Education in America

[Marduk]

Question 61178 for reference.

Woah this is a HUGE topic, one we could spend forever on, and people right now ARE spending massive amounts of time on, federally, on the state level, locally, and individually.

I really, really want to say a lot about this topic, but can't devote a lot of time to it right now, so I'll just say a few points and then hopefully hear some other views as well.

1) I think students should be introduced early on to the concept that few ideas are really set in stone. Often we are taught one concept or idea, and not really introduced to the idea that they are merely one perspective on it. For example, we are not really taught that many in Columbus' time did NOt believe the earth to be flat, or that there were also economic motives to a revolution in the British colonies in America.
2) I think there should be a lot more debate and discussion. Learning how to have a civil discourse and present ideas in an environment that is neither entirely agreeable nor hostile to change is a critical skill to develop, and presenting arguments for one's beliefs tends to allow those to more fully develop.

That's just two things I was thinking; I'll come back to this but other thoughts would be appreciated.

[Tao]

This sounds remarkably like an essay I seem to recall submitting for either BYU entrance or a freshman-level scholarship. (Don't recall which, it has been a while.) In the end, a vast percentage of changes fall under philosophical differences as to the goals of education. Do we want to produce the best students we can, or do we want to maximize the education we provide to everyone? Unfortunately, in the case of time and money, this often ends up a zero sum game, and one suffers at the cost of the other. Sure, we could teach Latin in elementary school (as one school in California was/is) but does this benefit the children who will struggle against the language and close their minds to the idea of second languages? (Little biased on that one, read accordingly.)

Also; I am glad I am not one to be asked to make executive decisions in this matter. My childhood and education was rather skewed due to my personality quirks and flaws. Perhaps if I have the opportunity to raise children that are my own and are found in similar situations, then I'll be able to weigh in on their education.

[Dead Cat]

Another thing to be taken into account is the variety of learning styles. Some people do great with lists, others gain understanding by bouncing ideas of one another, and still others want to try it out themselves. Not everyone can be expected to comprehend fully if the teacher only teaches toward one style of learning.

[Imogen]

as a teacher, it is almost impossible to cater to all styles of learning without wasting time. seriously. if you're not an educator, it's really easy to say "this and this need to be fixed!" but as someone "on the inside" not many of the ideas tossed out are feasible on a national level. local culture and expectations are often a dominating force in how children receive their educations and it's so individual depending on the kid and family that trying to cater to so many differences becomes overwhelming.

i know in my area of south texas, i think the emphasis on sending everyone to college is misguided. i'm from an area where education is not valued but hard work is. but since the kids aren't getting educations, they often end up with job prospects after they (hopefully) graduate from high school. our school got rid of vocational programs that could've taught kids valuable skills and kept them in school, but instead we're alienating a lot of kids who think they'll never go to college. but the focus on college is a great motivator for other areas.

fixing education on a national level isn't going to happen. each district needs to see what works for them and their area and THEN make changes.

[Indefinite Integral]

ditto what Imogen said. There is no way to "fix" education on a national level. I have so much to say on this subject, but not enough time to type it all out. Let's just say it's a frequent topic of discussion in the faculty room at the charter school where I work.

If you want to hear a somewhat radical view of what is wrong with the educational system, you can read "Dumbing us Down". I'm not saying I agree with everything in that book (not by a longshot) but it definitely has some interesting ideas about "conveyor belt" education. (If anyone is really interested I can explain further.)

[Imogen]

i'd like to know more, indefinite integral.

[ahem.]

This video was going around a while ago. The subject seems relevant to this discussion.

[Imogen]

i want to see "Waiting for Superman." However, I worry that it will make it seem like charter schools will save us all, when that's just not the case.

[Eirene]

Yeah, when I was writing that answer, I was thinking of a million other things that could improve education, and a million caveats that I thought I should include. I guess as I'm thinking about this more, I might have said something about "personal responsibility." You know, most kids should be taught how to read (at least a little bit) before they start school, and parents should look over their kids' homework, and high school kids should read the news, blah blah blah. I hate to go all Smug Conservative on people, but relying solely on the educational system for a complete education might be more troublesome than any aspect of the system itself. Gotta look out for number one!

[Imogen]

liberals don't rely on the education system for complete education. it's not about looking out for number one. parents of all races, politics, and backgrounds are avoiding helping their kids when it comes to school work. ALL parents need to be more involved. but as a teacher i look out for my kids, not just myself. i hate the teachers who only look out for themselves. or parents who won't help out because they don't think they're responsible to help other people's kids. anything a parent can do to support their child's education and the education of the children at their child's school is appreciated and needed. every parent who donates lunch to the kids at a tournament or dry cleaning services to the spring musical has helped every child at our school by freeing up much needed funds for classroom expenses.

one major problem is money. there is none! do you know how hard it is to teach a theatre class with no paper? to integrate technology into your classroom activities with laptops from 2002 that barely work? with text books that are 10-12 years old? it's insane! but there's a lot of talk about fixing things and no action. if people want education reform, they need to put their money and their actions where their mouths are and HELP US!!! educating future citizens pays off in the long run for EVERYONE, not just people with children.

[Katya]

I hate to go all Smug Conservative on people, but relying solely on the educational system for a complete education might be more troublesome than any aspect of the system itself. Gotta look out for number one!

I'm all about parental involvement in education, formally or informally, but what about kids and parents who are in dire situations and simply don't have a comparable resources to help their kids with schoolwork? Do we just say "Screw you, you happened to be dealt a crappy hand in life and now it's going to continue for at least another generation?"

The conservative stereotype of liberal social programs tends to be "You don't want to work hard and take care of yourselves. You just want the government to take care of you." My perspective is that even the most prepared people can fall on hard times or need help in some area. Some of us have family to help us, some have friends, some have neighbors, and some have church members, but some people don't have anyone and I'm not willing to write those people off. I would consider it unchristian.


And now I get to go anti-liberal and say that I don't like teachers' unions. I think schools should be free to fire bad teachers and have more power to retain good ones, even if the bad ones have more seniority. (Of course, that means we have to find a way of quantifying what makes a good teacher vs a bad one, and I'll equally admit that I don't like the idea of judging teachers based solely on the test scores of their students. Maybe if it was a combination of test scores, evaluations from other teachers, and evaluations from students or parents?)

[Imogen]

teachers unions are good and bad. when my roommate was (unjustly) accused of misconduct with a student, the union stood behind him even though he wasn't a member (and still isn't). when another friend of mine was accused of hating gay students, they helped her as well. they negotiate our stipends for extra activities, and go to bat for us when it comes to insurance and funding. but they are insanely focused to EVERYONE keeping their jobs, when some teachers do need to get the boot.

but like you pointed out, katya, how do we rate who is good and bad? i think parents should stay out of it because they're not in the school everyday. getting evaluated by students gets tricky because i know i have some students who would give me a bad review because i'm strict, whereas others would give me a great review because they like having rules and being guided. even evals by other teachers is tricky depending on personal relationships and professional ideals. this problem returns to style. i had teachers in middle school who i HATED and wanted fired so badly. but now i work with a lot of them and see they are great educators, we just didn't mesh. whose evals would hold the most weight? it's hard when teachers are basically alone in the room.

[Katya]

it's hard when teachers are basically alone in the room.

That's an interesting point, and maybe that's why evaluating teachers is so fundamentally difficult. (I was thinking it had more to do with the profession being more qualitative than quantitative, but that's true of a lot of professions.)

[Imogen]

it's hard when teachers are basically alone in the room.

That's an interesting point, and maybe that's why evaluating teachers is so fundamentally difficult. (I was thinking it had more to do with the profession being more qualitative than quantitative, but that's true of a lot of professions.)

i very rarely have people in my room. none of my students needs a para, my administrators trust me so they don't hang around, and my colleagues are basically in another part of the building. there's only two classrooms on my hallway. they could record us, but imagine all that footage to go through!

[Tao]

they could record us, but imagine all that footage to go through!

And the drain on finances that the equipment/man-power would imply. Although I must say I question some of the claims that finances are the root of all educational issues.

what about kids and parents who are in dire situations and simply don't have a comparable resources to help their kids with schoolwork? Do we just say "Screw you, you happened to be dealt a crappy hand in life and now it's going to continue for at least another generation?"

What resources are so needed? Food and shelter I'll grant you, as Maslow wasn't that far off, but beyond that, really what materials are needed? I learned my letters in a bowl of cornmeal, which went back into the bin when I was done. Most assignments requiring computers (at least around here) had to be issued with time set aside in a computer lab.

[Marduk]

The main necessary resource for parents to be involved in education is time. When one has a single parent trying to take care of a household, there is rarely time to sit with a child and do schoolwork, which, depending on the child, is often what is necessary.

It also, while not necessary, is helpful to have things like desks, writing utensils, paper, good lighting, clean environment, etc. We may not think these things cost money, but often they do.

[Imogen]

The main necessary resource for parents to be involved in education is time. When one has a single parent trying to take care of a household, there is rarely time to sit with a child and do schoolwork, which, depending on the child, is often what is necessary.

It also, while not necessary, is helpful to have things like desks, writing utensils, paper, good lighting, clean environment, etc. We may not think these things cost money, but often they do.

i can't remember the study, but y'all know the broken window theory, right? if you have a broken window already your less likely to care for other things? you'd be surprised how demoralized kids at my school get knowing schools on the southside of my city look nicer, have more (and better) supplies, and are just MAINTAINED better. and it does impact their desire to learn. they feel that the higher ups don't care about them, so why should they care?

money is SO IMPORTANT. i have spent close to 700 bucks this semester (some of it reimbursed, but not all) to add things to my class to make it more fun and engaging. money doesn't cure all ills, but it sure does help. we only have one computer lab with 30 computers and it's booked everyday. i can't sit around waiting for a cancellation to implement technology in my room. i should have access to it at all times since i'm expected to integrate it into my curriculum. but we need money to improve what we have. what's the point of teaching with obsolete (by almost a decade) technology? i'm not saying we need new technology every year, but perhaps every 3-5 years is not too much to ask for.

and, back to money, parents with more free time (and usually more financial security) can help their children in ways poorer parents can't. poorer parents often don't have extra money for outside programs that can help their children. my mother was a single parent. we had money, but she had no time to help me with homework because she worked air traffic and was at work when i did my homework. does this make her a bad parent? no. she did what she had to do and she could afford to find me people to help me. but parents who can't afford after school care are left with few options. luckily, we have a new program in our district called "21st century" that requires kids to get tutored and gives them the chance to do things they otherwise wouldn't, like violin and dance lessons. it's improved things a bit, but it can't be ignored that the kids who do the best are kids whose parents are more financially secure.

[Dead Cat]

Today, I was able to sit in on a conversation mainly between my mom and my sister's mother-in-law, who both have had teaching experience. My mom has really started to hate the school that I went to and loved (except for 3rd grade when that teacher never taught us anything, but I digress). I think either the year after I left that school or the year after that, they changed principals and Momma Cat really didn't like the teachers that ended up getting hired. Brother Cat 2 had a horrible year with one teacher in particular. My mom tried to work with her and the Special Ed teacher to get him into Special Ed, but they refused, saying he was fine when he was failing. Brother Cat 2's teacher and the Special Ed teacher talked to each other about how annoying it was that Momma Cat kept pestering them right in front of Brother Cat 2. My brother, of course, told Momma Cat about it and she wrote an email to the teachers and the principal, saying that she didn't mind the complaining, but they should not do it in front of her son. The teachers became easier to work with after that (likely due to principal intervention) but Brother Cat 2 still hasn't been put into Special Ed. Worse, Brother Cat 2's teacher from that year is looking a likely candidate for the next principal. Momma Cat is only glad that she won't have to deal with the school next year.

Okay, that sounded pretty ranty, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need teachers who are willing to work with parents too--and we need the people choosing the teachers to pick them.

[Tao]

The main necessary resource for parents to be involved in education is time.

This I could believe. And although the adage that time equals money is true in many ways, the equality is not absolute. There is definitely the element of givadamium involved. With both time and money, how high a priority is education in the eyes of the parents or children? What's it worth to them? In the cases where a family is struggling to allocate the time/money to education, but pay their monthly dues in both to the cable company, can we really say that what they are in need of is more time/money, or more givadamium? My folks both worked while us kids and my mother went to school. My dad taught high school dropouts how to weld. I can remember the first time I wrote my full name was on a piece of scrap metal at his work. What I'm driving at here is that when the desire is there, often (not always, and it is there that I think work needs to be done) methods are found to make do.

i can't remember the study, but y'all know the broken window theory, right? if you have a broken window already your less likely to care for other things? you'd be surprised how demoralized kids at my school get knowing schools on the southside of my city look nicer, have more (and better) supplies, and are just MAINTAINED better. and it does impact their desire to learn. they feel that the higher ups don't care about them, so why should they care?

mmm. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. While I do not doubt your summation, and the theory has merit, laying so much of the blame it to finances may be a bit rash. Your last statement is of great import, methinks. As the languages of love thread is showing, there are many ways of showing that one is cared for, and new shiny things are only one of those ways. What is being done in other ways to show students they are cared for?

money is SO IMPORTANT. i have spent close to 700 bucks this semester (some of it reimbursed, but not all) to add things to my class to make it more fun and engaging. money doesn't cure all ills, but it sure does help. we only have one computer lab with 30 computers and it's booked everyday. i can't sit around waiting for a cancellation to implement technology in my room. i should have access to it at all times since i'm expected to integrate it into my curriculum. but we need money to improve what we have. what's the point of teaching with obsolete (by almost a decade) technology? i'm not saying we need new technology every year, but perhaps every 3-5 years is not too much to ask for.

What do you teach that is so technologically dependent? Other than actually computer systems classes, or typing skills-type classes, what demands are placed on the students? I understand the out-of-pocket expenses that often get laid upon the teacher; and can definitely understand the drain that can be on a teacher's income. I'm just trying to gather info on what people are expecting.

and, back to money, parents with more free time (and usually more financial security) can help their children in ways poorer parents can't. poorer parents often don't have extra money for outside programs that can help their children. my mother was a single parent. we had money, but she had no time to help me with homework because she worked air traffic and was at work when i did my homework. does this make her a bad parent? no. she did what she had to do and she could afford to find me people to help me. but parents who can't afford after school care are left with few options. luckily, we have a new program in our district called "21st century" that requires kids to get tutored and gives them the chance to do things they otherwise wouldn't, like violin and dance lessons. it's improved things a bit, but it can't be ignored that the kids who do the best are kids whose parents are more financially secure.

Again, I wonder at this. I'm from more rural areas that had little to no programs for kids along those lines. Or if they existed, I am unaware of them. How do such things improve the educations of the wealthy? Not that I'm claiming such opportunities the rich receive aren't beneficial, but how much is beneficial, and how much excess? Comparing a private school to a public one kinda shows some of that thought, but are the differences all in the money? Or there a level of non-fiscal investment involved in a private school? (somewhat tying into the discussion on paying for your kid's education, where do we find the source of the desire to succeed?)

I'm not saying that all is well with our education system, far from it. But to decry the financial situation blindly seems a bit too trite for my tastes. Yes, more money would be nice. But beyond/before/beside that, what needs to be done? It would be interesting to see what happens to a struggling school that is granted a significant one-shot financial boon, to see how much education is improved. Then again, any such report is going to be so heavily tainted by the desires of whoever funded/oversaw it that the results would likely be spun so hard as to be pointless anyway.

[Marduk]

On the topic of funneling money into the education system:

There's a lot of it that's wasted, but I accept that that will happen any time you have such a structural complex in place. The main thing I'd like increased funding (were it to happen) to do is decrease the student:teacher ratio. In Utah, for elementary it is something like 23:1, and jumps to like 30:1 for junior high and high school. That's ridiculous. The settings I recall as being the most formative in my education were always one on one or small instructor led groups, and these things happen much less frequently the higher that ratio gets.

Seriously, this isn't just me. Studies have repeatedly shown that students perform better the lower this ratio is. From what I've read (and feel free to dispute this, it may force me to go find the source material again) that it is the number one way to improve performance in schools that are performing sub-par.