The Best Education?

[Silkie McDonough]

No child left behind m'arse! No child actually educated or interested is more likely!

[Mission]

They were grumbling about the "No Child Left Behind" thing which teaches to a test in the PiP forum and it made me curious about what people thing the best way to educate kids is. This isn't meant to be a political discussion (Politics taint too many things already, why let it spoil education too?) and is certainly not meant as I am posing it as a place to discuss the election-related policies. It's more a question of what is the best way to educate people in their required schooling.

It seems to me that the problem revolves more around the fact that schools are designed to be one-size-fits-all because of several factors, among them 1) It's easier (and thus cheaper) 2) Teachers tend to be people who prefer more predictability than average (This is an over-generalization, not true in all cases, but fairly accurate on the average.) 3) We decide we want more ____ and we orient the standard to that. (The blank changes with the vagaries of the social perception of what will be needed in the future - right now I think the magic compass is pointed towards health care based on discussions with kids in their first two years of college. We occasionally hear about the need for engineers and scientists as well. Whatever it is, it's seems to be primarily based on the short-term view of the world.) 4) A desire for testability - results must be proven. 5) The mandatory teaching of certain skills are highly valued by our society and must be taught - such as reading, texting and arithmetic.

I am well out of school, although I usually take college classes to keep my mind spinning. But I have no flipping clue what is being taught in the required portion of education today. I suspect it is vastly different than what (and how) I learned. (Naturally, the way I was educated at the starting level was definitely the best way and it makes no sense to me that it was ever changed. I'm sure you'll find this to be true in your case as well, but since it has...)

What'll it be? How should we do it? Any thoughts? (I know, it's a huge topic. Play with it. Be nice and avoid the temptation to parrot the political eyewash.)

[Cpt Sophia M Eisley]

I wish school had incorporated more real time experience than it had in my past. Sure, we had field trips to museums and other places that got us away from the everyday, but we didn't get alot of opportunities to take what we were learnng and implement it in a real life setting.

That's probably why I'm an advocate for the self taught (or schooling similar to) these days. I can deal with a structured learning environment, but I prefer being out there in the world, being educated on the job or in a situation where I can see things actually in motion.

[Capt. Sterling]

No child left behind m'arse! No child actually educated or interested is more likely!

And not enough teachers willing to take the time to go that extra distance to help the kids that are interested... especially if it means staying after school...

[Hawk the QM]

No child left behind m'arse! No child actually educated or interested is more likely!

And not enough teachers willing to take the time to go that extra distance to help the kids that are interested... especially if it means staying after school...

Aye, it gets worse. That be a national funded program and now they are beginning to require teacher credentials in order to tutor. Limiting the amount of help. I've seen the program and a monkey could show a child to look into a laptop at the program they use to tutor them kids.

[Mission]

I've created a topic in the Beyond Pyracy Forum (where this mutant topic actually belongs) for all those who want to propose solutions to the education problem. (With the thought that whining about a problem never solves it.) So what say we take all the educational improvement ideas and concerns to the proper forum?

[Capt. Sterling]

I've created a topic in the Beyond Pyracy Forum (where this mutant topic actually belongs) for all those who want to propose solutions to the education problem. (With the thought that whining about a problem never solves it.) So what say we take all the educational improvement ideas and concerns to the proper forum?

Gee Mission who are you assuming is whining and not doing anything about changing things?

Edited October 22, 2008 by Capt. Sterling

[Captain Jim]

No child left behind m'arse! No child actually educated or interested is more likely!

And not enough teachers willing to take the time to go that extra distance to help the kids that are interested... especially if it means staying after school...

If no child gets ahead, then no child is left behind...there's honesty there, you just have to fill in the missing words.

[Mission]

I wish school had incorporated more real time experience than it had in my past. Sure, we had field trips to museums and other places that got us away from the everyday, but we didn't get alot of opportunities to take what we were learnng and implement it in a real life setting.

This is exactly how I think education should be structured - at a certain point. The problem with education is systemic (as many people readily admit - you occasionally hear how the school season is patterned to provide optimal access of children to the family during harvest season, as a small example of this.) To create a better education system, I think we need -in part- to start from scratch.

Note that, as I jokingly explained in my first post, my opinion is colored by my experience in school. I am sure that it has changed from talking with high schoolers who are in my college classes (high school kids can now take college classes for credit - which is actually sort of cool). Still, my involvement directly in the system is from long ago. I neither have nor want kids, so I don't have a dog in the race, either. So caveat emptor.

The No Child Left Behind and resulting test seem to me to be a natural extension of the current system design. To measure education, you have to see how well the students are learning and the way we do that is with tests. So, as a logical extension, to measure the education system, you have a giant test.

Most tests have good and bad points, but in general, I see:

Some Good Test Points

▪ Easy to administer

▪ Standardized

▪ Efficient

▪ Promote Material Absorption (Temporarily at least)

Some Bad Test Points

▪ Create Stress That Can Lead to Poor Test Performance (ironically enough)

▪ Often Fail to Test Comprehension

▪ Do Not Engender Desire

▪ Punish Failure`

Some of the bad points require more explanation.

▪The comment about comprehension relates particularly to multiple guess, fill in the blank, short answer and similar tests. Although even essay questions frequently focus on remembering points rather than comprehension from my experience. We've all had the experience of learning something, never to remember it again. Exceptions here are simple task-focused tests such as those in math, reading and writing tests. (There are probably others as well.)

▪ I believe desire to learn something is the real key to true learning. A test creates a black/white "Do you know this fact?" sort of situation. You might reasonably argue that the test is not the place for creating desire for or interest in a subject.

▪ Failure is a key learning situation according to many successful people. Tests teach that failure is a bad thing, while it is actually one of the best motivator for learning. A test says "you need to know this material to get past this point" and if you don't, you get an 'X' on the paper and you've done poorly, but we move on to other material.

These points do not take the efforts of good teachers into account, of course. (I'll bet your favorite teacher was the one who gave you the most incentive to learn and made the subject interesting. Mine were, although your mileage may vary.) Plus, as I mentioned, some subjects lend themselves well to this sort of testing - usually basic skills tests with objective answers.

My basic concept (and it's just a theoretical framework) is that we should teach and focus on basic skills in the way we best know how for the first _x_ years of a student's educational career. Developmental psychology has learned a great deal about comprehension of children at different age levels (although it varies from person to person, on average there are patterns.) The mind of a child is much more pliable and literal than that of an adult and certain skills - reading/writing/languages/math and so on - seem to be most easily learned when the mind is still forming. Anyone who is going to function effectively in the world we have created needs as much of these basic skills as they can absorb. The current educational system is basically well suited for this sort of learning as far as we know. I suspect technology can play a key role in this process, although there is much to be said for the human touch. Note that I don't think a lot of non-basic skills are crucial until the key basic ones are learned. (Which I'm sure a lot of people would argue with.) History, for example, while being a subject many of us love because we find it interesting is also so open to such bias in interpretation that I'm sort of amazed we consider it to be important thing to teach at the outset of a child's life. (Feel free to disagree with me on that.)

Once basic skills are learned and the mind is more formed, I think the current system becomes less effective. This is where we need to start from scratch. To begin, you have to ask yourself, "What one thing are we trying to achieve through education?" Such a loaded question...

My answer is that we are preparing people to be successful (not to mention effective) in the world. How can we do that? I think this ties in directly to another post - If You Could Only Have One Job. Most people don't know the answer to that. So they spend years trying to (often passively) figure it out. Yet, many of the most successful people are successful because they are focused in a particular direction (note that by 'successful', I don't necessarily mean 'rich' - not everyone defines success that way, nor should they). I think the education system, once it teaches basic skills, should help people to figure out where they would be happiest contributing to the society we have designed.

Note that I am not saying we administer some test and tell people "According to the magic test, you'll make a good mechanic/engineer/nurse/dog catcher/criminal-politician" or whatever. Baloney. Skills alone do not a career make - thinking this way means you're replicating the Test fallacy I outlined above. Plus you factor the most important ingredient to a successful career out of the equation - passion. I think people need the freedom to explore careers -real careers, not the theoretical versions we get in classrooms- so that they can discover what they enjoy and excel at personally. Then they need to get the hands on and, if necessary, theoretical skills required to go ahead in that particular career. Does this mean that will actually be their career for life? Possibly, but not necessarily. Last I heard, the average kid today is projected to have 10 or 11 'careers' in their lifetime. Colleges still exist to expand skill sets (although many of them could use some jolts of reality-based experiences as well.) Still, the increasing number of average careers may be because people need change in their life...or it may be because they don't have a good handle on what they enjoy doing. Helping them early could make a whole lot of people happier and the country more productive.

Disagree? Your thoughts welcomed.

[Mission]

Note: this is split out of a topic that was in PiP and Silkie's fist post is a response to a post by Harry in 2008 Festival Schedule, which said (in part):

Of course, this is all contingent on the cooperation of the schools. They have this idiotic achievement test that they spend the bulk of the year studying for and if the teacher doesn't think the field trip subject matter fits in with the test, they don't participate. The teachers aren't happy with it, either. Something left to us by the Jr. Bush when he was the guv.

And I apologize to those who find the word 'whining' to be offensive. It was ill considered and I would have changed it to 'complaining' had I thought about it more.

[blackjohn]

(These two topics merged into one. Please continue the debate.)

[Silkie McDonough]

hmmm ...discussion ...I suppose ....but I don't want to complain. I have friends who are teachers and NOT one of them is happy with the education system. I have friends who are parents and none of them are thrilled about the education system. Where does is all fall apart? Administration? Government? Regulations? I have no answers.

[Ransom]

You have left out one of the main monkey wrenches in any school system — the parents. The schools can construct the best plans, curriculums, testing methods, etc, but if the parents don't take part of the responsibility for helping their kids through that system, then the system will likely fail.

I have a sister who has been a grade school teacher for twenty years, with a MA in teaching reading skills. Her biggest complaint is that the schools have become unpaid babysitters, or are expected to teach kids morals. If the kids misbehave in class, their options for discipline are almost nil. On the rare occasion when a child is disciplined, most often the parents are outraged, and blame the school for whatever "Little Johnny/Jane" has done.

I realize most of the "No Child Left Behind" concept is an attempt to help kids with uncooperative or nonexistant parents through the system, but teachers are teachers. A lot of them terrible, or bored, or killing time to retirement, but they can't teach and "parent" at the same time. The schools must take responsibility for what they are meant to do, but the parents also must take responsibility for their kids. Where there are no parents, or responsible guardian, then some other system needs to be put in place to help those kids, but the schools and teachers can only do so much. ( I know this opens up that whole "Society did this to me" can of worms.)

Irregardless of what system is eventually put in place, teachers have a huge influence on how, or if, a kid learns anything, or how enthusiastic they are about a subject. From my own long ago experience, even with subjects I hated, if the teacher was good, showed interest and patience, then that subject, if not exactly fun, was at least interesting and I learned something. For me, the biggest problem with teachers was that they were boring and I knew they didn't give a damned if I learned anything or not. I had a few wonderful exceptions, thank God, and they are the reason I managed to graduate from High School. But that's as far as I went. By the time I graduated, I hated school, and couldn't imagine going back for another four years of college. It's that kind of attitude in their students that teachers and "the system" need to change.

[Mission]

hmmm ...discussion ...I suppose ....but I don't want to complain. I have friends who are teachers and NOT one of them is happy with the education system. I have friends who are parents and none of them are thrilled about the education system. Where does is all fall apart? Administration? Government? Regulations? I have no answers.

I'll bet you do you have answers. I find in Brainstorming sessions I have overseen that the people who think they have no good ideas often have some of the best ones. I'm also glad your teacher friends aren't happy with the education system. They're in the best position to change it.

Has anyone else seen the movie "Stand And Deliver"? It's an excellent movie based on fact showing what one teacher can do. It's well worth your time. (And Edward James Olmos is just cool in any acting role.) Plus it's an interesting example of what students are capable of with or without parental support. (Don't underestimate desire. It's the key to learning in any situation.)

[Mission]

Irregardless of what system is eventually put in place, teachers have a huge influence on how, or if, a kid learns anything, or how enthusiastic they are about a subject. From my own long ago experience, even with subjects I hated, if the teacher was good, showed interest and patience, then that subject, if not exactly fun, was at least interesting and I learned something. For me, the biggest problem with teachers was that they were boring and I knew they didn't give a damned if I learned anything or not. I had a few wonderful exceptions, thank God, and they are the reason I managed to graduate from High School. But that's as far as I went. By the time I graduated, I hated school, and couldn't imagine going back for another four years of college. It's that kind of attitude in their students that teachers and "the system" need to change.

Yes, the teacher has massive impact on a student's performance. For a absolutely fascinating study related to this, see the Rosenthal study - a quick overview of it is on wiki under the Pygmalian Effect.

[Red-Handed Jill]

I taught at the college level, but can tell you a few things that I learned about basic human nature with regards to learning. I imagine this works for young folks as well (some of my students were quite young - even had some high school kids in my classes.)

1. People tend to rise to expectations. If you let them know that you expect them to operate at a certain level and give every indication that this is within their capabilities, they will endeavor to do so. It just goes without saying that they'll operate at this level and surprise! They do.

2. People like to be challenged. One of the things I did with some of my younger students was give them a challenge but made a sort of game out of it. They learned in spite of themselves.

3. Sometimes you have to trick them into believing that they really do know the subject. Showing confidence in them and allowing them to show off a little can go a long way.

The best teachers I observed explained the "why" as well as the "who" and/or the "what". Putting things into some sort of perspective goes a long way towards making a subject meaningful.

[Matusalem]

I was never impressed much of Margaret Spellings, the Secretary of Education. Her being a graduate of Regent university (I'm sorry, I meant Monica Goodling..they seem the same to me) that was seems to be in line with the neocon agenda of the Bush administration, and the way she thinks.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Matusalem

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Gee, you all are a ray of sunshine to an up and coming teacher.

Heres a standardized test story from the "horses mouth" (or as some would say the horses ass! )

I had to take one of those things to get from Community College to the University calle "C-Base." It has four parts; English (including an essay and multiple choice sections), science, social studies, and my favorite ...MATH! (PTOOOEY!) I had four minutes left on the four hours that one is allowed to take all four parts. The only section that is timed seperately is the essay, you get 20 minutes for that, and it comes first. The rest you are on your own to take in whatever order you choose. As I said, I had four minutes left and hadn't even looked at the math portion, so as per instruction, I started marking spots on the form as fast as I could go (you are not penalized for wrong answers so might as well guess is what we were told). If you fail a section, it can be re-taken without taking the whole thing over, so I was sure I would have to re-take the math section over, and was fully prepared to face this reality.. I marked ; B C B C B C B C B C A D B C B C B C A D B C B C etc.... When the results came back I PASSED ALL FOUR SECTIONS!!! Absolutely a true story I swear by my honor and all I hold dear.

That's standardized testing in a nutshell.

Bo

[Red-Handed Jill]

Heh - I used to work for Scantron Corporation (as in use a number two pencil) and when I told people this they'd practically run away. I had to remind them at least they were multiple choice forms and not essay forms.

[blackjohn]

Yes, the teacher has massive impact on a student's performance. For a absolutely fascinating study related to this, see the Rosenthal study - a quick overview of it is on wiki under the Pygmalian Effect.

Case in point. First semester of my college career was a total wipeout. I was *this* close to dropping out and joining the Coast Guard (but that's a different story). My second semester I decided to take some Roman history classes. One of the professors was like... some resurrected Roman general. I sincerely felt like I could not let this man down by failing. Because of the way he made me feel about learning, I aced every one of his classes.

I can also extend that to the workplace. My previous supervisor evoked the same sort of feelings. She was feared, but respected. But you knew she had your back when the shite hit the fan.

[Capt Grey]

A very interesting topic. Here is my contribution.

I have a "gifted" child and a special ed child (I say that between them I have one normal kid ) so I have seen all aspects of my school district at work.

The "No Child Left Behind" act is nothing less than governmental blackmail. Either schools improve their scores or they don't get funding. One friend who is a high school science teacher said that schools that are already outstanding don't get funds either because they haven't "improved".

My biggest concern is that teachers are expected to be nurses, psychologists, counselors, and ministers on top of teaching these kids. To add insult to injury, they have little or no power to dictate what goes on in the classroom; all that power belongs to administrators who generally have no idea how disruptive it can be in a typical class. Parents need to go back to being parents and teachers need to teach.

I always say that if my special needs child had gone to elementary school when I did (1960s), he would have been fine. But this program to push they kids to read in Kindergarten, write paragraphs in 1st grade, and teach Algebra to middle schoolers is outrageous. All you end up doing is frustrating them if they're not ready.

Right now my special ed child is in a class with multiple grade levels (1st-5th); this lets him work at his own pace where he's 1st grade in writing but 3rd grade in math. I think that sometimes the "one room school house" had the right idea with work tailored for each student's abilities; plus the option of peer tutoring where the older kids can help the younger ones.

[Salty]

fer me two pence,

parents need to be parents, teachers to teach and the goverment and business to stay out of education. Education should not be dictated by funding sources or the pursuit of business practices. Even when I went to school and this was just before the whole s&*^ storm of no child left behind hit the books. we learned at our own rates and abilities, if you had issues then you got help to complete the tasks at hand. when i went to university and found out how ill perpsred I was it was a fast dance to learn what was expected. Point being as a student you learned how to deal with what was put in front of you no matter what.....instead of being "spoon fed" the information to pass an exam that has no vaule or bearing in the real world.

Of all the techniquies that have been implememted in education the most recent have been disasterous to teaching and learning both. college now is nothing more then a business to make money at the cost of acutul learning. As a preservice teacher, I am not looking foreward to dealing with the repurcussions of it. That said they have to be dealt with until it changes.....unfortunelty it is the students that are getting the brunt of the bad effects of being taught to the test.

When we stand up and fight for our educational rights for our childern and future generations then perhaps the problems in educaiton can start to be fixed and better choices made at ruling what is important.. intelligence or monetary gains.

Ye ship's potter and soon to be teacher,

Salty

[callenish gunner]

It is most unfortunate that one point that is often overlooked in the "no child left behind" legislation ...is that it is set up as a fail/fail system you must make your initial target goal then every year thereafter you must meet annual improvement targets. This doesn't take into consideration the actual demographics of the individual schools; how many English as a second language students you have, or special needs kids there are since only a certain percentage of those students can be excluded from your reporting statistics. If the school district misses the target they are penalized by the withholding of federal funding. That is the key issue FEDERAL FUNDING; if the schools miss the target they are rated as "needs improvement" which restricts their funding, then they must improve and also meet the projected yearly improvement target with less funding. So when they fail to show measurable improvement they are placed at the non-compliant phase of the program and subject to Department of Education control measures which often means the removal of local educators and Corporate Educational control. Which means that the schools you send your children to are now "company" schools; whose goal is to turn out good "worker bees" with enough independent thought to follow directions (standardized tests) and not to question authority or become creative.

So, if the public school fails, place the control into corporate hands; and corporations work for profit not general good of the population at large. But when the corporations take over the schools they aren't given the same performance mandates as the public schools are, they are exempt. Which is where it gets even more scary, society has removed the controls from the cirriculum from public scrutiny and it is left in the hands of the corporation and since the corporations have contributed so much resources to politicians who have written these mandates. It creates a vicious conflict of interest, that leave our children in the lurch and the future of the educational process vulnerable.

The other aspect of the legislation that doesn't hold water is that it makes the intellectual assumption that every student has the same level of innate ability to assimilate the tested material at the same rate. This is a major stumbling block to this perspective toward education, the real world tells us that some students will grow up to be brick masons and some others will become neurosurgeons. If it was a "one size fits all" world the two could be interchangeable. Every student is an individual and therefore will perform at their own level; those who would excel will excel and those who will be average will be just that average, and those who are less intellectually gifted will seek their own level. The current system (no child left behind) actually encourages those lower performing at the bottom of the scale to withdraw from the school system(drop-out) so that their attendance in the standardized testing pool doesn't adversely affect the schools statistics. The testing mandates assumes that every student is destined for academia not for the labour pool which is one reason I feel we have the disparity in the social acceptance of manual labourers and the elitist educated class and that jobs are relegated to those outside our societal "norms" fit only for illegal aliens who want to live within our society to obtain the benefits and potential of improvement that this society has offered in the past. It comes down to the perception that our society has no room for those who are tactile/physical contributors to the society and not just cerebral/thinkers who manage or theorize but don't produce those things that have become the part of our material culture.

When we as a culture and society segregate those among us to fill only prescribed roles based on the passage of an arbitrary and standardized test we reduce the value of those people as individuals as valuable contributors to our society.

Teachers have some impact to the process but not as much as you might want to think. They are mandated the curriculum they must teach and with the legislation they have become caught within the framework of the system that keeps them from going beyond the norm of performance to get their students to think beyond the "test". So much emphasis is placed on the results of the "test" that the schools themselves have even worse test anxiety than do the students. Their own performance is brought into question by the results of the tests, that many otherwise good teachers feel hobbled by what they need to "produce" that they lose their individual motivation to give anything more than what meets the criterion of the desired test results.

Yes, there are bad teachers out there but they are not the majority they are a relatively small minority but those marginal teachers who could become better teachers are left with little motivation or alternative by the confines of the culture of the NCLB. Many aspiring teachers get burned out by the constraints placed on them to meet the performance targets of their students that they leave the profession within the first five years(approximately 60%) because they can make much more money in the corporate world and not be held to such rigid standards as the laws places on them as teachers. And since most teachers are also mandated to continue their own education beyond a four year college degree they see minimal incentive to remain working at the bottom of a pay-scale for those with advanced educational degrees. That is left to those who feel either the passion to teach or to the drones waiting to retire with a pension and receive a paycheck for what they see as a cushy job with so much time off every year.

Our education institutions are not going to be fixed by some silver bullet whether it be legislated or by just throwing more money at it but by a cultural shift that values the individual and the contribution that they can provide to the community. Motivation of the teachers and parents and students and the society as a whole has to be "retooled" to allow for the varied contributions of each individual as distinct member of the whole just like the different cells that make up a healthy organism that functions and evolves.

[Capt Grey]

Very well said, sir.

I nominate Callenish Gunner for Secretary of Education!

[Mission]

...parents need to be parents, teachers to teach and the goverment and business to stay out of education. Education should not be dictated by funding sources or the pursuit of business practices.

The federal government's financial overseeing role definitely should to be taken out of the equation. (We can thank Jimmy Carter for that ingenious extra layer of bureaucracy that allowed the "No Child Left Behind" thing to even be possible. Trouble is, if a politician suggests getting rid of this layer, they are accused of being "against education" by the opponents.)

Government control of previously locally controlled entities rarely adds much positive influence from what I've seen. They always say they're doing it for the overall good or to make the process more uniform and "fair", yet it rarely works and always costs more. Kind of like the discussion on who gets road money in the Gas thread. Or the splendid bloated, yet soon-to-be almost insolvent Social InSecurity program? Can anyone else extrapolate the outcome of nationalized health care based on these real life examples of our fine national government at work?

I'd like to see the funding returned to the local level. Giving the government control of anything is too open to abuse - if not now, in the future as the education problem reveals.

Boy, am I on a soap box, or what?