The main problem with education

[Esmeralda]

Another viewpoint, perhaps?

Why is it unreasonable for me to expect that if I send my kid to a school for - I don't know - 35 hours a week(?), for which I personally pay more than $7,000 per year, in perpetuity (my son is 31 years old now), that that school can't deliver all of the "education" that my child requires within those 35 hours?

Why is it that the school system can demand that my child (and I) spend an additional, say, 10-12 hours a week in supplementary activities (independent study and homework), in order to get the education I'm paying for?

At this cost ($7,000 per year until I die), why can't I demand that the school system figure out a way to spend that 35 hours a week productively enough that my child and I don't have to supplement their efforts so generously?

I mean, seriously, I give my employer about 35 hours a week (I'm being kind to myself here), and if they had to take an additional 10-12 hours each week to supplement my work product to make it usable, I'd be on the street in no time. And deservedly so.

You can't tell me that with 35 hours a week it is NOT POSSIBLE to provide a good education with no supplementation. If the kid has to read other assignments, or do problems independently, or practice something outside the classroom, or compose an essay, IT COULD BE DONE within those thirty-five hours. Hell, I'd be willing to give my kid to them for 40 hours. Honest.

With all the "solutions" one hears about in the public dialog, why is no one addressing the elephant in the room: June, July, and August, and the time between quitting time and, say, 5pm? An American work year is 2080 hours less a couple weeks vacation, but a school year is (180 x 6 = ) 1,080 hours. Come on. Get serious. Teachers unions are always telling us that teaching is a "full-time job." Let's give them a chance to prove it.The basic teaching paradigm is flawed, and needs updating. Professional training (seminars, workshops, etc) are much more time-efficient, and don't require that you prepare in advance or do evening work (usually) to accomplish their training objectives. This is mainly because the instructors are great communicators, the training materials are relevant and helpful, and the seminars (or whatever) are thoroughly planned in advance.

There is no doubt that UNDER THE CURRENT REGIME, the parents are the weak link in the public educational system. They don't motivate the kids, they don't work with the kids, and they don't take a vested interest in the outcomes - blaming any failures on "someone else," mainly the teachers.

But "The Main Problem with Education," is that it is administered according to a hundred-year-old paradigm (hell, even the calendar is based on the kids having to work on the farm in Summer!), and no one in power has had the balls to step back and re-examine the basic delivery system to see if it makes sense with the culture and technological tools we have available in 2014(!). It is as though the car makers were still designing cars with wooden-spoke wheels and complaining that they couldn't achieve more than .35g's in cornering acceleration.

I have seen the enemy and it is us.

You give your employer 35 hours a week. So you only work 7 hours a day. Are you actually dense enough to imagine that a teacher just walks into a classroom and 'teaches' for 6 hours and goes home? Teachers spend about half their time with the class teaching the students the other half of their job is preparing lessons, marking papers, taking several hours plus of homework home every week, keeping track of grades, tracking student behavior and progress, working with parents, working on committees, keeping up with current practices in education, for American teachers taking professional development courses which are required to keep their certificates current, supervising after school and extra-curricular activities, etc. Teachers do not work 7 or 8 hour days, they work 10+ hour days, often work on weekends and often work over the summer vacation. Teachers don't work 6 hours a day; that's ludicrous. At the very least, if you average it out over a year, they work an average of ten hours a day with preparation, meeting and committee time, working with parents time, preparation time, marking time, taking professiional development courses, and supervising extra-curricular and after school activies, they work an average of 10 hours per day, which is, for an 180 day school year, 1800 hours per year. That's a very conservative estimate.

The idea that teachers work less over the course of a year than others is a complete myth. I wonder if people think teaching is such an easy job, so well paid, and such a lark, why they don't do it themselves. Teachers are not martyrs. It is the negative attitude toward teachers, the nearly total lack of respect for the profession which is one of the main problems with American education. In other countries, teachers are respected and valued. In the countries which everyone wants to hold up as good examples of education, all of those countries have teacher unions. It is not unions that is the problem, it is the lack of respect and value for the profession that is the problem and why unions are needed.

 

[Samson]

Another viewpoint, perhaps?

Why is it unreasonable for me to expect that if I send my kid to a school for - I don't know - 35 hours a week(?), for which I personally pay more than $7,000 per year, in perpetuity (my son is 31 years old now), that that school can't deliver all of the "education" that my child requires within those 35 hours?

Why is it that the school system can demand that my child (and I) spend an additional, say, 10-12 hours a week in supplementary activities (independent study and homework), in order to get the education I'm paying for?

At this cost ($7,000 per year until I die), why can't I demand that the school system figure out a way to spend that 35 hours a week productively enough that my child and I don't have to supplement their efforts so generously?

I mean, seriously, I give my employer about 35 hours a week (I'm being kind to myself here), and if they had to take an additional 10-12 hours each week to supplement my work product to make it usable, I'd be on the street in no time. And deservedly so.

You can't tell me that with 35 hours a week it is NOT POSSIBLE to provide a good education with no supplementation. If the kid has to read other assignments, or do problems independently, or practice something outside the classroom, or compose an essay, IT COULD BE DONE within those thirty-five hours. Hell, I'd be willing to give my kid to them for 40 hours. Honest.

With all the "solutions" one hears about in the public dialog, why is no one addressing the elephant in the room: June, July, and August, and the time between quitting time and, say, 5pm? An American work year is 2080 hours less a couple weeks vacation, but a school year is (180 x 6 = ) 1,080 hours. Come on. Get serious. Teachers unions are always telling us that teaching is a "full-time job." Let's give them a chance to prove it.The basic teaching paradigm is flawed, and needs updating. Professional training (seminars, workshops, etc) are much more time-efficient, and don't require that you prepare in advance or do evening work (usually) to accomplish their training objectives. This is mainly because the instructors are great communicators, the training materials are relevant and helpful, and the seminars (or whatever) are thoroughly planned in advance.

There is no doubt that UNDER THE CURRENT REGIME, the parents are the weak link in the public educational system. They don't motivate the kids, they don't work with the kids, and they don't take a vested interest in the outcomes - blaming any failures on "someone else," mainly the teachers.

But "The Main Problem with Education," is that it is administered according to a hundred-year-old paradigm (hell, even the calendar is based on the kids having to work on the farm in Summer!), and no one in power has had the balls to step back and re-examine the basic delivery system to see if it makes sense with the culture and technological tools we have available in 2014(!). It is as though the car makers were still designing cars with wooden-spoke wheels and complaining that they couldn't achieve more than .35g's in cornering acceleration.

I have seen the enemy and it is us.

You give your employer 35 hours a week. So you only work 7 hours a day. Are you actually dense enough to imagine that a teacher just walks into a classroom and 'teaches' for 6 hours and goes home? Teachers spend about half their time with the class teaching the students the other half of their job is preparing lessons, marking papers, taking several hours plus of homework home every week, keeping track of grades, tracking student behavior and progress, working with parents, working on committees, keeping up with current practices in education, for American teachers taking professional development courses which are required to keep their certificates current, supervising after school and extra-curricular activities, etc. Teachers do not work 7 or 8 hour days, they work 10+ hour days, often work on weekends and often work over the summer vacation. Teachers don't work 6 hours a day; that's ludicrous. At the very least, if you average it out over a year, they work an average of ten hours a day with preparation, meeting and committee time, working with parents time, preparation time, marking time, taking professiional development courses, and supervising extra-curricular and after school activies, they work an average of 10 hours per day, which is, for an 180 day school year, 1800 hours per year. That's a very conservative estimate.

The idea that teachers work less over the course of a year than others is a complete myth. I wonder if people think teaching is such an easy job, so well paid, and such a lark, why they don't do it themselves. Teachers are not martyrs. It is the negative attitude toward teachers, the nearly total lack of respect for the profession which is one of the main problems with American education. In other countries, teachers are respected and valued. In the countries which everyone wants to hold up as good examples of education, all of those countries have teacher unions. It is not unions that is the problem, it is the lack of respect and value for the profession that is the problem and why unions are needed.

As usual, you've attempted to hijack the thread with your personal union axe to grind, and completely overlook the main point the poster is making. No wonder teachers get no respect.

Try to fucking focus for once.

The post quotes time spent by the student (35 hrs/week), as well as time (10-12 hrs/week) and money ($7,000/year) spent by the parent. They wonder: why they need to do more?

DGS: The issue is not QUANTITY, it is QUALITY.

The school could keep students 70 hours/week, and you could spend $14,000/year, but if the student returns to parents that are physically, emotionally, and intellectually detached from the process, then education will have little or no effect. Even worse, parents may be abusive, often the case in economically distressed homes.

 

[Whereisup]

It isn't politically correct to say so, but the main problem with education is the parents.

Most parents want their children to "have a childhood" and not have to do too much homework. Most parents don't push their children to learn as much as possible. Most parents want their children to go to college so they can get a good job, but they don't believe that learning knowledge per see is important, and don't teach their children that learning knowledge is important.

So of course, children, egged on by the attitudes of their parents, try to get out of actually learning anything, and the children are successful in resisting school and teachers.

Some people push their children to do well in school, and those children then do well, even when a school isn't very good. New Asian immigrant parents especially push their children to do well in school, and Asian children tend to be at the top in their classes.

Jim

Well, Jim while I agree with the thesis, it contradicts the essential tenet of public education which is to remove most parents from their children's education.

Public schools do a lot of lip service to the community to make parents believe that the institution welcomes their input; however, anything beyond agreement with the prescribed status quo is generally ignored. Take for example standardized tests. Some posters within this thread have mentioned they do not favor teaching methods that concentrate on test preparation (although this is exactly what successful students must do). These parents are largely ignored, rightly or wrongly.

I think you may be talking about something related to social class. In the middle class schools many of my relatives have had children in, the teachers were very happy to inform the parents if their children were falling behind in any area, so that the parents could hire tutors to get them caught back up again. The data is somewhat limited, but it seems that in middle class schools, the schools are quite happy to work with parents.

That might not be the case with lower class schools, because lower class parents do complain with ideas similar to yours.

As long ago as high school, I was becoming aware of this. One of my teachers told about an incident when she was in high school. A number of high school students were gathered getting into some mild trouble. The police came. The police asked the students what high school they went to. The students from the middle class high school were merely told to go home. The students from the lower class high school were arrested.

I don't know whether this fits with what you are talking about or not, but it might.

Jim

 

[Unkotare]

Another viewpoint, perhaps?

Why is it unreasonable for me to expect that if I send my kid to a school for - I don't know - 35 hours a week(?), for which I personally pay more than $7,000 per year, in perpetuity (my son is 31 years old now), that that school can't deliver all of the "education" that my child requires within those 35 hours?

Why is it that the school system can demand that my child (and I) spend an additional, say, 10-12 hours a week in supplementary activities (independent study and homework), in order to get the education I'm paying for?.

Because "education" isn't something you buy from the deli, it's something you achieve through years of work, dedication, and personal development. If you want "education" to work like some Matrix program that gets downloaded into your head in a few hours, you'd best get to work on that time machine.

 

[Samson]

It isn't politically correct to say so, but the main problem with education is the parents.

Most parents want their children to "have a childhood" and not have to do too much homework. Most parents don't push their children to learn as much as possible. Most parents want their children to go to college so they can get a good job, but they don't believe that learning knowledge per see is important, and don't teach their children that learning knowledge is important.

So of course, children, egged on by the attitudes of their parents, try to get out of actually learning anything, and the children are successful in resisting school and teachers.

Some people push their children to do well in school, and those children then do well, even when a school isn't very good. New Asian immigrant parents especially push their children to do well in school, and Asian children tend to be at the top in their classes.

Jim

Well, Jim while I agree with the thesis, it contradicts the essential tenet of public education which is to remove most parents from their children's education.

Public schools do a lot of lip service to the community to make parents believe that the institution welcomes their input; however, anything beyond agreement with the prescribed status quo is generally ignored. Take for example standardized tests. Some posters within this thread have mentioned they do not favor teaching methods that concentrate on test preparation (although this is exactly what successful students must do). These parents are largely ignored, rightly or wrongly.

I think you may be talking about something related to social class. In the middle class schools many of my relatives have had children in, the teachers were very happy to inform the parents if their children were falling behind in any area, so that the parents could hire tutors to get them caught back up again. The data is somewhat limited, but it seems that in middle class schools, the schools are quite happy to work with parents.

That might not be the case with lower class schools, because lower class parents do complain with ideas similar to yours.

As long ago as high school, I was becoming aware of this. One of my teachers told about an incident when she was in high school. A number of high school students were gathered getting into some mild trouble. The police came. The police asked the students what high school they went to. The students from the middle class high school were merely told to go home. The students from the lower class high school were arrested.

I don't know whether this fits with what you are talking about or not, but it might.

Jim

It would be great if there was some study to cite regarding "lower class schools" and the differences between these parents and ANY other parents:

Could you imagine conducting such a study? Or asking for the grant? LMAO

At any rate, I've taught through the entire spectrum of classes, and I assure you there's no bigger pain in the ass than a wealthy parent that holds a PhD whose spoiled brat is in your class. I never taught below 8th grade, but have never heard an elementary school teacher declare that their favorite parents were rich.

Regardless, I'm not referring to individual teachers: I'm referring to the institution. As I mentioned the PTA is encouraged, but don't ask for a change in the institutional status quo.

 

[Whereisup]

Another viewpoint, perhaps?

Why is it unreasonable for me to expect that if I send my kid to a school for - I don't know - 35 hours a week(?), for which I personally pay more than $7,000 per year, in perpetuity (my son is 31 years old now), that that school can't deliver all of the "education" that my child requires within those 35 hours?

Why is it that the school system can demand that my child (and I) spend an additional, say, 10-12 hours a week in supplementary activities (independent study and homework), in order to get the education I'm paying for?

At this cost ($7,000 per year until I die), why can't I demand that the school system figure out a way to spend that 35 hours a week productively enough that my child and I don't have to supplement their efforts so generously?

I mean, seriously, I give my employer about 35 hours a week (I'm being kind to myself here), and if they had to take an additional 10-12 hours each week to supplement my work product to make it usable, I'd be on the street in no time. And deservedly so.

You can't tell me that with 35 hours a week it is NOT POSSIBLE to provide a good education with no supplementation. If the kid has to read other assignments, or do problems independently, or practice something outside the classroom, or compose an essay, IT COULD BE DONE within those thirty-five hours. Hell, I'd be willing to give my kid to them for 40 hours. Honest.

With all the "solutions" one hears about in the public dialog, why is no one addressing the elephant in the room: June, July, and August, and the time between quitting time and, say, 5pm? An American work year is 2080 hours less a couple weeks vacation, but a school year is (180 x 6 = ) 1,080 hours. Come on. Get serious. Teachers unions are always telling us that teaching is a "full-time job." Let's give them a chance to prove it.

The basic teaching paradigm is flawed, and needs updating. Professional training (seminars, workshops, etc) are much more time-efficient, and don't require that you prepare in advance or do evening work (usually) to accomplish their training objectives. This is mainly because the instructors are great communicators, the training materials are relevant and helpful, and the seminars (or whatever) are thoroughly planned in advance.

There is no doubt that UNDER THE CURRENT REGIME, the parents are the weak link in the public educational system. They don't motivate the kids, they don't work with the kids, and they don't take a vested interest in the outcomes - blaming any failures on "someone else," mainly the teachers.

But "The Main Problem with Education," is that it is administered according to a hundred-year-old paradigm (hell, even the calendar is based on the kids having to work on the farm in Summer!), and no one in power has had the balls to step back and re-examine the basic delivery system to see if it makes sense with the culture and technological tools we have available in 2014(!). It is as though the car makers were still designing cars with wooden-spoke wheels and complaining that they couldn't achieve more than .35g's in cornering acceleration.

I have seen the enemy and it is us.

Just a perspective. If one reads a large number of biographies of people who have been quite famous in science, scholarship, or writing, one will notice that as students, they studied more than 35 hours per week, mainly reading. They spent much of their time outside the classroom reading. They spent most of their vacations reading. And they quickly moved into reading more and more advanced books and articles, on their own.

Jim

 

[Samson]

Another viewpoint, perhaps?

Why is it unreasonable for me to expect that if I send my kid to a school for - I don't know - 35 hours a week(?), for which I personally pay more than $7,000 per year, in perpetuity (my son is 31 years old now), that that school can't deliver all of the "education" that my child requires within those 35 hours?

Why is it that the school system can demand that my child (and I) spend an additional, say, 10-12 hours a week in supplementary activities (independent study and homework), in order to get the education I'm paying for?

At this cost ($7,000 per year until I die), why can't I demand that the school system figure out a way to spend that 35 hours a week productively enough that my child and I don't have to supplement their efforts so generously?

I mean, seriously, I give my employer about 35 hours a week (I'm being kind to myself here), and if they had to take an additional 10-12 hours each week to supplement my work product to make it usable, I'd be on the street in no time. And deservedly so.

You can't tell me that with 35 hours a week it is NOT POSSIBLE to provide a good education with no supplementation. If the kid has to read other assignments, or do problems independently, or practice something outside the classroom, or compose an essay, IT COULD BE DONE within those thirty-five hours. Hell, I'd be willing to give my kid to them for 40 hours. Honest.

With all the "solutions" one hears about in the public dialog, why is no one addressing the elephant in the room: June, July, and August, and the time between quitting time and, say, 5pm? An American work year is 2080 hours less a couple weeks vacation, but a school year is (180 x 6 = ) 1,080 hours. Come on. Get serious. Teachers unions are always telling us that teaching is a "full-time job." Let's give them a chance to prove it.

The basic teaching paradigm is flawed, and needs updating. Professional training (seminars, workshops, etc) are much more time-efficient, and don't require that you prepare in advance or do evening work (usually) to accomplish their training objectives. This is mainly because the instructors are great communicators, the training materials are relevant and helpful, and the seminars (or whatever) are thoroughly planned in advance.

There is no doubt that UNDER THE CURRENT REGIME, the parents are the weak link in the public educational system. They don't motivate the kids, they don't work with the kids, and they don't take a vested interest in the outcomes - blaming any failures on "someone else," mainly the teachers.

But "The Main Problem with Education," is that it is administered according to a hundred-year-old paradigm (hell, even the calendar is based on the kids having to work on the farm in Summer!), and no one in power has had the balls to step back and re-examine the basic delivery system to see if it makes sense with the culture and technological tools we have available in 2014(!). It is as though the car makers were still designing cars with wooden-spoke wheels and complaining that they couldn't achieve more than .35g's in cornering acceleration.

I have seen the enemy and it is us.

Just a perspective. If one reads a large number of biographies of people who have been quite famous in science, scholarship, or writing, one will notice that as students, they studied more than 35 hours per week, mainly reading. They spent much of their time outside the classroom reading. They spent most of their vacations reading. And they quickly moved into reading more and more advanced books and articles, on their own.

Jim

Someone taught them to read.

Speaking of your library of biographies of people who have been "quite famous," you may be interested in Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class-Performers/dp/1591842948/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1388704393&sr=8-3&keywords=talent+myth]Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else: Geoffrey Colvin: 9781591842941: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Essentially, the author studies these "World Class Performers" and concludes that the real "talent" came from their parents who were obsessed with their child's success.

 

[Whereisup]

Think about this: What if "we" were able to locate the best teachers in the world, and stream their lectures to every student, with the local teacher doing hands-on work to supplement the Super Teachers? We already know that kids will watch TV attentively if the subject matter is satisfying.

What if on-line learning exercises could be generated to replace boring self-study? A few years ago I took a German course on CD, and it was better than any language course I ever tried? It was totally interactive, including assessment and correction of my pronunciation. Couldn't this free up the teacher for more personal assistance in supplementary classes?

The possibilities are endless.

There are a couple of problems you would have to solve, but if you solved those problems, your idea would work well.

One problem is that the schools would look at their budgets and tend to not hire enough local teachers.

Something like this is happening with colleges and universities the last couple of years. Corporations are being developed to provide college courses in that way. One of the main arguments being used is that colleges and universities could save money by firing a large number of their professors.

There is another problem. How are the "super-teachers" to be hired and what would they be hired to teach? For example, would corporations running the courses hire teachers to teach objectively the best material, or would they hire teachers to teach what the corporations want everyone to believe?

Jim

 

[Whereisup]

Another viewpoint, perhaps?

Why is it unreasonable for me to expect that if I send my kid to a school for - I don't know - 35 hours a week(?), for which I personally pay more than $7,000 per year, in perpetuity (my son is 31 years old now), that that school can't deliver all of the "education" that my child requires within those 35 hours?

Why is it that the school system can demand that my child (and I) spend an additional, say, 10-12 hours a week in supplementary activities (independent study and homework), in order to get the education I'm paying for?

At this cost ($7,000 per year until I die), why can't I demand that the school system figure out a way to spend that 35 hours a week productively enough that my child and I don't have to supplement their efforts so generously?

I mean, seriously, I give my employer about 35 hours a week (I'm being kind to myself here), and if they had to take an additional 10-12 hours each week to supplement my work product to make it usable, I'd be on the street in no time. And deservedly so.

You can't tell me that with 35 hours a week it is NOT POSSIBLE to provide a good education with no supplementation. If the kid has to read other assignments, or do problems independently, or practice something outside the classroom, or compose an essay, IT COULD BE DONE within those thirty-five hours. Hell, I'd be willing to give my kid to them for 40 hours. Honest.

With all the "solutions" one hears about in the public dialog, why is no one addressing the elephant in the room: June, July, and August, and the time between quitting time and, say, 5pm? An American work year is 2080 hours less a couple weeks vacation, but a school year is (180 x 6 = ) 1,080 hours. Come on. Get serious. Teachers unions are always telling us that teaching is a "full-time job." Let's give them a chance to prove it.

The basic teaching paradigm is flawed, and needs updating. Professional training (seminars, workshops, etc) are much more time-efficient, and don't require that you prepare in advance or do evening work (usually) to accomplish their training objectives. This is mainly because the instructors are great communicators, the training materials are relevant and helpful, and the seminars (or whatever) are thoroughly planned in advance.

There is no doubt that UNDER THE CURRENT REGIME, the parents are the weak link in the public educational system. They don't motivate the kids, they don't work with the kids, and they don't take a vested interest in the outcomes - blaming any failures on "someone else," mainly the teachers.

But "The Main Problem with Education," is that it is administered according to a hundred-year-old paradigm (hell, even the calendar is based on the kids having to work on the farm in Summer!), and no one in power has had the balls to step back and re-examine the basic delivery system to see if it makes sense with the culture and technological tools we have available in 2014(!). It is as though the car makers were still designing cars with wooden-spoke wheels and complaining that they couldn't achieve more than .35g's in cornering acceleration.

I have seen the enemy and it is us.

Just a perspective. If one reads a large number of biographies of people who have been quite famous in science, scholarship, or writing, one will notice that as students, they studied more than 35 hours per week, mainly reading. They spent much of their time outside the classroom reading. They spent most of their vacations reading. And they quickly moved into reading more and more advanced books and articles, on their own.

Jim

Someone taught them to read.

Speaking of your library of biographies of people who have been "quite famous," you may be interested in Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class-Performers/dp/1591842948/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1388704393&sr=8-3&keywords=talent+myth]Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else: Geoffrey Colvin: 9781591842941: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Essentially, the author studies these "World Class Performers" and concludes that the real "talent" came from their parents who were obsessed with their child's success.

I've seen that in a number of biographies, so it is certainly a relevant variable. I have also seen in the biographies parents who were skilled, but gentle with encouraging their children. Then there have been times when the parents were not all that involved, but the motivation came from the children. Sometimes, the motivation came from a teacher-mentor who established a long term relationship with a child.

Since most children are not self-motivated, most parents need to be involved.

Unless, of course, we could develop some parenting techniques which would produce a self-motivated child most of the time. That would be helpful if it could be done.

Jim

 

[JakeStarkey]

The uninvolved parents of course is the major problem!

 

[Samson]

The uninvolved parents of course is the major problem!

Jake you ignorant slut.

The uninvolved parents are the major problem.

 

[DGS49]

To make my point more concisely, the basic philosophy of American public education is locked into a paradigm that is quite old, and I suspect that major improvements in efficacy could be realized if only the major stakeholders were not locked into that paradigm.

The paradigm is comprised of the class/course schedule, the structure of the grades (K-12), the school year/day/week, the testing and evaluation system, the mindless grouping of students (dumb with smart, "special needs" with everyone else, etc), the combination of lectures, class participation, and homework, the progression of subjects.

Some times you simply have to step away and take a fresh look at how you are going about the task of educating millions of kids, to see if it makes sense.

In the private sector, the greatest advances are the result of people redefining needs, products, approaches, and available technology - sometimes from remote fields. Who could have imagined 20 years ago that we would be reading "books" on little electronic gadgets, or that young people would go through life carrying around little gadgets that stored and played their favorite music all the time?

Think outside the fucking box!

But this is impossible with the incredible inertia that comes out of government bureaucracies, entrenched unions, stagnant university "education" departments, and politicians pulling the strings.

Consider one little fact(oid). Kids are most receptive to learning new languages between 3 and 6 years old, and "total immersion" is the best way to learn languages. Our educational system basically plays around with language instruction from an early age, but it is just that: playing around. At the end of a few years of French in grade school, the kids know a couple of expressions and words that they will forget on their next summer break, and they know no grammar because grammar is tedious. High school language teachers are afraid to require memorization of vocabulary and grammar because the kids don't like it; they won't continue to sign up for foreign languages, and the teachers will eventually lose their jobs. So the kids can barely hold a conversation about lunch after four years of high school German.

Seriously. We are not serious about foreign language education.

Take Mathematics. There are very, very few people who can effectively teach math, and the ones who can, can teach large numbers of students at one time. Many if not most public school math teachers are marginally qualified, with maybe 12-14 credits of undergraduate math on their transcripts. This is a national disgrace, yet nothing is being done to address it, mainly because teacher's unions prevent any attempts to pay higher salaries to these critically-valuable staff members. Offer math teachers $60K to start along with performance bonuses and the problem would be solved immediately. But it ain't happening because of the influence of the teachers' unions. They would insist that the positions and bonuses be based on seniority.

Seriously. We are not serious about math and science education.

And so on. The box is so fucking big that nobody in power can think outside it.

 

[asterism]

It isn't politically correct to say so, but the main problem with education is the parents.

Most parents want their children to "have a childhood" and not have to do too much homework. Most parents don't push their children to learn as much as possible. Most parents want their children to go to college so they can get a good job, but they don't believe that learning knowledge per see is important, and don't teach their children that learning knowledge is important.

So of course, children, egged on by the attitudes of their parents, try to get out of actually learning anything, and the children are successful in resisting school and teachers.

Some people push their children to do well in school, and those children then do well, even when a school isn't very good. New Asian immigrant parents especially push their children to do well in school, and Asian children tend to be at the top in their classes.

Jim

I disagree.

Many parents are like that but not most.

 

[Samson]

It isn't politically correct to say so, but the main problem with education is the parents.

Most parents want their children to "have a childhood" and not have to do too much homework. Most parents don't push their children to learn as much as possible. Most parents want their children to go to college so they can get a good job, but they don't believe that learning knowledge per see is important, and don't teach their children that learning knowledge is important.

So of course, children, egged on by the attitudes of their parents, try to get out of actually learning anything, and the children are successful in resisting school and teachers.

Some people push their children to do well in school, and those children then do well, even when a school isn't very good. New Asian immigrant parents especially push their children to do well in school, and Asian children tend to be at the top in their classes.

Jim

I disagree.

Many parents are like that but not most.

Gut feeling?

I'd be astonished if anyone had appropriated public funding to conclusively point the finger of blame for drop-out rates and other indicators of poor academic performance at...........

THE PUBLIC => Parents!

So I'm not really surprised there are no lists of citations, showing results of any study in this particular area, however, I wonder how on Earth anyone could conclude that "Many parents [do not actively support their children's education] but not most?"

 

[Unkotare]

Many if not most public school math teachers are marginally qualified, with maybe 12-14 credits of undergraduate math on their transcripts.

Link? Stats?

 

[Unkotare]

Kids are most receptive to learning new languages between 3 and 6 years old, and "total immersion" is the best way to learn languages.

It's a little more complicated than that.

 

[asterism]

It isn't politically correct to say so, but the main problem with education is the parents.

Most parents want their children to "have a childhood" and not have to do too much homework. Most parents don't push their children to learn as much as possible. Most parents want their children to go to college so they can get a good job, but they don't believe that learning knowledge per see is important, and don't teach their children that learning knowledge is important.

So of course, children, egged on by the attitudes of their parents, try to get out of actually learning anything, and the children are successful in resisting school and teachers.

Some people push their children to do well in school, and those children then do well, even when a school isn't very good. New Asian immigrant parents especially push their children to do well in school, and Asian children tend to be at the top in their classes.

Jim

I disagree.

Many parents are like that but not most.

Gut feeling?

I'd be astonished if anyone had appropriated public funding to conclusively point the finger of blame for drop-out rates and other indicators of poor academic performance at...........

THE PUBLIC => Parents!

So I'm not really surprised there are no lists of citations, showing results of any study in this particular area, however, I wonder how on Earth anyone could conclude that "Many parents [do not actively support their children's education] but not most?"

Not gut feeling, parent meetings with similar complaints about teachers telling us to leave them alone and let the professionals handle the education of their children. Then whenever some scandal comes out about these people acting just like their students we're told that we just don't understand.

The good teachers are hamstrung by a system that's there for the benefit of the staff, not the students.

 

[asterism]

Kids are most receptive to learning new languages between 3 and 6 years old, and "total immersion" is the best way to learn languages.

It's a little more complicated than that.

How so?

In how many languages have you been fluent?

 

[Unkotare]

Kids are most receptive to learning new languages between 3 and 6 years old, and "total immersion" is the best way to learn languages.

It's a little more complicated than that.

In how many languages have you been fluent?

"Fluent" is an ambiguous and often misapplied term. The answer to your question is 'a few,' but that is really not pertinent to my comments above.

 

[aplcr0331]

Who taught "the parents"?