Is our system of education really that bad?

[thehacker3]

I keep getting told by my parents how we grow up learning so much less than they have when they were growing up in the soviet union. Is our education really so inferior? I've attended top schools my entire life (until college) and I don't really think it's fair to say that I'm necessarily stupid.

My main two questions are pretty much this:

Is our education really getting that worse over time?

Is American education really as bad as Michael Moore makes it seem? Or are we just being pushed in a sense to be even smarter?

 

[Evo]

I keep getting told by my parents how we grow up learning so much less than they have when they were growing up in the soviet union. Is our education really so inferior? I've attended top schools my entire life (until college) and I don't really think it's fair to say that I'm necessarily stupid.

My main two questions are pretty much this:

Is our education really getting that worse over time?

Is American education really as bad as Michael Moore makes it seem? Or are we just being pushed in a sense to be even smarter?

A lot would depend on the school, the teachers in that school, etc..

 

[thehacker3]

Well I was referring to America as a whole. Is the average American student dumber than the average, say, Chinese student?

What about the smartest in each category? Which country is producing the smarter smart kids?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Apparently we don't teach the difference between stupidity and ignorance.

 

[rasmhop]

Well I was referring to America as a whole. Is the average American student dumber than the average, say, Chinese student?

How do you define dumb? The impression I get from my Chinese friend is that average Chinese students certainly are more hard working and probably know more facts. If this is how you define intelligence I suspect Chinese students are more intelligent, but personally I would be vary of trying to compare them. He puts it down to pressure from parents (and to some extent society), and to the fact that they have to work really hard early on just to become literate.

There are tests done such as the pisa tests that try to compare the student population in various countries (but AFAIK no such test included both the US and China). Personally I don't think these tests are significant, but if this is how you define intelligence then you can for instance conclude that Finland is the smartest country among the tested countries, and Mexico is the least smart.

What about the smartest in each category? Which country is producing the smarter smart kids?

Who is smarter Einstein or Newton? They are smart in their own way and it's impossible to really say that one was the smarter person. While people like to compare each other by assigning numerical values to their skills, usually people are smarter in their own way. I do not think there is a significant difference between the very top students.

 

[thehacker3]

How do you define dumb? The impression I get from my Chinese friend is that average Chinese students certainly are more hard working and probably know more facts. If this is how you define intelligence I suspect Chinese students are more intelligent, but personally I would be vary of trying to compare them. He puts it down to pressure from parents (and to some extent society), and to the fact that they have to work really hard early on just to become literate.

There are tests done such as the pisa tests that try to compare the student population in various countries (but AFAIK no such test included both the US and China). Personally I don't think these tests are significant, but if this is how you define intelligence then you can for instance conclude that Finland is the smartest country among the tested countries, and Mexico is the least smart.


Who is smarter Einstein or Newton? They are smart in their own way and it's impossible to really say that one was the smarter person. While people like to compare each other by assigning numerical values to their skills, usually people are smarter in their own way. I do not think there is a significant difference between the very top students.

Good answer! I was referring to dumbness as the classic definition of intelligence - not about how much you know but how quickly you can learn and apply what you learn

 

[Evo]

The OP started off asking about education and it quickly hit rock bottom deciding who is smarter or dumber, of course with someone tossing in meaningless IQ scores.

It seems one of the threads pops up every 60 days or so.

 

[thehacker3]

The OP started off asking about education and it quickly hit rock bottom deciding who is smarter or dumber, of course with someone tossing in meaningless IQ scores.

It seems one of the threads pops up every 60 days or so.

Well intelligence is a direct result of education so it would be worth analyzing both..

 

[Evo]

Well intelligence is a direct result of education so it would be worth analyzing both..

No, you can be educated and not intelligent and vice versa.

 

[thehacker3]

No, you can be educated and not intelligent and vice versa.

When learning in school, you develop your brain and get smarter too.. or will you argue with me on that too?

 

[loseyourname]

I initially went to college with a bunch of ex-Soviets (mostly Armenians). I used to get a kick out of their claims of how superior their educational system was. Sure thing, guys, your nation just collapsed and is in such a third world state that you're flooding into mine. One of the girls in my intro-level general bio class had a medical degree from Armenia, which apparently doesn't mean as much as it does in the US since she was only 20 and starting over in general bio because US medical licensing boards don't accept Soviet degrees. She did no better on the exams than I did. My best friend's parents were ex-Soviet engineers that also needed to start over their educations. One became a court clerk and the other a social worker.

 

[thehacker3]

I initially went to college with a bunch of ex-Soviets (mostly Armenians). I used to get a kick out of their claims of how superior their educational system was. Sure thing, guys, your nation just collapsed and is in such a third world state that you're flooding into mine. One of the girls in my intro-level general bio class had a medical degree from Armenia, which apparently doesn't mean as much as it does in the US since she was only 20 and starting over in general bio because US medical licensing boards don't accept Soviet degrees. She did no better on the exams than I did. My best friend's parents were ex-Soviet engineers that also needed to start over their educations. One became a court clerk and the other a social worker.

Well being an Armenian whose family came here 16.5 years ago, I can give you a lot of insight into what you're talking about.

Believe me, if the medical licensing boards accepted Soviet degrees, there would be a lot more qualified doctors in America - those degrees weren't easy to get in the Soviet Union.

My father, who had a masters in artificial intelligence in the soviet union, taught me physics in my early years so well that I flew through AP Physics C in high school with less than 20 hours of studying the entire year. He had to take courses in programming (even though he has a degree in engineering) to earn some sort of American degree and he works as one now.

My mother, who defended her dissertation in the Soviet Union, and worked as a leading professor in the language department, also had to take basic level programming classes here in America and then went to work as a programmer.

My parents and relatives got back on their feet relatively quickly because of their intelligence and ability to survive harsh conditions. Getting back on their feet in America was a joke compared to what they had to live through back in the Soviet union. Many families don't have that ability and they lose all the value their Soviet degrees hold in this country and end up living in miserable conditions.

Do you think that's fair?

 

[skeptic2]

No, you can be educated and not intelligent and vice versa.

Once in an electronic engineering department where I worked, there were two engineers, one with an associates degree and the other with a master's. The one with the associates grew up in Eastern Europe during WWII and was constantly fleeing from one country to the next. Not only could he not speak English well, there was no language he could speak well although he spoke a number of European languages. He was one of the best engineers I have known.

The one with a master's could talk for a half hour about anything electronic (and usually did) but couldn't design a circuit. Once when I was laying out a fairly simple printed circuit, he came over and said, "I wouldn't know where to begin."

 

[loseyourname]

My parents and relatives got back on their feet relatively quickly because of their intelligence and ability to survive harsh conditions. Getting back on their feet in America was a joke compared to what they had to live through back in the Soviet union. Many families don't have that ability and they lose all the value their Soviet degrees hold in this country and end up living in miserable conditions.

Do you think that's fair?

They were afforded the opportunity to immigrate here in the first place, an opportunity not extended to everybody. There are people the world over whose governments collapse and they die in genocides and civil wars. These "many families" get to come to a place where getting back on your feet is a joke.

 

[thehacker3]

There are people the world over whose governments collapse and they die in genocides and civil wars.

Like the Armenians?

That's what I'm trying to say.. After being lucky enough to survive something like that, they come to a new country to find that they have to start their entire education all over again?

 

[Evo]

Like the Armenians?

That's what I'm trying to say.. After being lucky enough to survive something like that, they come to a new country to find that they have to start their entire education all over again?

Unless you are a Native American, we are all immigrants that had to start over. Yes there are some that had incredible academic credentials that did not have to, but the majority of our parents & grandparents had to, mine included.

 

[Evo]

Okay, anyone want to actually discuss the OP? If not, I'll close the thread.

 

[thehacker3]

Unless you are a Native American, we are all immigrants that had to start over. Yes there are some that had incredible academic credentials that did not have to, but the majority of our parents & grandparents had to, mine included.

A great majority of my family had the incredible credentials you speak of and they all had to start over. That's the injustice that I'm talking about.

The thread went completely off-topic and I wish to return to the discussion regarding our education vs. other countries

 

[DR13]

IMO I think that the American educational system is fine. Obviously, I have no first-hand experience with foreign systems. However, I do know about the education that I have received and believe it to be top notch. I think that the American educational system is much like the American economy. If you put in time and effort you get something in return. If you don't put in effort, then you don't get a good return. There is access to accelerated programming, extra-cirriculars, etc. One controls their own destiny. It is not like the Chinese system that forces students to memorize facts to score well on the college entrance exam.

Hope that works for you, Evo! :)

 

[FrancisZ]

I keep getting told by my parents how we grow up learning so much less than they have when they were growing up in the soviet union. Is our education really so inferior? I've attended top schools my entire life (until college) and I don't really think it's fair to say that I'm necessarily stupid.

In all fairness: subjects are constantly evolving beyond what anyone's parents were expected to know (and by "know" people often mean "memorize"--which isn't necessarily "intelligent" so much maybe as it is "knowledgeable"). These same persons who point out the deficiencies of others, are often incompetent in some other measurable ability. So maybe they should work on themselves instead of criticizing.

To start with: researchers, like Howard Gardner, say that there are in fact multiple intelligences...

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm".

Beside that, there are nearly infinite competencies, to potentially acquire in life--probably as many as there are topics--ranging from tying one's shoes to say operating a nuclear reactor (*bows in respect to Astro*).

My main two questions are pretty much this:

Is our education really getting that worse over time?

"American" Education? As a professional teacher, I (very regrettably) can plainly tell you, that there's really no such thing. A lot (too much I would say) is left for the individual states to outline and implement; and in many instances, that merely amounts to a lot of self-regulation, number fudging, potential embezzlement, and other oodles of corruption. Absolutely disgusting. *Shakes head* I've seen it first hand.

Is American education really as bad as Michael Moore makes it seem? Or are we just being pushed in a sense to be even smarter?

I will say this: a lot has changed, even during my own life. My upbringing was kind of rocky to say the least. I went to public school in Brooklyn, NY; public in New Jersey; then back to public in Brooklyn; and then to parochial schools in New Jersey. I have also taught 6th-12th grade mathematics, in both states.

Frankly: there are definite INCONSISTENCIES between the curricula--even for a subject like mathematics, mind you--and yes, even between two states as physically close and symbiotic as New York and New Jersey are; and I know I've absolutely suffered in my own life, both as a student, and as a teacher because of this lack of continuity. In plainer terms: they just don't teach the same things (never mind the order in which you should actually teach things--which is an entire other disgrace, believe me).

Couple that with the fact, that there was a "movement" (which I liken to a bowel movement really) in more recent history, to throw out a lot of "older" yet still perfectly functional, and reliable methods in education.

Rote memorization, for example. Many of the students I've interacted with, during the course of the past 8 years, were NEVER TAUGHT THEIR MULTIPLICATION TABLES before they met me in either 6th grade, or 12th! And these were smart kids, mind you! Somehow, along their way through school, they simply were never encouraged to do that sort of thing.

And that has lead, in my own opinion at least, to a gravely serious, and in fact, distinctly generational domino effect (where at least mathematics is concerned).

Math is not like a History course (of course, of course :) ). Whereas, I can teach from say 1492 onward--and wouldn't necessarily need to know anything about Mesopotamia, Egyptians, or Roman culture--to understand math well, really requires instead a constant development of earlier and very contingent basic skills (again, like the times tables).

I tell my students the same thing all of the time: "if you don't know your multiplication tables, then you will have trouble with division; and if you struggle with division, you will probably dislike fractions; and if you cannot assimilate the notion, of fractions, decimals, and percentages, being different looking, albeit equivalent representations of the same quantity, then you will likely hate Percent Equations; and if you have difficulty with solving percent equations (which I use to introduce algebra), you will have an awful time with solving one-step Algebraic Equations; and then two-steps; and then Functions; and then graphing; and then Trigonometry; and then Calculus; and so forth, and so on; and that's why you end up hating math!"

Usually, at that point, I turn blue (which also makes them more bemused and alert to what I have to say, believe it or not).

So, short answer: yes, in a sense, we--adults who are supposed to be in charge, and setting a good example (the ultimate purpose of education, after all)--are doing stupid, stupid crap, all in the name of sheer laziness, and the bottom line: MONEY.

And that is exactly why students, who mysteriously pass their Regents Exam in New York State, cannot place out of Remedial or Intermediate Algebra, their freshman year of college. And then those, who are incredibly discouraged by this, eventually drop out. It's a terrible situation. Here's an article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/education/10remedial.html?_r=1"

It's a simple issue of QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY. The school systems--especially in New York--are pushing incompetent product (namely the students) out the door into community colleges. It makes the schools appear to have done their job, while in fact not nearly having done so. And that's really part of State Department of Education's fault. Self-regulation is never a good idea.Here's an idea though: why doesn't some genius--in ANY department of education--if they really care, try modifying their lousy goddamn curriculum to match the standards necessary for actual entrance, and long term, success in college? Why not instead of these bull crap state examinations, we actually prepare our kids for the SATs or ACTs? Isn't that the ideal: seeing as how those exams determine which college (if any), the students will eventually attend; and also, how much scholarship money they ultimately will be able to use, to help pay for cost of their college education?

Headlines and statistics keep indicating to me anyway, that we're "supposed to be moving past a manufacturing based economy." And so then, logically: if we do actually care about our children and their future capacity to support themselves (and us); perhaps we ought to be actually preparing them for white collar, engineering, or professional jobs.

The truth is (and this will sound cynical) that NO ONE IS REALLY IN CHARGE of Education, in this country; and I cannot help but sense, really, that that is exactly by design.

Did you ever notice, in any of the places that you may have worked in your own life, that some things just remain broken, for as long as you work there? It's because no one cares enough to take the time to actually understand and fix something that needs repair.

As I have always seen it: my job was fixing broken minds--of taking the time to assess the individual, their problems, and their weaknesses with my subject; and then to attempt to address those issues, case by case, for however long it friggin takes me. And I actually quit my job teaching, two weeks ago now--after nearly 8 years--because I finally realized exactly what I've been trying to say to all of you here, all along. The system just won't allow you, as an educator, to actually fix what's broken. Sometimes, in fact, when you try, you get punished for it.

The very best analogy I can offer you is this: it is the difference between working for a company like General Motor's, and a company like Toyota. At Toyota: each individual worker has the right to actually stop the line of production--for any reason--when they suspect there's a flaw; which is great for quality control (despite what anyone says about Toyota these days). But at GM: there's an equation, I'm sure somewhere, that plainly predicts x amount of cars produced in one day turns out y amount of profit, long term. And therein lies the major distinction. Again: Quality versus Quantity. "Just git'r done!"

People like this friggin guy can be funny--but they should never be your goddamn boss! Or, in charge of anything, outside of maybe a weekend barbecue.

Finally, I leave you with this thought in mind: maybe if we actually attempted to replicate what the other industrialized nations are doing in education (sort of their abuses and/or corruption), then we'd be able to compete academically.

But for right now: the state of so-called "American Education" is directly proportional to the state of old General Motors Corporation; which, as you probably know, went bankrupt 2 years ago. God help us.

No, you can be educated and not intelligent and vice versa.

Very true. And not to be political, but I would argue that Bush the younger was well educated, while not naturally intelligent (at least not in the verbal sense). He might have been highly intelligent kinesthetically. God bless Howard Gardner.

Considering half the population by definition has an IQ between 90 and 110, to say the middle class is at 110-130 is either the most elite middle class ever, or just number spewing. Only 23% of the population falls in the range you propose.

I am fond of this expression myself: "90% of all statistics quoted are made up on the spot."

 

[russ_watters]

I initially went to college with a bunch of ex-Soviets (mostly Armenians). I used to get a kick out of their claims of how superior their educational system was.

Interesting - I went to college with an ex-Soviet who gave talks about how people were brainwashed into believing in the USSR's superiority and that when they found out it wasn't true, their world came crashing-down around them. I wonder what causes such diametrically opposed views of the same situation. Perhaps...

Sure thing, guys, your nation just collapsed and is in such a third world state that you're flooding into mine.

...some realize the contradiction and some don't.

 

[JDStupi]

I would truly say that I do not know how to "reform" the education system, most likely because my views are based around the relation between "knowledge" and "knowing". For me, these two things are states-of-mind, the current education system is based around obtaining "knowledge"- static collections of fact, as opposed to "knowing" which is the state of mind of thinking about something and attempting to grasp it intuitively. True understanding lies in taking what you have learned and assmilating it into your schema, your overall thought process. This is not stressed, and I see it as a cultural problem. In our culture we are very much based around production, getting jobs and making more money--this is even how it is sold to us as children "Do those and you'll make more money" "you can't get a good job unless you do x" etc etc, so teachers may sometimes acknowledge the perceived drudgery of learning, but dangle the future rewards in front of the students in order to keep them going. The system that is based around static accumulation of fact is an efficient method of transmitting the relevant body of information necessary to keep our society operating smoothly, unfortunatley in my opinion the aim of education is to teach people how to think properly and reason for themselves, in order to become better people. If the aim of education is simply to keep things going, we seem to be doing fine, of course the problem is that the static collection is not very elastic, and when faced with a new historical or societal problem not anticipated in the past structuring of the system, things can take longer to re-orient themselves. This is not the case with a ystem based around intelligence and understanding, because it is the true creative understanding that breaks through and solves problems. Now, the question is this: Is modern society coming to a turning point in the way international economies are interacting that may force us to re-evaluate how we transmit information? May we find that with new times, new demands and shifting global arena (globalization, etc) may we need to step up our "game" in order to be competitive? Next question being Will it make a difference in the long run or will we simply shift the guiding framework while still not stressing individual thought?

 

[FrancisZ]

I would truly say that I do not know how to "reform" the education system, most likely because my views are based around the relation between "knowledge" and "knowing". For me, these two things are states-of-mind, the current education system is based around obtaining "knowledge"- static collections of fact, as opposed to "knowing" which is the state of mind of thinking about something and attempting to grasp it intuitively.

You're saying that we need to encourage more analytical thinking, rather than simple memorize of facts. I agree. And honestly, the educational "community," if you will, has been trying to facilitate that end (to teach people to apply their collected knowledge to a unique situation).

The unfortunate thing, is that in recent history (approximately the last 15-20 years), they have moved away from rote memorization entirely; and that has been really detrimental.

I think the goal needs to be adapted. Rote memorization is necessary in early childhood education; say from Kindergarten to 4th or 5th grade. And then as the student grows older, you as their teacher--with that strong foundation--are able to develop their analytical sensibilities.

What I am saying, is that it's a lot harder to teach people to apply their knowledge to a unique set of circumstances, when they don't have a lot of basic concepts (e.g. multiplication) to begin with.

I've actually been told (more like told-off, in a sense) by a professor of junior college, that he had a student refer to his calculator, to determine 1 x 12! Needless to say: some where along the line, we failed. Had to have.

And that is the outcome of doing what someone above you, in administration, told you to do; rather than what your own gut knows--and what many generations before you, have known--is the right thing to do.

Now, the question is this: Is modern society coming to a turning point, in the way international economies are interacting, that may force us to re-evaluate how we transmit information?

Yes, I think so. If you get into education yourself, as an occupation, you'll notice that schools are pushing "technology" a lot these days. And that's all well and good. However, I have to say: I absolutely despise administrators that, essentially, think they can throw computers at a problem. Years ago, they used to throw money at a problem; now they spend big bucks on "technology"--as if that were a magic word somehow--but don't actually address the more serious issue of limited space, desks, books, and faculty. It's so stupid--and you'd think that these people were educated enough themselves, not to be so blind. Frankly, it has to be on purpose, the stupid crap they do.

Students today, don't really need "typing class" anymore--they grew up with the internet. What they need is to learn acceptable styles of communication (both verbal, and textual). They need an etiquette class more than a technology class.

What they really ought to stress more than simple typing, in computer classrooms, is programming. Also, it would be nice, to teach them to have some respect for tradition too.

Let me tell you: there is nothing worse than a snot nose kid in 6th grade, that somehow has himself convinced that you're computer illiterate. Meanwhile, the same kid cannot form a coherent thought on paper--because he doesn't know how to write...with his hands! I feel like saying sometimes: "I was programming VCR's before you were a glimmer in your postman's eyes!"

But that would be rotten.

Still, once again: some idiot at the State Department of Education, felt it wasn't important that they actually learned how to write in script. I actually had a kid yell at me one for referring to a script lower case k, as exactly what it is. "What do you mean k--that's a letter R; as in, you're retarded Mr. Teacher!" Apparently, he wasn't taught about script...ever.

And not to sound like an old-fogey either--I really don't like it when people say "what's the matter with these kids today?!"

Something else, that I have noticed though: is that the ability to read analog clocks has completely gone out the window; which is remarkably to me, seeing as how that's the only kind of clock you ever see in schools. I think it would be funny really, to install digital clocks in classrooms. It'd almost look like a count down to a detonation (maybe on the brain trust)!

But, I digress. What I think would really be nice, as far as technology is concerned, is just exactly like what you see on those Cisco ads (you know...with "Ellen" *says as if he knew who that was*)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHFUwFgu5w4

Next question being Will it make a difference in the long run or will we simply shift the guiding framework while still not stressing individual thought?

At risk of sounding like a political dissident: I think a little bit skepticism is always healthy. There has always been unnecessary indoctrination, in our schools (not just Germany's schools). When I was growing up, I remember reading a paragraph, on a standardized test, about the Ford Probe, of all things. That's certainly free advertising; and I believe, one could argue: a mild form of brainwashing also.

Doubt is good--it makes you a sincere intellectual.

 

[Chi Meson]

...
yadda yadda yadda
...

I am fond of this expression myself: "90% of all statistics quoted are made up on the spot."

That's not true. Only 67% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

By the way, it's good to see another HS teacher on the forums! So, Everybody:

What he said!
(Except, I'm not completely sold on Gardner)

I have time for one supporting comment re "technology in the classroom." School boards have been nuts over technology for two decades at least. The notion that every student gets a laptop has been a huge drain on resources. When $240,000 is spent on 250 laptops for about 2000 students, you have to ponder: that is the salary for 5 teachers for a year; the computers will be obsolete in 4 years; an IT professional must be hired, permanently, to keep those computers working; those computers will be used maybe 1/3 of the time during school. Good investment? you be the judge.

Smart boards: I love my Promethean board. I couldn't wait to get it, but I had to. We got three, at first, for all 14 of the science teachers at my school. I said "gimme gimme, I'll start using it tomorrow.' They said, "No, we'll give it to the three Chemistry teachers, so that they all will start using it and learn together." (The fact that Pfizer gave the school money for them might have something to do with that decision.)

So, three $6000+ boards stayed stuck to those teacher's whiteboards as they ignored them and worked around them, not bothering to learn how to use them. For nearly a full year. BUT we had TECHNOLOGY in the classroom. One teacher actually removed it from his whiteboard, and the Smartboard sat on the floor in the back of his lab.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe that education in the US or any nation is uneven, but the capabilities of people to learn is also uneven.

If I had stayed at my first high school, I would not have had the opportunities to take Calculus, two years of chemistry, or the level of physics, whic I did at the second high school. One of my classmates from the first high school described a rather poor experience in the only chemistry course that was taught. He said that the teacher did all the experiments, and the only time they touched equipment was to inventory the equipment at each station at the beginning and end of the year. In contrast, I took two years of chemistry and the students did all the experiments, including chemical synthesis, in conjunction with the classroom lessons on the theory. Toward the end of the 2nd year, we employed calculus (e.g., differential equations).

On the other hand, I spent my free time in the school library, the city library, and the libraries at a couple of local universities. I would read on various subjects, e.g., history, social sciences, as well as math, chemisty and physics - and I never could get enough. I learned many things outside of the classroom, which sometimes proved useful in writing papers, doing term projects or research, or arguing with teachers.

Had I lived in another city, town, state, or country, I may not have had the opportunities to do what I did. My education was partly due to the particular teachers, the particular school, but a lot has to do with my own initiative.

If one looks at the percentage of the population that holds MS or PhD in any particular discipline, one can see that the education is non-uniform. I see it locally, where what is available at an inner city high school is way less than the larger one in the suburbs. But even at the one in the suburbs, probably a few percent of students really excell to the point where they could be accepted to a top university.

 

[JDStupi]

First, allow me to say that I am but a mere relatively recent high-school graduate, so I find FrancisZ's comments to be much more holistic or informed from what is, for me, the opposite end of the spectrum. I definatley agree with everything that you said, and there was much I would not have known about the inner workings of the teacher-side of things. I definatley wish to say that it clearly is a larger problem than simply on the teacher level of things, I say this because I have had some tremendous teachers who have even complained about how the classes are all about teaching to tests. I had an English teacher who would always stress that he was unhappy about having to teach toward the test and that all you had to do for the tests was "creatively ********", which is the truth. I've had teachers who would try to stress thinking as best they could, but were limited by some type of administrative constraint. As a side note, I will say that the "good teachers" were mostly English and I had a good German teacher who had a Doctorate in Sanskrit literature, spoke Hindi, German and who knows what else, lived in India etc etc (from New JErsey). The Math curriculum, I'm all about complete reform of that. If any of you are Math teachers, I've had the idea of having students run around with pieces of paper with symbols on them (not even familiar symbols necessarily) and having them perform some type of computational operation with them, based on some rules (kind of like a John Searle Chinese Room thing) and then asking the students if they knew what they were doing, and making a point of how that is MAthematics education. This is why I feel we need to reform, and why everybody hates Math, because all it is taught as is random sumbolic operation according to rules- there is no creativity in math, there is no originality in math, there are no ideas in math, and hose who are "good" at math are essentially good at computing things. This is the message that makes its way across, now personally I know the contrary and find mathematics fascinating, but many many many people absolutley have no clue about "real" mathematics or creativity and originality in MAthematics, no clue. They don't stress "Here is an idea, there once was a time when this wasn't around, what made somebody think about this? How did they develop this idea? Why was it important? How do we use it?" Only the last question is somewhat answered, by trying to poorly motivate math problems with "real-life" examples from some stale textbook.
Regarding what Astronuc said, I completely agree and have always felt that the education system should teach people to think and learn, so that they are motivated to possibly go out and learn on their own. I greatly enjoyed reading things alll throughout my educational career and people never understood "how I knew stuff". Wellllll, I read a book (or more). But then again as I said in my first post, it is very much a cultural problem. Maybe every thinking young person has dreams of being able to change the culture, but this is what I find key. this is because in any society, but especially in a democratically based society, The governmental, the economic, the legal, the educational, and the cultural are all in such an active dynamic relationship, that to truly change anything we need to blitzkrieg the system. The educational being an important part to start with, but if a culture of not-learning continues, then education can go so far. I, by the way, for clarifications sake was not a "nerd" in high school (not that there is anything wrong with that) I enjoyed partying, girls, drinking, and all that good stuff, but I also balanced it with a healthy enjoyment of learning. Point being, culturally everybody has this bias against "nerds" and feels that if you know some things, you'll turn into some anti-social, ackward "nerd", this is just simply not the case, in fact, I knew many "nerds" in high-school who were simply not smart, just ackward, but because they were nerdy they were recognized as "smart", because nobody had the capacity to reason for themselves whether or not he was smart, they simply reliedon some cultural stereotype to dictate to them what was smart...blah blah blah end rant

 

[FrancisZ]

That's not true. Only 67% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

Heretic!

By the way, it's good to see another HS teacher on the forums! So, Everybody:

What he said!
(Except, I'm not completely sold on Gardner)

I appreciate that. The thing with Gardner, that I really do admire, is that he acknowledges the validity of other forms of skill; those outside of Mathematics and Language.

When you take the SATs, for example, it is primarily a measure of your present verbal and mathematical condition. It isn't at any point, an art test. Which makes me wonder: how many kids would pass a test, if a portion of their exam was to see how well they could replicate a cartoon rabbits head. Or, what would happen if we forced people to do gymnastics for their high school equivalency exam. Point of fact: we just don't value those sorts of abilities; so we don't stress them (even though we may actually admire them).

I have time for one supporting comment re "technology in the classroom." School boards have been nuts over technology for two decades at least. The notion that every student gets a laptop has been a huge drain on resources. When $240,000 is spent on 250 laptops for about 2000 students, you have to ponder: that is the salary for 5 teachers for a year; the computers will be obsolete in 4 years; an IT professional must be hired, permanently, to keep those computers working; those computers will be used maybe 1/3 of the time during school. Good investment? you be the judge.

You're preaching to the choir my friend. And not for anything, but in Catholic schools at least, they keep firing people all of the time (to meet their supposed budgets). It isn't to say that administrative hands aren't tied in a down economy; understandably, they may get grants specifically for tech, and not for overhead. But wouldn't it be nice, if they also would come up with a grant to keep a few extra people on staff, these days? The work load on those that get to actually keep their jobs, can be ridiculous, as a result of other layoffs. I had to teach 7 classes a day (all different levels); and my boss actually wanted me to teach an 8th class (looked at me like I was nuts to refuse). If I had, I wouldn't have had lunch then (which was spent monitoring the students anyway). It was either that, or I'd have try to behave as a parallel "Quantum Francis" of sorts.

Smart boards: I love my Promethean board. I couldn't wait to get it, but I had to. We got three, at first, for all 14 of the science teachers at my school. I said "gimme gimme, I'll start using it tomorrow.' They said, "No, we'll give it to the three Chemistry teachers, so that they all will start using it and learn together." (The fact that Pfizer gave the school money for them might have something to do with that decision.)

So, three $6000+ boards stayed stuck to those teacher's whiteboards as they ignored them and worked around them, not bothering to learn how to use them. For nearly a full year. BUT we had TECHNOLOGY in the classroom. One teacher actually removed it from his whiteboard, and the Smartboard sat on the floor in the back of his lab.

I've certainly appreciated my Smartboards (Mnemonics and Techquipment brands) for something like graphing, in particular. I just don't like one thing--one technology--in lieu of another. Why can't I have several varying degrees of technology, as I need them?

For example: I find that if you're doing a lengthy derivation, sometimes it's good not to obscure to students, any portion of the algorithm you're working out. But the Smartboards, I've had anyway, are significantly limited in breadth; and even though the software allows you to scroll sideways, or up-and-down, that still forces me to cover up what I'm trying to show my students, as part of a larger picture. So that's kind of annoying, as a math teacher anyway.

Also, in one place, they permanently mounted my Smartboard to the old blackboard (right in the center); thereby obstructing it, and debilitating me from working with them in tandem (which is also something I like doing).

Another school simply refused to mount the projector. So every time some kid would come in, and even jar the cart it was on slightly, I'd have to recalibrate the pen. Also, with all of the wires leading to the receptacle, it's easy to trip over. Kids know this, and they cause problems anyway they can.

I say: save yourself the aggravation, by mounting the damn camera out of their reach; and use a remote to engage it.

I also prefer an overhead projector, for going over homework daily--because it doesn't force me to turn my back while using it. Best to keep an eye on the students, you know.

Had I lived in another city, town, state, or country, I may not have had the opportunities to do what I did. My education was partly due to the particular teachers, the particular school, but a lot has to do with my own initiative.

This is very true.

Part of what we do though, as teachers, I think is really a form of Social Work. A good teacher is truly one that is: (A) part Comedian (to keep students awake); (B) part Secretary (to keep everything organized); (C) part Boss (to set a good example, keep order, and make everyone know that their contribution is important); and (D) a good Priest (so that they know that you care, and that you're willing to help them).

First, allow me to say that I am but a mere relatively recent high-school graduate, so I find FrancisZ's comments to be much more holistic or informed from what is, for me, the opposite end of the spectrum. I definatley agree with everything that you said, and there was much I would not have known about the inner workings of the teacher-side of things. I definatley wish to say that it clearly is a larger problem than simply on the teacher level of things, I say this because I have had some tremendous teachers who have even complained about how the classes are all about teaching to tests.

I appreciate that; and thank-you.

I had an English teacher who would always stress that he was unhappy about having to teach toward the test and that all you had to do for the tests was "creatively ********", which is the truth. I've had teachers who would try to stress thinking as best they could, but were limited by some type of administrative constraint. As a side note, I will say that the "good teachers" were mostly English and I had a good German teacher who had a Doctorate in Sanskrit literature, spoke Hindi, German and who knows what else, lived in India etc etc (from New JErsey). The Math curriculum, I'm all about complete reform of that.

I have to say, I respect immensely, something one of my Russian born professors was inclined to do: which was to make us do an assignment over and over and over again, until we finally did it right. Russians can be very stubborn, in a good way. She could have done with a little less abrasiveness, in her personality, I felt; but it was still clear to all of us that she indeed meant well.

She wasn't fake at all--she was totally about substance. For her, it wasn't enough to have a vague notion of something; which is something I also feel we are too inclined toward, in the United States.

If any of you are Math teachers, I've had the idea of having students run around with pieces of paper with symbols on them (not even familiar symbols necessarily) and having them perform some type of computational operation with them, based on some rules (kind of like a John Searle Chinese Room thing) and then asking the students if they knew what they were doing, and making a point of how that is MAthematics education.

I'm a math teacher. Or I was anyway.

I think what you're suggesting is very idealistic, and creative. It's the sort of thing that we could do, if we only had more time; such as in a Montessori setting.

To extrapolate: I am reminded somewhat of the notion of "mechanical television;" which was something that was actually being worked on, before and up to the advent of "electronic television." It's one of those things, that had we tried long enough, we might very well have gotten to work. Ultimately, electronic television prevailed, however; probably because it was a more practical idea.

Another example: launching people into orbit. We had in fact the notion of "flying" into orbit (and we might eventually go back to that); which, to me at least, sounds a lot more elegant and graceful, than say "blasting" somebody into space. Still, which did we ultimately succeed at first? We did it, the "brute force" method, because that is what our counterparts were doing, with success, before we could do it better.

The point I'm trying to make is that I believe YOU ARE RIGHT: there isn't always just ONE way to look at something; there isn't strictly, one method that works.

I would like to say though, that one of the things that attracted to me mathematics, was the fact that it has consistent rules--something that we can all know and agree on. And as they used to say in those old public service announcements on GI JOE: "knowing is half the battle." Or perhaps, it would be better to say: "Agreeing is half the battle."

Maybe in more ways than one.

This is why I feel we need to reform, and why everybody hates Math, because all it is taught as is random sumbolic operation according to rules- there is no creativity in math, there is no originality in math, there are no ideas in math, and hose who are "good" at math are essentially good at computing things. This is the message that makes its way across, now personally I know the contrary and find mathematics fascinating, but many many many people absolutley have no clue about "real" mathematics or creativity and originality in MAthematics, no clue. They don't stress "Here is an idea, there once was a time when this wasn't around, what made somebody think about this? How did they develop this idea? Why was it important?

I definitely agree: it would be cool to learn things from an actual historical perspective. Sometimes it isn't enough to say to a student: "well, just because I said so." It takes more patience, dedication and time.

...Wellllll, I read a book (or more). But then again as I said in my first post, it is very much a cultural problem. Maybe every thinking young person has dreams of being able to change the culture, but this is what I find key. this is because in any society, but especially in a democratically based society, The governmental, the economic, the legal, the educational, and the cultural are all in such an active dynamic relationship, that to truly change anything we need to blitzkrieg the system.

People can get hurt though. We have to be less a bull in a china shop sometimes. Even Darth Vader had good intentions once.

The educational being an important part to start with, but if a culture of not-learning continues, then education can go so far. I, by the way, for clarifications sake was not a "nerd" in high school (not that there is anything wrong with that) I enjoyed partying, girls, drinking, and all that good stuff, but I also balanced it with a healthy enjoyment of learning. Point being, culturally everybody has this bias against "nerds" and feels that if you know some things, you'll turn into some anti-social, ackward "nerd", this is just simply not the case, in fact, I knew many "nerds" in high-school who were simply not smart, just ackward,

...that's a "dweeb" I think.

but because they were nerdy they were recognized as "smart", because nobody had the capacity to reason for themselves whether or not he was smart, they simply reliedon some cultural stereotype to dictate to them what was smart...blah blah blah end rant

There is always a problem--in this country at least--of being socially intolerant and "pigeon-holing."

I wonder, honestly, if it's like that in Japan, China, or modern Germany.

 

[Astronuc]

Part of what we do though, as teachers, I think is really a form of Social Work. A good teacher is truly one that is: (A) part Comedian (to keep students awake); (B) part Secretary (to keep everything organized); (C) part Boss (to set a good example, keep order, and make everyone know that their contribution is important); and (D) a good Priest (so that they know that you care, and that you're willing to help them).

Yes - definitely - and that is often not understood by the public/parents. If parents think their one, two or few children are a challenge, then imagine 20-30-40 students each with different capabilities, different interests and going in different directions. This includes students who may have physiological issues (e.g., poor eyesight, hearing, . . .) or learning deficits.

Add to that the occassional kid(s) who was molested, beaten or otherwise abused by a parent or guardian or other adult or peer, or a kid(s) who witnessed parents going at each other. How does a teacher get to those kids.

As children, my parents read to us, to the point where we could read on our own. They bought books for us. My father had a study and library. In my earliest years, two or three walls of his study were shelves of books. At the other extreme are kids whose parents seem oblivious to education. We have quite a few poor families at the school where my wife teaches. Those parents can barely afford to feed and clothe their kids. My wife noticed one kid who would spend time in the library reading geography books and pouring over atlases. At the end of the year, we bought the child an atlas, because his parents couldn't afford to buy such book. My wife wasn't supposed to do that because it's against school policy. A child's education is more important that an arbitrary system.

 

[FrancisZ]

Yes - definitely - and that is often not understood by the public/parents. If parents think their one, two or few children are a challenge, then imagine 20-30-40 students each with different capabilities, different interests and going in different directions.

Frankly, it's harder than I know it sounds to most people. The difficulty is not so much in getting their attention, as it is keeping it. Now more than ever: respect is earned, and not given. And in my heart of hearts, I value that (even if it would make my job easier had they--my students--always been nice to me). I am too much like them myself, I guess.

A few things that I am certain of, as a teacher:

(1) If they hate the subject already, then they will not like you initially;

(2) If they hate you, then they will likely grow to detest the subject (because, YOU truly--whether you realize it or not--are actually the living embodiment of math to them; or history, or whatever subject you teacher);

(3) You will indeed pay for every sin ever committed against each of your students, before they ever had you (also the sins committed against their parents).So the most important thing, always, is just to be a good soul, as often, and as much as you possibly can. It heals a lot of hurt (in them), even while it hurts (you) a lot itself. You just cannot be nasty, no matter how cruel anyone is to you.

Come to think of it: that's probably the hardest part; even more than keeping their attention.

This includes students who may have physiological issues (e.g., poor eyesight, hearing, . . .) or learning deficits.

Add to that the occassional kid(s) who was molested, beaten or otherwise abused by a parent or guardian or other adult or peer, or a kid(s) who witnessed parents going at each other. How does a teacher get to those kids.

Truthfully: you tell them about yourself--your own trials and tribulations--in between segments of the lesson; and you never ask personal questions of them (unless you know they trust you). You don't volunteer these things of course; but you do it naturally, during the course of your time together. They appreciate that, I think. Very often they can relate.

One of the most empowering realizations, that I have ever come across in my life, is simply this: No one goes through life unscathed.

People don't like to be perceived as weak ever; especially not to strangers. But we still all really have been damaged emotionally (to a degree), by the trying conditions of simply living on this planet, and around one another. And so, the simple fact of the matter, I have come to believe: is that I know that I'm not okay, really; and I know that you're not okay, really either; but somehow...it's still okay that we aren't okay, because we have each other to understand and to help, when we need it.

And in that, I have found: there is a very sublime notion of equality, that washes over you, when you finally admit that to yourself--that you're basically screwed up somehow, in your own way. It also reminds me not to get too mad at anyone; and not to be judgmental.

As children, my parents read to us, to the point where we could read on our own. They bought books for us. My father had a study and library. In my earliest years, two or three walls of his study were shelves of books.

I was lucky that way too. My mother always read to us, and never denied us educational visits or reading material.

At the other extreme are kids whose parents seem oblivious to education. We have quite a few poor families at the school where my wife teaches. Those parents can barely afford to feed and clothe their kids. My wife noticed one kid who would spend time in the library reading geography books and pouring over atlases. At the end of the year, we bought the child an atlas, because his parents couldn't afford to buy such book. My wife wasn't supposed to do that because it's against school policy. A child's education is more important that an arbitrary system.

I know I hate that feeling: to choose to do the right thing, and then be made to feel guilty for it. Children respect a generous spirit.

 

[Proton Soup]

I keep getting told by my parents how we grow up learning so much less than they have when they were growing up in the soviet union. Is our education really so inferior? I've attended top schools my entire life (until college) and I don't really think it's fair to say that I'm necessarily stupid.

My main two questions are pretty much this:

Is our education really getting that worse over time?

Is American education really as bad as Michael Moore makes it seem? Or are we just being pushed in a sense to be even smarter?

did everyone in the soviet union get a superior education? what about stupid Ivan who was destined to be a factory worker?

i'm not exactly sure how it is done today, but when i was in school, if we had 150 students in one grade, they would be divided up into 6 groups based on academic performance. students in group 1 got challenged much more than students in group 6. although by the end, it was still painfully clear that all of us were lacking in english and literature skills. but public schools are probably not where you can expect to get the highest quality education.

what i am seeing in college now, that i think has changed in the past 20 years, is that there is more teaching for passing the test, and less critical thinking. and then the tests are of the "multiple guess" variety, usually. this leads to more recognition memory and less recall memory. or, it could be that I've just gotten more critical over time. it's certainly easy to get an "A" now with very little study.

in any case, i do wonder if your parents were among the elite in the former USSR.

 

[D H]

I keep getting told by my parents how we grow up learning so much less than they have when they were growing up in the soviet union.

There can be no doubt that having to walk ten miles to school through the snow, uphill both ways no less, somehow improves the quality of one's education.

did everyone in the soviet union get a superior education? what about stupid Ivan who was destined to be a factory worker?

i'm not exactly sure how it is done today, but when i was in school, if we had 150 students in one grade, they would be divided up into 6 groups based on academic performance. students in group 1 got challenged much more than students in group 6.

That agrees with what I have read on education in the Soviet Union. Russia and several other former republics in the old Soviet Union have more or less retained that education system. Key point: From the first grade on up, educational inequality was a hallmark of that old Soviet education system. Students who managed to make it into the top group, whether by merit or by bribery, did receive a superior education.

My opinion: If anything, public education in the US suffers from trying too hard to be "fair". As a result mediocrity is the hallmark of education systems in the US. Moves to mitigate that emphasis on mediocrity have been met with sometimes fierce resistance. Resistance comes from parents whose kids are not gifted, talented, or challenged; from teachers who ofttimes are over-worked, underpaid, and under-skilled; from bureaucracies that don't want to mess with the nuances; along with misguided people of all ilk who think that offering a better education to those who can handle is somehow unfair. Those education systems in the US that do have some type of gradation only have three levels: Gifted and talented, plain jane, and special needs. The Soviet Union had many more than that.

"American" Education? As a professional teacher, I (very regrettably) can plainly tell you, that there's really no such thing. A lot (too much I would say) is left for the individual states to outline and implement; and in many instances, that merely amounts to a lot of self-regulation, number fudging, potential embezzlement, and other oodles of corruption ...

Careful what you wish for, Francis. I suspect that the end result of moving toward a single, nationwide education system would be mediocrity gone wild. How to teach someone well remains more of an art than a science. Education is chock-full of fad techniques of the day as a result. Your example of kids from New Jersey not knowing the multiplication tables is a case in point. Rote memorization when taken to excess is bad. Some fool took this to the foolish extreme that rote memorization is bad, period, and foisted this silly notion on some school (schools?) in New Jersey. Instead of being isolated to schools in New Jersey this stupid notion could easily become national policy if we truly did have a national education system.

 

[Proton Soup]

speaking of rote memorization, we learned times tables (thru 12x12) in 2nd grade. :/

and i can normally still remember them all instantly, except maybe when suffering from lactate poisoning.

 

[FrancisZ]

Careful what you wish for, Francis. I suspect that the end result of moving toward a single, nationwide education system would be mediocrity gone wild. How to teach someone well remains more of an art than a science. Education is chock-full of fad techniques of the day as a result. Your example of kids from New Jersey not knowing the multiplication tables is a case in point. Rote memorization when taken to excess is bad. Some fool took this to the foolish extreme that rote memorization is bad, period, and foisted this silly notion on some school (schools?) in New Jersey. Instead of being isolated to schools in New Jersey this stupid notion could easily become national policy if we truly did have a national education system.

I'm not saying that there isn't the potential for corruption at the Federal level (I'm sure that there is now anyway). But I really have lost all respect for state control; having lived and learned and taught, in even two that are immediately beside one another. It's disgraceful really. Moving to New Jersey from Brooklyn, NY should not have been like going to another country as a kid. There ought to have been greater continuity, in school at least. And there still ought to be.

I sense where you're going with this. And quite frankly: it scares the beegeezus out of me, what has been going on with curricula and textbooks in Texas (among other places).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

I'm saying this as a reasonably educated person, and a Catholic: I wish that people, in a position of authority (such as being on a School Board) would simply leave the WHY to Philosophers and the HOW to Scientists.

I had several nuns in high school, myself. 2 of them taught our science courses; 1 taught music; and virtually all of them taught us religion, in one respect or another. One sister was a Biologist, and another a Chemist. We learned about Evolution and The Big Bang. It was never an issue.

Something like mathematics shouldn't really be up for debate though, anyway.

So long as the states maintain their varied curricula, I don't think we'll be able to compete academically with other nations like Japan. We ought to be doing what they're doing.

 

[D H]

I'm not saying that there isn't the potential for corruption at the Federal level (I'm sure that there is now anyway).

Francis, your focus on corruption as the root of evil in the education system indicates to me that you have spent too much time in New York and New Jersey. You are forgetting the famous adage: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Take your example of students never learning the multiplication tables. How does corruption explain that? Stupidity certainly does---and it is exactly the same kind of stupidity that leads some teachers to mark student errors in purple ink rather than red, or even worse, never mark errors at all.

It is stupidity and a massive bureaucratic mess that scares me a whole lot more about the concept of a national education system than does corruption.

 

[D H]

So long as the states maintain their varied curricula, I don't think we'll be able to compete academically with other nations like Japan. We ought to be doing what they're doing.

What, specifically, do you think Japan is doing better than us? What, specifically, do you think we should we do to change that? How would a national curriculum help?

Japan envy is so last millennium. Japan now has the same kinds of problems as does the US such as declining standards and students and parents who do not value a good education.