how division is any different though, except perhaps that it isn't common to memorize 4/2 like people memorize 2x2...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Maybe I am simply not imagining properly how you treat or explain multiplication (or how much you expect your students to work from the concept rather than they just doing what appears to be working). You are saying you expect your student to think in kinds of multiplication, however multiplication is to the Real numbers what the AND operation is to Boolean values. It gets really intriguing once you start considering matrices & graphs, set theory and relations: multiplication is how you compute the result of a query on sets involving multiple relations. Back to the “simple” examples: how do you work with 0.5 and other such factors: they are in fact a division.

As for division: typically explained as partitioning. But that explanation works for 3 people sharing 6 items, but it can be written off after the first time an adventurous soul asks how you would divide 6 items among 0 people?

[HoreTore]

Maybe I am simply not imagining properly how you treat or explain multiplication (or how much you expect your students to work from the concept rather than they just doing what appears to be working). You are saying you expect your student to think in kinds of multiplication, however multiplication is to the Real numbers what the AND operation is to Boolean values. It gets really intriguing once you start considering matrices & graphs, set theory and relations: multiplication is how you compute the result of a query on sets involving multiple relations. Back to the “simple” examples: how do you work with 0.5 and other such factors: they are in fact a division.

As for division: typically explained as partitioning. But that explanation works for 3 people sharing 6 items, but it can be written off after the first time an adventurous soul asks how you would divide 6 items among 0 people?

Division by zero is impossible.

It might seem like a difficult concept for a 12-year old to undestand, but it's actually surprisingly easy to explain. As soon as students learn about multiplication and division, they learn about the relationship between the two, just like they did with maths. A student learns that if 6+3=9, you can turn it around and get a subtraction that reads 9-3=6. The same goes for multiplication and division, the division 4/2 is explained by showing that 2x2=4.

Thus, explaining why division by zero cannot be done is as simple as showing them the multiplication 2x0=0, and ask them to turn it into a division. Or, if one insists that 2/0 must be 0, ask them to swap their division around and see if the multiplication works.

As for multiplication with 0.5, that is indeed a division, and as such it is explained by swapping the 0.5 for the much more accurate number 1/2.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Division by zero is impossible.

Trick question.

It might seem like a difficult concept for a 12-year old to undestand, but it's actually surprisingly easy to explain. As soon as students learn about multiplication and division, they learn about the relationship between the two, just like they did with maths. A student learns that if 6+3=9, you can turn it around and get a subtraction that reads 9-3=6. The same goes for multiplication and division, the division 4/2 is explained by showing that 2x2=4.

But then you are not explaining multiplication at all. You explain how you compute multiplication, but that is not at all the same thing, and in fact is little more than pure memorisation of a symbol and a set of actions to arrive at output.

Thus, explaining why division by zero cannot be done is as simple as showing them the multiplication 2x0=0, and ask them to turn it into a division. Or, if one insists that 2/0 must be 0, ask them to swap their division around and see if the multiplication works.

But I can do that using such logic and the given example: 0/0 = 2. Perfectly valid according to the reverse logic since 0 * 2 = 0.

As for multiplication with 0.5, that is indeed a division, and as such it is explained by swapping the 0.5 for the much more accurate number 1/2.

Yes but here is the interesting thing: multiplication is scaling in a lot of applications. Remember how you said kind of?

The real problem is that if you want to teach concepts of operations like addition and multiplication definitions based on “reverse identities” do not hold in the general case. For instance with set addition and substraction.

{ 5, 6, 7, 8 } (+) {1 , 2, 3, 4, 5 } = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}.
Now let's try our reversal technique:
{1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 } - {5,6,7,8} = { 1,2,3,4 }.

[HoreTore]

But then you are not explaining multiplication at all. You explain how you compute multiplication, but that is not at all the same thing, and in fact is little more than pure memorisation of a symbol and a set of actions to arrive at output.

But I can do that using such logic and the given example: 0/0 = 2. Perfectly valid according to the reverse logic since 0 * 2 = 0.[/QUOTE]

First of all, the product of any factor multiplied by zero is zero by definition, which happens to be one of the earliest concepts a child will learn when it comes to multiplication. So, it is highly unlikely that someone would argue that way.

Secondly, I'm using numbers here. I would of course supplement with reality when explaining it to a student. Ie. "if you have zero baskets with zero apples in them, how many apples do you have?" Anyhoo, a 12-year old thinks that the higher the number the higher the difficulty, so a strong kid would focus on 09324850932809423x94386724395 rather than focusing on the 0 or other low numbers...

Another way would be to say "can I have two slices of pizza, if I don't have a pizza?" (2/0)

Yes but here is the interesting thing: multiplication is scaling in a lot of applications. Remember how you said kind of?

The real problem is that if you want to teach concepts of operations like addition and multiplication definitions based on “reverse identities” do not hold in the general case. For instance with set addition and substraction.

{ 5, 6, 7, 8 } (+) {1 , 2, 3, 4, 5 } = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}.
Now let's try our reversal technique:
{1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 } - {5,6,7,8} = { 1,2,3,4 }.

No idea what you're talking about here....

And I have to add that my knowledge of computer 1337 skillz are limited at best.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No idea what you're talking about here....

Well I was getting a bit far out in the whole concept thing. Summary: that “addition” and “substraction” operations are well defined outside the domain of real numbers, and sometimes you can't say x + y = z, therefore z - y = x. I chose an example with sets to elaborate both at the same time.

[HoreTore]

Well I was getting a bit far out in the whole concept thing. Summary: that “addition” and “substraction” operations are well defined outside the domain of real numbers, and sometimes you can't say x + y = z, therefore z - y = x. I chose an example with sets to elaborate both at the same time.

Well I only deal with addition and subtraction, not "addition" and "subtraction"