Education in America

[Imogen]

Tao, I teach theatre arts, but our district has mandated that computer skills be implemented in every classroom regardless of subject because not all kids have access to computers at home. it's a requirement in my contract that i integrate technology. but i'm not provided very good technology to integrate. i'm more than happy to use it, and believe it should be used in every class to the greatest extent possible. but how much good am i really doing when the technology just frustrates my kids to tears because it doesn't work the way we need it and we end up spending 30 minutes of a 45 minute class rebooting computers because they keep crashing even though it's been claimed they all work? the computers don't need to be shiny or new (though that would be nice), but properly functioning would be appreciated. the schools on the southside aren't shiny or new, but they receive regular maintenance and LOOK shiny and new. my school is falling apart and is a mold haven. it's awful for my allergies. but heaven forbid someone come and take care of those problems (like the rats in my costume storage....or the roaches in my desk....or the mice in the classroom across the hall....)

and i'm not blindly decrying the financial situation. i work in a very large but very poor district that has decided cutting classroom costs is the way to go. do i have to spend huge amounts of cash to make a lesson better? no. but i like to. it's how i show my students i care. i give them my time outside of class. i give them my ear when they need to talk. my particular district has a cash flow problem. every department needs more money. if i don't even have enough money for printer paper, there's a problem. and i DON'T have enough money for paper.

you, tao, obviously had parents that had time to do extra things with you and perhaps didn't require outside help. but i'm from an area where this just isn't the case. i'd say about 80% of my school's population is living at or below poverty level. some of those kids have an inherent desire to learn (lord do i have stories i could tell about those kids. they're great), but the rest need a boost. 21st century has helped a lot of kids by providing them tutoring and a reason to keep their grades up because they can't afford to participate in other school activities that require money (like sports).

I thought y'all would enjoy this. this is a suggestion from my education program on how to pass the pedagogy test. it shows how out of touch test makers and administrators can be:
If you are experiencing difficulty with your PPR, I would refer you back to MOD
111/EDTC 5800. Additionally remember that the test developer wrote the test as though
each teacher works in a “teacher heaven” environment. The answer may not be what you
know works in your classroom but rather what would be best in a learner centered
classroom in which there are no discipline problems, unlimited resources, parental
support – I trust you get the picture.

[Tao]

Tao, I teach theatre arts, but our district has mandated that computer skills be implemented in every classroom regardless of subject because not all kids have access to computers at home. it's a requirement in my contract that i integrate technology.

Hate to say it, but that mandate is asinine. Especially for theatre arts. And it must be computer work? You can't work with flashpots, build sound/light boards, rebuild foggers or some such and pass that off as technology integrated?

you, tao, obviously had parents that had time to do extra things with you and perhaps didn't require outside help. but i'm from an area where this just isn't the case. i'd say about 80% of my school's population is living at or below poverty level. some of those kids have an inherent desire to learn (lord do i have stories i could tell about those kids. they're great), but the rest need a boost. 21st century has helped a lot of kids by providing them tutoring and a reason to keep their grades up because they can't afford to participate in other school activities that require money (like sports).

Heh, poverty is hardly an excuse. Again, Dad worked teaching high school drop-outs how to weld, supplementing his income by military service while mom went to college and worked at whatever jobs she could find. I know what it is like to only have hand-me downs to wear and to fast a little bit extra on days before a paycheck was received. I don't think our family come out from under the poverty level until us kids all moved out. Granted, I was blessed to be raised with both parents, but poverty was the norm for me. As for 'extra things', I'm not sure. What counts as extra? My parents read to me often. I can remember dad falling asleep reading us Dr. Seuss with two kids on either side of him and me draped across the back of the couch. I learned math from my older siblings doing their homework. The biggest luxury that I can think of was the old encyclopedia set that was given to us when I was an infant. I learned to research not long after learning how to read. By the time I was old enough to play sports, I was old enough to work, and could pay the fees myself. Even then, the most I can recall a sport costing was 80 bucks, most were closer to 30. Again, it came down to priorities. I'd have had more time and money if I'd not played the sports I played, but I allocated those resources and sacrificed for that education. There were days in High School where I'd head into work before the sun came up and have practice and more work after school and not come home till the sun had long disappeared.

While I don't recall any mold or infestation problems, my high school had been condemned for a number of years before I entered, I recall our economics classroom on the second story corner had a crack running up one wall, across the ceiling and down the other side. Our teacher kept his desk there so in the event that that part of the classroom fell away from the building, there was less of a chance that students would go with it. (Then again, he said that in the event of that happening anyone who saved his laptop got an A; and with how challenging the class was, I'm not sure keeping kids in the building was his top concern...) We had rooms where you often had to sweep snow off of your desk prior to setting down. While I'm sure that our school district wasn't as hard off as many, I don't think that the naturally-ventilated classrooms were much if any impediment to learning either.

Again, I think that your statement about the desire to learn is key, as that is worth more than a pile of gold. And I don't see much evidence that money buys it. Do your students that are lacking that desire have any reason to believe that their education is going to benefit them? Do they have any practice at sacrificing now for those benefits later?

@Marduk, I'd agree with you there. The challenge with improving the ratio is the method of going about doing so. Adding classrooms is difficult bordering on impossible in many cases, and having multiple teachers in one classroom can lead to personality conflicts or discipline chain-of-command issues. The 'easiest' way that I can think of do pull ratios down is to add entirely new schools into existing school districts, which requires support from the entire tax-base of the area, and has a slew and a half of troubles inherent beside.

[thebigcheese]

It's interesting how education has become the definition of success for many people. But is education really necessary for a happy and successful life? Absolutely not.

I think I mostly went to college because that's what my parents expected of me. I didn't really think about what I wanted or what my life goals were. Sometimes I think I would've been happier learning some type of trade. Now that I'm graduated, do I really want an office job? Not really. I love working with my hands. But now that I have a college education, guess what I'll probably be stuck doing...an office job. For that reason, I think it's important to educate kids about ALL of their options and really encourage them to make their own decisions--not just what YOU think is best for them.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Tao, extrapolation from your own personal experience is hardly the groundwork for good public policy. You are a demographic anomaly.

One thing you pointed out is really important: parents taking time to read to their children is absolutely one of the biggest factors in the intellectual development and eventual academic success of children. Another huge factor is classroom size — which is directly related to the number of teachers employed, and, since the biggest expense in education is labor, ideal class sizes are significantly more expensive.

Also, you know that those fees for sports did not cover the entire cost of running athletic programs. They are merely supplements for district funding. When the district provides less funding, either the fees go up, or the sport gets cut.

[Tao]

Agreed, on each point. Yet the point needed to be made that lack of money may well be less of an issue than lack of desire. Being impoverished does not ipso facto lead to a educational failure-to-thrive. And a gold-plated school would do little to change the outlook of those who see no point in their receiving an education.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

How do we, then, account for the overwhelming correlation between poverty and educational success? There is a whole field of research studying this, and it's puzzling that you pull out uphill-to-school-both-ways anecdotes to claim, against all scholarship, that finances are not a key determining factor for educational outcomes.

Obviously motivation to learn is absolutely tied to educational success. And no one here (or anywhere) is arguing for gold-plated schools. There are a number of ways we can spend money, all with the goal of inspiring children to learn, whether it be through smaller class sizes (allowing the attention and mentorship of a teacher to be more prominent), better trained and more specialized faculty, after school activities, class projects, science labs, libraries and enthusiastic librarians, school counselors, special assemblies, computer labs, field trips, parent outreach programs, learning games, guest speakers and presenters, a safe and clean environment, etc. All of these factors, I would argue, both represent financial burdens and effective tools to motivate and inspire students. Schools that have fewer of these tools at their disposal due to diminished budgets have a much harder time cultivating a desire to learn.

School districts with enough funding are also able to run early intervention programs, which allow parents of very young (under 3) high-risk children (whether poverty or some disability) to have a social worker come to their home periodically in order to ensure that parents are able to properly stimulate their child's intellectual development. Whether it's through establishing habits of reading together every day as a family (which, again, makes a huge difference), or remedying language problems early-on, these programs strike at a child's most formative age to prepare them for later success. Our son was enrolled in one of these programs and it really helped his language and vocabulary skills explode—despite his hearing loss, he's well beyond the language development standards for his age. Yes, he has involved, educated parents, but we were trained to work with him in specific ways by the early intervention training, and without that training, he definitely would not be developing at the same pace.

[Imogen]

oh Tao. it doesn't have to be computer work, but where am i supposed to get the money for parts to build anything if i can't afford paper? no one in my district throws anything away, so i can't borrow to take from anyone else. not there's much to take anyway.

and you'd be surprised what you can use a computer for in theatre arts: research, design, play and critique writing...the list goes on and on. i love using technology in my classroom because they'll need it in high school and beyond. i still use all the technology skills i learned in college in the classroom. you can't deny that technology has in increasing place in our society, and kids need to know how to use it for any and everything.

[Tao]

How do we, then, account for the overwhelming correlation between poverty and educational success? There is a whole field of research studying this, and it's puzzling that you pull out uphill-to-school-both-ways anecdotes to claim, against all scholarship, that finances are not a key determining factor for educational outcomes.

That there is a correlation I'll not deny. Yet to say that it is causal is in quite another league. Counter examples are the best way to show the fallacy of correlation equals causation, and I've provided them. I pulled from my own history not for a pity plea, but because that is the most readily available source I have. I'm sure I could find others. (Stand and Deliver, anyone?) And once the realization sinks in that the relationship between money and educational success is not causal, we can begin to look for more effective methods of solving the problem. Again, look at Stand and Deliver, it wasn't an influx of money that brought about a solution to their problems, it was a teacher and a program that got kids to care about their future. And when the administration no longer supported the teacher? Progress stopped and he was eventually run out of the school by admin politics and jealous teachers. In a few years, success rates on the AP exam at that school dropped by 80%. I posit that no amount of financial aid would have helped that school as much as one teacher (and the supporting administration) who knew how to motivate his students to actually want to succeed and offer them the challenge to so do.

Yes, money is nice. Money makes teaching easier, there is no doubt. But the root of a vast portion of our educational troubles runs far deeper than a lack of money.

[Marduk]

It's interesting how education has become the definition of success for many people. But is education really necessary for a happy and successful life? Absolutely not.

I think I mostly went to college because that's what my parents expected of me. I didn't really think about what I wanted or what my life goals were. Sometimes I think I would've been happier learning some type of trade. Now that I'm graduated, do I really want an office job? Not really. I love working with my hands. But now that I have a college education, guess what I'll probably be stuck doing...an office job. For that reason, I think it's important to educate kids about ALL of their options and really encourage them to make their own decisions--not just what YOU think is best for them.

Wanted to point this out as I find it indicative of societal views of education at large in this country, and I find it intensely problematic.

It may be that part of the reason we so desire increased funding into the school system and see it as a panacea is that we see education as being purely an economic investment. Is there nothing to say for making for a more well rounded individual? Is does one's schooling entirely encompass education? Can we put a monetary value on what one has learned?

I would suggest that the fundamental purpose of a formal education is to teach individuals how to think and learn. When we value the vocational side of it over this, we do a disservice to it.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Counter examples are the best way to show the fallacy of correlation equals causation, and I've provided them.

Your fallacy is confusing deterministic causality with probabilistic causality.

A few examples of similar ways your logic might be used.

Proposition: Smoking causes cancer. Counterexample: There are people who smoke who don't get cancer. Thus, there is no causal link between smoking and cancer.
Proposition: Drunk driving causes accidents. Counterexample: there are drunk drivers who don't cause accidents. Thus, there is no causal link between drunk driving and accidents.
Proposition: Studying leads to good grades. Counterexample: one time I studied a ton and still got an F. Thus, there is no causal link between studying and grades.

As you can see, the counterexample only has any force in these situations if we're making too ambitious a claim, such as Smoking ALWAYS causes cancer, drunk driving ALWAYS causes accidents, or, for our argument, poverty ALWAYS causes academic difficulty.

When we are dealing with vastly complex systems, like education or climate or medicine or culture, there are a number of input factors that interact in complex ways to produce results. The job of the analyst is to determine which factors have the most influence and which have the least, over a large data set. This paradigm of probabilistic causality is the appropriate one for social studies, so it's baffling to me that you argue about causality like we're doing a mathematical proof.

[Tao]

As you can see, the counterexample only has any force in these situations if we're making too ambitious a claim, such as Smoking ALWAYS causes cancer, drunk driving ALWAYS causes accidents, or, for our argument, poverty ALWAYS causes academic difficulty.

ah, but the counter-example may point to a flaw in the assumption, leading to a more effective solution.

Preposition: Smoking causes cancer. Proposed solution: eradicate smoking. Method: Give out chewing tobacco to all smokers. Problem solved!

Wait. Wasn't there a counter-example? Oh, yeah, people who smoke Marijuana don't get cancer. Perhaps it is the tobacco that is causing the cancer, not the smoking, and we've now sunk a massive amount of time and money into killing people with mouth and throat cancer instead of lung cancer. Huh, shame that no one decided to look closer.

Proposition: Drunk driving causes accidents. Proposed solution: eradicate drinking. Method: prohibition of all forms of alcohol. Problem solved!

Wait. Wasn't there a counter-example? There are those who consume alcohol who don't cause accidents? Huh, perhaps we should have set a BAC limit instead of empowering the underground and the illegal drug market, and removing Listerine, cough syrup and rubbing alcohol from the shelves.

Proposition: Studying leads to good grades. Proposal: all classes are to become study halls. Everyone gets good grades!

Wait. Wasn't there that one kid who studied a ton and still failed his English class? Perhaps we should also practice test-taking and writing essays, as reading from the book didn't help him out much...

Preposition: fishlessness is correlated with hunger. Proposed solution: end fishlessness. Method: give a man a fish. Problem solved!

Wait. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation is not causation. Correlation means two things may share a common root, or there may be links between them. That is what needs to be found and fixed. Causation means fix the one and the other goes away. It could be that the correlation is very closely tied to the root and by studying it, we may learn more about the problem: man needs to learn how to fend for himself. But the fixing the correlation you found may not be the most effective way to solve the problem. Learning to fish would help this man eat, but so would farming and foraging. Too tight a focus on the one can blind us to the others.

I deny that poverty alone causes poor education, and posit that if you are able to swing the vote and throw all the money you can get at the problem, it still wont go away. The root lies elsewhere, and until it is addressed, your efforts will only yield the most meager of fruits.

[Whistler]

I really liked Eirene's answer to this question. Having taught composition, I think there is immense room for improvement in education as well as educating our educators (pedagogy) and applying what research we've done on learning. I also think that learning a little computer science/programming would have been a lot more useful to me than my US History class.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Tao, I think you missed the point of my post, which is: you can't simply jump from a counterexample to accusing "post hoc ergo propter hoc" in a complex system with probabilistic causality.

We both agree that the statement "poverty alone causes poor education" is false— and I'm surprised you apparently think that's what we're arguing about. I don't think there's ANY SINGLE root cause to education success or failure. There are a multiplicity of root factors, all with differing weights. Wiping out poverty or adequately funding all schools won't address other factors in the educational system—and of course any approach should proceed holistically, incorporating improvements in other areas—but providing additional support to educational programs in impoverished areas, where schools are most underfunded, will certainly help. Of course, simply providing money to schools does not address the underlying problems of family poverty which also affect education (such as uneducated or uninvolved parents), but carefully targeted and effective programs can make a big difference in mitigating the problems of poverty.

For example, President Obama plans to replicate the success of the Harlem Children's Zone in other cities. You can read about that project here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9629C8B63

Throwing money at the problem is not the solution. But it takes labor and resources (which cost money) to carry out targeted plans to change ineffective systems on a wide scale.

[Tao]

That is a good article (anyone else bugged by the term "poverty advocates"?) and a very hopeful looking program. Yet I am of the opinion the if the federal government were to implement it nationally, its success rate would be tragically low. In my eyes, what makes this program tick is the man behind it, with personal experience and attachment to the program. Put in his place a governmentally salaried social worker? the program would collapse in a pile of good intentions. Did you notice the reference to the Heinz program? 59 million dollars in a 5 year plan ended up helping 680 kids. Over $86,000 per kid works out to enough money to raise an entire family on for those 5 years.

Canada's plan is much more streamlined, at an estimated $1,400 per kid per year and he's willing (and able) to cut out unnecessary factors like the teacher's union. The challenges that will face a nation-wide installation of this program are the same that made teacher's unions needed in the first place; individuals looking out for no. 1 rather than caring about the end result. If we can assure that such wouldn't be the case in a federal program, I'd be much more hopeful. As it is, I'd expect to see the president put his plan forward, it to be gutted by congress, and if the shell of what remains passes and is signed into existence, the funds allocated will largely be eaten up in red tape and the journalists will have a field day pointing fingers and bemoaning America's fate. (NCLB?)

The original questions were "What do you think should be changed about America's school system? Why do you think we don't already do things that way?" and I think we've seen a goodly number of suggestions for the first, as for the second, my opinion is the lack of men and women like this Canada, such change comes from the bottom up.

[thebigcheese]

Having taught composition, I think there is immense room for improvement

TOTALLY AGREE. I feel extremely blessed to have had a high school teacher who was willing to give me C's on my writing assignments. Prior to that, I thought I was an amazing student because my essays always came back with A's on them. That teacher helped me realize that all the other teachers were putting up with some seriously mediocre stuff. It only became more obvious in college when I had to do group papers. I was shocked that BYU students could be such horrible writers. In fact, I would dare say that the vast majority of BYU students are horrible writers and don't even know it. Passive voice is like the plague around here. Same with adverbs.

[Tao]

Having taught composition, I think there is immense room for improvement

TOTALLY AGREE. I feel extremely blessed to have had a high school teacher who was willing to give me C's on my writing assignments. Prior to that, I thought I was an amazing student because my essays always came back with A's on them. That teacher helped me realize that all the other teachers were putting up with some seriously mediocre stuff. It only became more obvious in college when I had to do group papers. I was shocked that BYU students could be such horrible writers. In fact, I would dare say that the vast majority of BYU students are horrible writers and don't even know it. Passive voice is like the plague around here. Same with adverbs.

Some adverbs, some subtract. Reminds me of my history teacher who would give full credit to an 'essay' that just happened to have key phrases underlined in blue and http://en.wikipedia.org on the bottom... Also, did anyone here receive instruction in grammar in high school? The last time I can recall was in sixth grade. I daresay 70% or more of my graduating class could not pick out a adjective or a adverb, and those who could got it from madlibs or their Spanish class.

[Imogen]

we covered grammar freshman year, but not after that. i know my school is returning to diagramming sentences because the kids all write in text form instead of real sentences.

[ahem.]

i know my school is returning to diagramming sentences because the kids all write in text form instead of real sentences.

Hee! A part of me feels bad for them, because diagramming is super hard (at least for me). But the other part figures it might actually do them some good, so they can just deal with it.

[TheAnswerIs42]

I was actually blessed to have grammar nazis for high school teachers. One of them in particular had a grammar book memorized (I feel rather blessed that I have forgotten the name of it now) which listed grammar errors by number. So when you made that error, he would label it with the number instead of writing out what you did wrong. I do still remember that 28d was the "improper use of you or it", because I still catch myself doing that and stop myself. As in, "Sue found that it was really hard to walk through the snow" because "it" doesn't refer to anything previously identified.

I actually thought my BYU classes were very lax in comparison. It was the only class I felt that way about.

[Whistler]

like diagramming sentences is going to help you organize a research paper... </Fe>