Is There A Free Market Answer To Education?

[PoliticalChic]

Every attempt to improve the education system in the US is screamed at by the right as throwing money at the problem.

The OP is a question about whether there is a way to improve education, and very possibly save money as well.

"Every attempt to improve the education..." and then you go on to blame the 'right.'

1. " And New York City’s charter schools are not only more effective than traditional public schools, but less costly, too. This year, the city’s charter schools will receive $12,205 per pupil in state funding. That’s a lot of money, but it’s only 70 percent of what a traditional public school receives per pupil. Some charter schools supplement these state dollars with private donations, but the vast majority doesn’t make up the difference in funding."
Charters’ Promise by Marcus A. Winters, City Journal 28 September 2009

The NYS government limits charter schools.

You probably believe that the NYS government is controlled by the right.

Wrong.

2. "Ever wonder how effective your child’s teacher is? Officials in Albany would rather you didn’t know. At least that’s the lesson one has to take from their refusal to allow data systems to match students to teachers,…

One such truth is the effectiveness of individual teachers. Data analysis is far from perfect, and no one argues that it should be used in isolation to make employment decisions. But modern techniques can help us distinguish between teachers whose students excel and teachers whose students languish or fail. There’s just one problem with the data revolution: it doesn’t work without data.

New York has deliberately refused to take that step. The state already has a sophisticated system for tracking student progress, but it doesn’t allow this statewide data set to match students to their teachers. No technical or administrative factors prevent the state from doing so. Only political obstacles stand in the way."
Teachers’ Unions vs. Progress—Again by Marcus A. Winters, City Journal 14 December 2009

You probably believe that the NYS government is controlled by the right.

Wrong.

 

[Truthmatters]

Charter schools can kick out kids who dont make the grade.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Charter schools can kick out kids who dont make the grade.

Great! Another plus for charter schools: they are not baby-sitters!

And:
". …a new study released this week by Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby is so important. It leaves little doubt that students benefit when they attend a New York City charter school. Her findings are striking. Students in Gotham charter schools make significant improvements in both math and reading compared with where they would be had they remained in their previous public school.

Charters receive taxpayer dollars on a per-pupil basis, but unlike traditional public schools, which are assigned students based on residential zones, charter schools get their students through applications. Thus, for a charter school to remain open, it must attract enough students to pay its bills. New York’s Charter Schools Act of 1998, passed under Republican Governor George Pataki, capped the number of the state’s charter schools at 100. Due to high demand, however, the state quickly exceeded this limit, and Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer raised it to 200."
Ibid.


BTW, what happened to your comment about the 'right'?

Stuck it in your ear, huh?

 

[Samson]

I feel like Thoreau expressing to Emerson, I'm sure you are familiar with the story: When Emerson saw him in jail for refusing to pay taxes, and asked "Henry, what are you doing in there?" Thoreau responded. " Ralph, what are you doing out there?"

I feel that you should also be railing against this bogus system of 'public education,' providing your own suggestions for reform, as you have more experience in the system than I.

I like the story.

And I have made suggestions: Primarily, End Compulsory Public education at age 14, offer Public Vocational school for those 14-18. Essentially, go Back to The Future: 1920 school system.

Teaching is Empowering.

Teaching is Coordinating.

Teaching is Facilitating.

When I consider it, I suppose it is entirely concievable to me to understand how you and Coulter could possibly believe that classroom teaching of children isn't composed of doing these things.

You are extrapolating the way you were both taught in universities, or colleges, to the public school system. Professors are not teaching.

 

[Truthmatters]

Charter schools can kick out kids who dont make the grade.

Great! Another plus for charter schools: they are not baby-sitters!

And:
". …a new study released this week by Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby is so important. It leaves little doubt that students benefit when they attend a New York City charter school. Her findings are striking. Students in Gotham charter schools make significant improvements in both math and reading compared with where they would be had they remained in their previous public school.

Charters receive taxpayer dollars on a per-pupil basis, but unlike traditional public schools, which are assigned students based on residential zones, charter schools get their students through applications. Thus, for a charter school to remain open, it must attract enough students to pay its bills. New York’s Charter Schools Act of 1998, passed under Republican Governor George Pataki, capped the number of the state’s charter schools at 100. Due to high demand, however, the state quickly exceeded this limit, and Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer raised it to 200."
Ibid.


BTW, what happened to your comment about the 'right'?

Stuck it in your ear, huh?

What you fail to understand that charter schools dont have to take whatever student that comes to them Unlike regular public schools?

All you stuck was your silly head in a hole of stupidity

 

[uscitizen]

because the children are our future and an uneducated worker pool is bad for our economic viability

actually it is better for our economic viability.
Uneducated workers work cheaper allowing us to compete with cheap labor around the world.

They don't have McDonalds on the Planet of The Lizards?

Mcdonalds has higher standards than we do for our presidents.
At least McDonalds applicants have to submit an accurate resume.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Charter schools can kick out kids who dont make the grade.

Great! Another plus for charter schools: they are not baby-sitters!

And:
". …a new study released this week by Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby is so important. It leaves little doubt that students benefit when they attend a New York City charter school. Her findings are striking. Students in Gotham charter schools make significant improvements in both math and reading compared with where they would be had they remained in their previous public school.

Charters receive taxpayer dollars on a per-pupil basis, but unlike traditional public schools, which are assigned students based on residential zones, charter schools get their students through applications. Thus, for a charter school to remain open, it must attract enough students to pay its bills. New York’s Charter Schools Act of 1998, passed under Republican Governor George Pataki, capped the number of the state’s charter schools at 100. Due to high demand, however, the state quickly exceeded this limit, and Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer raised it to 200."
Ibid.


BTW, what happened to your comment about the 'right'?

Stuck it in your ear, huh?

Why is you fail to understand that charter schools dont have to take what ever student that comes to them Unlike regular public schools?

All you stuck was your silly head in a hole of stupidity

"Why is you fail to understand that charter schools dont have to take what ever student that comes to them Unlike regular public schools."

Understand it???

I champion it!!

I'll make my list of the functions of education, and you make yours.

A basic reason for the failure of public school is that folks like you assign it so many jobs!

Your kind of thinking is the reason that 75% of the public college admitees require remedial courses!!

Do we want hand holding or education? I can see what you want.

I believe that many of those who drop out or choose not to strive in public school do so because they see that there is no penalty for doing so.
The result of your kind of thinking.

Get the politics out of education. Teachers, not educrats.

How about coming up with some new ideas, beyond 'get-'em-all, keep-'em-all."

Don't make the grade? Go to a different level or kind of school.


"All you stuck was your silly head in a hole of stupidity."

Not even clever. But indicative of the point that I destroyed your 'right-wing-evil' post.

Now, if you were clever you might have said:

1. Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this
bull before.

or

2. I see you have delusions of adequacy.

or

3. I don't think you are a fool. But then, what's my humble opinion against that of thousands of others?

See, those are somewhere between clever and your "All you stuck was your silly head in a hole of stupidity"

Come on, don't be so lazy! Try harder- I need a bit of competition next time.

 

[Samson]

actually it is better for our economic viability.
Uneducated workers work cheaper allowing us to compete with cheap labor around the world.

They don't have McDonalds on the Planet of The Lizards?

Mcdonalds has higher standards than we do for our presidents.
At least McDonalds applicants have to submit an accurate resume.

Who said anything about Presidents on The Planet of THe Lizards?

My point was that on our planet, if you've ever been to a McDonalds, then you have met the least skilled, most poorly educated of our working population, and they make minimum wage (which is....I don't know......$7.00/hr now?). Changing the amount of education this population receives will not change the minimum cost of flipping hamburgers.

 

[Truthmatters]

Political Chick,

Public school is designed to teach all kids.

When you compare it to systems that dont have to do that you are making an unfair comparison.

Now do you really submitt that charter schools have the same problems that regular public schools do?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chick,

Public school is designed to teach all kids.

When you compare it to systems that dont have to do that you are making an unfair comparison.

Now do you really submitt that charter schools have the same problems that regular public schools do?

Again, let me try to help you out- which way did you come in? (rim shot)

Your statement:"Public school is designed to teach all kids."

You mean no matter what?

Felons are put back in public school...you argree with this?

Here is the correct statement: Public school is designed to teach! Oops..WERE designed to teach. Until the left took them over.

Read and learn:
"Could the schools do what they once did—create educated citizens inculcated with the ethical foundations of capitalism? That would require rededicating the schools to “making Americans,” as Hirsch proposes in his forthcoming book. Promisingly, a few public and private schools around the country have replaced the child-centered curriculum with one focused on learning about our culture and its institutions. Hirsch’s “Core Knowledge” curriculum, for instance, introduces kindergartners to the Pilgrims, Independence Day, and George Washington; first-graders to Ben Franklin and the concept of law in society; and second-graders to the Constitution as the foundation of our democracy. Other school reformers, according to David Whitman in Sweating the Small Stuff, have raised the achievement of low-income kids by using a “no excuses” model that teaches bourgeois “virtues like diligence, politeness, cleanliness, and thrift.” But these examples amount only to a tiny handful, swimming against the educational mainstream.
Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic? by Steven Malanga, City Journal Summer 2009

And:
"But responding to criticism, common since the days of the civil rights movement, that directing minority students toward vocations rather than college was racially biased—because all minority students should be expected to do college work—reformers abolished those diploma distinctions and allowed such courses of study, which many minority students took advantage of, to wither away. "
A Coming Diploma Drought? by Marc Epstein, City Journal 15 December 2009

 

[PoliticalChic]

I feel like Thoreau expressing to Emerson, I'm sure you are familiar with the story: When Emerson saw him in jail for refusing to pay taxes, and asked "Henry, what are you doing in there?" Thoreau responded. " Ralph, what are you doing out there?"

I feel that you should also be railing against this bogus system of 'public education,' providing your own suggestions for reform, as you have more experience in the system than I.

I like the story.

And I have made suggestions: Primarily, End Compulsory Public education at age 14, offer Public Vocational school for those 14-18. Essentially, go Back to The Future: 1920 school system.

Teaching is Empowering.

Teaching is Coordinating.

Teaching is Facilitating.

When I consider it, I suppose it is entirely concievable to me to understand how you and Coulter could possibly believe that classroom teaching of children isn't composed of doing these things.

You are extrapolating the way you were both taught in universities, or colleges, to the public school system. Professors are not teaching.

1. "Teaching is Empowering.

Teaching is Coordinating.

Teaching is Facilitating."
If you go to Google, type in the word, and the word 'define'...


2. A part of the problem is 'familiarity breeds contempt'...present company excepted, of course. So, when your teacher is the one telling you to throw your milk carton in the pail, there is a loss of respect by the student who should see her/him as a font of knowledge.

Elementary,, high school, whatever- they should be like professors.

3. I agree with traditional methods, which means a body of facts, and knowledge, repetition, testing.
And, like elections, test results should have consequences, both for the student and for the teacher.
I have seen how good children feel about themselves when they are actually required to know things. This is the kind of self-esteem children should have, not the kind that requires grading with purple pen, you know, because red is so deflating.

4. I'm giving a lot of thought to your idea re: dropping compulsory education. While I could see it becoming a psychological motivator for better children to desire it, I need to give the ramifications more thought.

5. What are the differences, as you see them, between what a teacher does and what a professor does? Assuming, of course, that each does what is 'age appropriate.'

 

[Samson]

What are the differences, as you see them, between what a teacher does and what a professor does? Assuming, of course, that each does what is 'age appropriate.'

The teacher is trying to instruct people who are present involuntarily. To do this, they use a variety of techniques to make the course interesting, and "easiler to swallow" (fascilitating). They coordinate curriculum with student interests. They allow students to feel empowered to teach each other. They try to make students feel good: They praise learning.

Good teachers are able to succeed with many students, but despite the school system's Banners That Scream "EVERY CHILD: EVERY DAY" or "EVERY CHILD CAN LEARN" many simply do not.

A professor presents the material to people who have not only volunteerd to be in the course, but who have PAID to be there. Whether or nor you are interested is largely immaterial. If you do well or not isn't his concern. You've paid to be in the course: its up to you, as an adult, to motivate yourself. He will not "retest." He will expect to test, sometimes not even a sample of what he has taught. He will grade the test with a red pen, or purple pen, or whatever-the-hell color pen he wants to use without regard for the impact the ink color may have on future learning. He will not affix smilie face stickers to good papers.

 

[midcan5]

Progressive Education, and the 'social justice' crowd have already destroyed public education.

"[T]eachers must search far in ed-school syllabi to find a single reference to any of Hirsch’s work—yet required readings by radical education thinkers such as Paulo Freire, Jonathan Kozol, and ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers are common. From these texts, prospective teachers will learn that the purpose of schooling in America isn’t to create knowledgeable, civic-minded citizens, loyal to the nation’s democratic institutions, as Jefferson dreamed, but rather to undermine those institutions and turn children into champions of “social justice” as defined by today’s America-hating far Left."

Didn't we have this discussion earlier and didn't we find parents are a key factor in this picture? I have no idea what Kozol, in particular of the list, has undermined? Do you? Probably not, it just sounds right because someone is to blame and for some it is the imaginary lefties.

Education does not take place in a vacuum, our culture surely influences education and the lack thereof. If public schools taught civics you'd complain they were brainwashing the children. So let post again a few links that explain more than your usual reactionary blame on someone thinking.

Lessons From Finland: The Way to Education Excellence | CommonDreams.org

"At the heart of Finland's stellar reputation is a philosophy completely alien to America. The country of 5.3 million in an area twice the size of Missouri considers education an end in itself - not a means to an end. It's a deeply rooted value that is reflected in the Ministry of Education and in all 432 municipalities. In sharp contrast, Americans view education as a stepping stone to better-paying jobs or to impress others. The distinction explains why we are obsessed with marquee names, and how we structure, operate and fund schools."

A Nation of Morons - TurnOffYourTV.com
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-Schooling/dp/0865714487/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241441360&sr=1-14]Amazon.com: Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (9780865714489): John Taylor Gatto: Books[/ame]
Dumbest Generation Home
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/High-Tech-Heretic-Reflections-Computer-Contrarian/dp/0385489765/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248093458&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: High-Tech Heretic: Reflections of a Computer Contrarian (9780385489768): Clifford Stoll: Books[/ame]
Are children getting dumber? « Prospect Magazine
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dumbest-Generation-Stupefies-Americans-Jeopardizes/dp/1585426393]Amazon.com: The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) (9781585426393): Mark Bauerlein: Books[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

What are the differences, as you see them, between what a teacher does and what a professor does? Assuming, of course, that each does what is 'age appropriate.'

The teacher is trying to instruct people who are present involuntarily. To do this, they use a variety of techniques to make the course interesting, and "easiler to swallow" (fascilitating). They coordinate curriculum with student interests. They allow students to feel empowered to teach each other. They try to make students feel good: They praise learning.

Good teachers are able to succeed with many students, but despite the school system's Banners That Scream "EVERY CHILD: EVERY DAY" or "EVERY CHILD CAN LEARN" many simply do not.

A professor presents the material to people who have not only volunteerd to be in the course, but who have PAID to be there. Whether or nor you are interested is largely immaterial. If you do well or not isn't his concern. You've paid to be in the course: its up to you, as an adult, to motivate yourself. He will not "retest." He will expect to test, sometimes not even a sample of what he has taught. He will grade the test with a red pen, or purple pen, or whatever-the-hell color pen he wants to use without regard for the impact the ink color may have on future learning. He will not affix smilie face stickers to good papers.

I find yours to be a fairly comprehensive exposition of progressive education.

1."...a variety of techniques to make the course interesting, and "easiler to swallow" (fascilitating)."
This doesn't seem to differentiate 'teacher' from 'professor,' especially if each is trying to acomplish their function. And, while the technically correct definition of 'facilitate,' it is so broad as to be meaningless for our purpose.

2. "They coordinate curriculum with student interests."
Not so. Teachers do not have the autonomy to either determine curriculum, or to arrange the order of development. We have a Regents Exam which determines what must be taught, and order is generally department-wide.
In fact, I would guess that a professor has more leeway in this context.

3."They allow students to feel empowered to teach each other. They try to make students feel good: They praise learning."
This is the hallmark of progressive education: No red pens for grading, everybody's work goes up on the wall,...
Everybody likes a pat on the head, a pos rep, as it were, but the 'feel good' aspect of school should be the result of achievement: the '100' on a valid exam!
Solving an equation correctly is 'empowering,' when everyone gets an 'A' it is counterfeit.

3a. "empowered to teach each other"
Right out of Friere:
"One of Freire’s most widely quoted metaphors dismisses teacher-directed instruction as a misguided “banking concept,” in which “the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing and storing the deposits.” Freire proposes instead that teachers partner with their coequals, the students, in a “dialogic” and “problem-solving” process until the roles of teacher and student merge into “teacher-students” and “student-teachers.”
Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009

4. "Good teachers are able to succeed with many students, but despite the school system's Banners That Scream "EVERY CHILD: EVERY DAY" or "EVERY CHILD CAN LEARN" many simply do not."
I'm not understanding this. Do not or can not?

5. "The teacher is trying to instruct people who are present involuntarily." Probably true of both teachers and professors.
You've heard this of college students, they are the worst 'consumers:' "I'll pay the money, but just give me the least possible product."

6. "...as an adult, to motivate yourself." Unfair, and, in fact, this is 'begging the question.'
Are we speaking of the 30-year-old student who lives in his parents house? Adult? I don't accept that the vast majority of college students are 'adult' any more than I accept that a 'baby-momma' is a fiance.

7. "He will not "retest." Oh, yeah, he will.
"Many college students can’t do math or read well, write Sandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman on Minding the Campus.

Estimates of those needing remedial classes before taking credit courses range from 30% of entering students to 40% of traditional undergraduates. . . .

A 2004 U.S. Department of Education study reports that 42% of freshmen in public two-year institutions need remediation.

. . . More than half of all college students will not earn a degree or credential, according to a 2009 Gates Foundation report drawing on national education statistics. For community college and low-income students, it notes, the numbers are much worse." remedial « Joanne Jacobs

8. "He will not affix smilie face stickers to good papers."
Probably true, but depends how far to the left he is.

A high school teacher told me that he was not allowed to post class grades where other students could see all of them, as a poorly performing student might be upset.
His, and my attitude is that such posting would a) make clear where a student stands, b) encourage competition (anathema to progressives), c) instill in the student a decision to strive harder, so that all should see his grades.
And, let's have smiley faces on all good tests!


I'm still thinking about doing away with compulsory education, but have problems...
(work in progress)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Progressive Education, and the 'social justice' crowd have already destroyed public education.

"[T]eachers must search far in ed-school syllabi to find a single reference to any of Hirsch’s work—yet required readings by radical education thinkers such as Paulo Freire, Jonathan Kozol, and ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers are common. From these texts, prospective teachers will learn that the purpose of schooling in America isn’t to create knowledgeable, civic-minded citizens, loyal to the nation’s democratic institutions, as Jefferson dreamed, but rather to undermine those institutions and turn children into champions of “social justice” as defined by today’s America-hating far Left."

Didn't we have this discussion earlier and didn't we find parents are a key factor in this picture? I have no idea what Kozol, in particular of the list, has undermined? Do you? Probably not, it just sounds right because someone is to blame and for some it is the imaginary lefties.

Education does not take place in a vacuum, our culture surely influences education and the lack thereof. If public schools taught civics you'd complain they were brainwashing the children. So let post again a few links that explain more than your usual reactionary blame on someone thinking.

Lessons From Finland: The Way to Education Excellence | CommonDreams.org

"At the heart of Finland's stellar reputation is a philosophy completely alien to America. The country of 5.3 million in an area twice the size of Missouri considers education an end in itself - not a means to an end. It's a deeply rooted value that is reflected in the Ministry of Education and in all 432 municipalities. In sharp contrast, Americans view education as a stepping stone to better-paying jobs or to impress others. The distinction explains why we are obsessed with marquee names, and how we structure, operate and fund schools."

A Nation of Morons - TurnOffYourTV.com
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-Schooling/dp/0865714487/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241441360&sr=1-14]Amazon.com: Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (9780865714489): John Taylor Gatto: Books[/ame]
Dumbest Generation Home
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/High-Tech-Heretic-Reflections-Computer-Contrarian/dp/0385489765/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248093458&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: High-Tech Heretic: Reflections of a Computer Contrarian (9780385489768): Clifford Stoll: Books[/ame]
Are children getting dumber? « Prospect Magazine
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dumbest-Generation-Stupefies-Americans-Jeopardizes/dp/1585426393]Amazon.com: The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) (9781585426393): Mark Bauerlein: Books[/ame]

You can blather all you wish, but facts are facts.

Content-rich traditional methods surpass the progressive pap in vogue today.

Those systems that avoid progressive education produce far better results:

" The “Massachusetts miracle,” in which Bay State students’ soaring test scores broke records, was the direct consequence of the state legislature’s passage of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which established knowledge-based standards for all grades and a rigorous testing system linked to the new standards. And those standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy.

In the new millennium, Massachusetts students have surged upward on the biennial National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—“the nation’s report card,” as education scholars call it. On the 2005 NAEP tests, Massachusetts ranked first in the nation in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math. It then repeated the feat in 2007. No state had ever scored first in both grades and both subjects in a single year—let alone for two consecutive test cycles. On another reliable test, the Trends in International Math and Science Studies, the state’s fourth-graders last year ranked second globally in science and third in math, while the eighth-graders tied for first in science and placed sixth in math. (States can volunteer, as Massachusetts did, to have their students compared with national averages.) The United States as a whole finished tenth."
E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy by Sol Stern, City Journal Autumn 2009

Or are you denying that progressive ed is a leftist philosophy?

Best wishes to your family- but a lump of coal in your stocking!

 

[Samson]

I find yours to be a fairly comprehensive exposition of progressive education.

1."...a variety of techniques to make the course interesting, and "easiler to swallow" (fascilitating)."
This doesn't seem to differentiate 'teacher' from 'professor,' especially if each is trying to acomplish their function. And, while the technically correct definition of 'facilitate,' it is so broad as to be meaningless for our purpose.)

Agreed that you (and I) would assume that, "each is trying to accomplish their function." But, what motivates the average university instructor? Successful graduates? If so then every American would know their names. Instead, we know the names of the institutions: Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, MIT,......just the names that roll from our tongues as easily as the names of our children about whom we dream of visting there during their graduations. Professors at these schools receive La Creme de la Creme: They could be babbling idiots (many are quite liberal) and they would still produce successful graduates. So the question remains: What motivates the average university instructor?

I'll use this post to begin a new thread on the subject because I'm sorta flying by the seat of my pants here, but based on what I've read, heard, etc:
1. Research
2. Publications
3. Royalties from Textbook Sales
4. Escape from the "Real World"

Are all to different degrees, motives for the work of professors. Love of teaching, could be included, but is such a small fraction of the picture, that I don't feel it deserves numeration.

2. "They coordinate curriculum with student interests."
Not so. Teachers do not have the autonomy to either determine curriculum, or to arrange the order of development. We have a Regents Exam which determines what must be taught, and order is generally department-wide.
In fact, I would guess that a professor has more leeway in this context.

What I mean is that teachers determine HOW something is taught, not WHAT is taught. There are a wide range of ways HOW to teach the concept of WHAT a Fraction is. The least effective is the most abstract: simply reading one of your beloved dictionary definitions would be an example of an abstract way to define a fraction. Generally, student enjoy pizza. If you demonstrate that a pizza can be cut into equal portions, and that each portion is a FRACTION of the whole, and then you only share the pizza with students who will write, in their own words what a fraction is (without using the pizza in the definition), then students will learn the definition.

3."They allow students to feel empowered to teach each other. They try to make students feel good: They praise learning."
This is the hallmark of progressive education: No red pens for grading, everybody's work goes up on the wall,...
Everybody likes a pat on the head, a pos rep, as it were, but the 'feel good' aspect of school should be the result of achievement: the '100' on a valid exam!
Solving an equation correctly is 'empowering,' when everyone gets an 'A' it is counterfeit.)

So you do NOT think making students feel good is a good idea? Making them feel bad will make learning easier? Certainly you don't expect everyone to get an "A" the first time they learn something: How much easier will it be to reteach those that fail to get it the first time if we "neg rep" them everytime they get anything wrong? Hell, I'd quit the board and go somewhere more friendly.

3a. "empowered to teach each other"
Right out of Friere:
"One of Freire’s most widely quoted metaphors dismisses teacher-directed instruction as a misguided “banking concept,” in which “the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing and storing the deposits.” Freire proposes instead that teachers partner with their coequals, the students, in a “dialogic” and “problem-solving” process until the roles of teacher and student merge into “teacher-students” and “student-teachers.”
Pedagogy of the Oppressor by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2009)

I assume you disagree with Friere?

Well, I see what he's suggesting as simply one technique among the larger-the-better bag of techniques a teacher has. Sometimes, with some students, one technique works better than others. IMHO science labs are this optimum opportunity. I'd be surprised that under any circumstances, even the Valhallah of Learning in Finland, that students work alone in science labs.

4. "Good teachers are able to succeed with many students, but despite the school system's Banners That Scream "EVERY CHILD: EVERY DAY" or "EVERY CHILD CAN LEARN" many simply do not."
I'm not understanding this. Do not or can not?)

I don't know. Kids come from a wide variety of backgrounds....some of them are not very condusive to raising the perfect student. For example, when I was student teaching 8th grade Math, I had a student who could learn almost anything, in fact, I was sure she was gifted, on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but absolutely nothing on Monday or Friday. Only later in the semester did we discover she was being sexually abused during the weekends.

5. "The teacher is trying to instruct people who are present involuntarily." Probably true of both teachers and professors.
You've heard this of college students, they are the worst 'consumers:' "I'll pay the money, but just give me the least possible product.")

Point being: They do pay. Regardless of their sadly immature attitudes.

6. "...as an adult, to motivate yourself." Unfair, and, in fact, this is 'begging the question.'
Are we speaking of the 30-year-old student who lives in his parents house? Adult? I don't accept that the vast majority of college students are 'adult' any more than I accept that a 'baby-momma' is a fiance.)

Oh I agree with the Fuzzy definition of an "adult." But I'm speaking from the point of view of the professor: Compared to highschool students, college students are more mature, have consciously volunteered to be in the class, have paid to be there.

7. "He will not "retest." Oh, yeah, he will.
"Many college students can’t do math or read well, write Sandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman on Minding the Campus.

Estimates of those needing remedial classes before taking credit courses range from 30% of entering students to 40% of traditional undergraduates. . . .

A 2004 U.S. Department of Education study reports that 42% of freshmen in public two-year institutions need remediation.

. . . More than half of all college students will not earn a degree or credential, according to a 2009 Gates Foundation report drawing on national education statistics. For community college and low-income students, it notes, the numbers are much worse." remedial « Joanne Jacobs)

Oh I'll pos rep you for all these resource references because I agree with them all: Sure Universities must offer remediation courses (which is partially why I favor offering only vocational courses in high school). They should "reteach" in these courses. I'm not referring to remediation courses when I'm talking about professors that are unconcerned about "retesting."

8. "He will not affix smilie face stickers to good papers."
Probably true, but depends how far to the left he is.

A high school teacher told me that he was not allowed to post class grades where other students could see all of them, as a poorly performing student might be upset.
His, and my attitude is that such posting would a) make clear where a student stands, b) encourage competition (anathema to progressives), c) instill in the student a decision to strive harder, so that all should see his grades.
And, let's have smiley faces on all good tests!)

Well, wouldn't it make YOU feel bad if everyone knew your score and it was shitty?

I've done exactly what this teacher has done. I posted only the grades, not the names (you got your paper back, so you knew who you were). I even graphed the grades to demonstrate what a nice bell-curve they formed. Obviously all students a) clearly knew where they stood. Did it encourage competition? Yes. It encouraged those who were at the upper end of the curve to compete with each other and complain about the "95" they received rather than the "96" they felt they deserved.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find yours to be a fairly comprehensive exposition of progressive education.

1."...a variety of techniques to make the course interesting, and "easiler to swallow" (fascilitating)."
This doesn't seem to differentiate 'teacher' from 'professor,' especially if each is trying to acomplish their function. And, while the technically correct definition of 'facilitate,' it is so broad as to be meaningless for our purpose.)

Agreed that you (and I) would assume that, "each is trying to accomplish their function." But, what motivates the successul instructor? Successful graduates? If so then every American would know their names. Instead, we know the names of the institutions: Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, MIT,......just the names that roll from our tongues as easily as the names of our children about whom we dream of visting there during their graduations. Professors at these schools receive La Creme de la Creme: They could be babbling idiots (many are quite liberal) and they would still produce successful graduates. So the question remains: What motivates the average university instructor?

I'll use this post to begin a new thread on the subject because I'm sorta flying by the seat of my pants here, but based on what I've read, heard, etc:
1. Research
2. Publications
3. Royalties from Textbook Sales
4. Escape from the "Real World"

Are all to different degrees, motives for the work of professors. Love of teaching, could be included, but is such a small fraction of the picture, that I don't feel it deserves numeration.

2. "They coordinate curriculum with student interests."
Not so. Teachers do not have the autonomy to either determine curriculum, or to arrange the order of development. We have a Regents Exam which determines what must be taught, and order is generally department-wide.
In fact, I would guess that a professor has more leeway in this context.

What I mean is that teachers determine HOW something is taught, not WHAT is taught. There are a wide range of ways HOW to teach the concept of WHAT a Fraction is. The least effective is the most abstract: simply reading one of your beloved dictionary definitions would be an example of an abstract way to define a fraction. Generally, student enjoy pizza. If you demonstrate that a pizza can be cut into equal portions, and that each portion is a FRACTION of the whole, and then you only share the pizza with students who will write, in their own words what a fraction is (without using the pizza in the definition), then students will learn the definition.



So you do NOT think making students feel good is a good idea? Making them feel bad will make learning easier? Certainly you don't expect everyone to get an "A" the first time they learn something: How much easier will it be to reteach those that fail to get it the first time if we "neg rep" them everytime they get anything wrong? Hell, I'd quit the board and go somewhere more friendly.



I assume you disagree with Friere?

Well, I see what he's suggesting as simply one technique among the larger-the-better bag of techniques a teacher has. Sometimes, with some students, one technique works better than others. IMHO science labs are this optimum opportunity. I'd be surprised that under any circumstances, even the Valhallah of Learning in Finland, that students work alone in science labs.



I don't know. Kids come from a wide variety of backgrounds....some of them are not very condusive to raising the perfect student. For example, when I was student teaching 8th grade Math, I had a student who could learn almost anything, in fact, I was sure she was gifted, on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but absolutely nothing on Monday or Friday. Only later in the semester did we discover she was being sexually abused during the weekends.



Point being: They do pay. Regardless of their sadly immature attitudes.



Oh I agree with the Fuzzy definition of an "adult." But I'm speaking from the point of view of the professor: Compared to highschool students, college students are more mature, have consciously volunteered to be in the class, have paid to be there.

7. "He will not "retest." Oh, yeah, he will.
"Many college students can’t do math or read well, write Sandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman on Minding the Campus.

Estimates of those needing remedial classes before taking credit courses range from 30% of entering students to 40% of traditional undergraduates. . . .

A 2004 U.S. Department of Education study reports that 42% of freshmen in public two-year institutions need remediation.

. . . More than half of all college students will not earn a degree or credential, according to a 2009 Gates Foundation report drawing on national education statistics. For community college and low-income students, it notes, the numbers are much worse." remedial « Joanne Jacobs)

Oh I'll pos rep you for all these resource references because I agree with them all: Sure Universities must offer remediation courses (which is partially why I favor offering only vocational courses in high school). They should "reteach" in these courses. I'm not referring to remediation courses when I'm talking about professors that are unconcerned about "retesting."

8. "He will not affix smilie face stickers to good papers."
Probably true, but depends how far to the left he is.

A high school teacher told me that he was not allowed to post class grades where other students could see all of them, as a poorly performing student might be upset.
His, and my attitude is that such posting would a) make clear where a student stands, b) encourage competition (anathema to progressives), c) instill in the student a decision to strive harder, so that all should see his grades.
And, let's have smiley faces on all good tests!)

Well, wouldn't it make YOU feel bad if everyone knew your score and it was shitty?

I've done exactly what this teacher has done. I posted only the grades, not the names (you got your paper back, so you knew who you were). I even graphed the grades to demonstrate what a nice bell-curve they formed. Obviously all students a) clearly knew where they stood. Did it encourage competition? Yes. It encouraged those who were at the upper end of the curve to compete with each other and complain about the "95" they received rather than the "96" they felt they deserved.

I must tell you, I really appreciate this not only because of the fun I have in the back-and-forth, but becuse I hope others will be interested in thinking about education, our future. Thanks again.

1. I'd like to start here, rather than as to what motivates the professor.
" teachers determine HOW something is taught,...'
No, and this is one of the biggest complaints that I hear. Progressive education theory stifles any distinction or variation, much as liberal political direction does in society. The 'one size must fit all' of pedagogy. Teachers tell me that the Friere (they don't mention the name) idea that the 'sage on the stage' is a no-no, and their observation reports scold 'chalk and talk,' and insist that there is constant group work, and some sort of student directed discussion, as opposed to a Socratic question and answer directed by the teacher.
I understand that the administrator actually uses a stop-watch to make sure that the teacher does no more than a 5-minute 'monologue'.
Some say that they are actually given a script.

2. "So you do NOT think making students feel good is a good idea?"
Now, now, that is not what I said. It depends on, as a famous Democrat once said, 'what the meaning of the word is is." Does feel good mean giving an A when the work is D? Does it mean saying, 'well, at least you did your best...'?
Nonsense.
State attainable goals, teach well, and test fully. The grade is the 'feel good' goal.
Further, publish the student grades, and publish the grades associated with the teacher as well.
If the same teacher constantly has failing student, the message will be clear.

3."Certainly you don't expect everyone to get an "A" the first time."
No, I don't. But I do expect there to be a mechanism that will encourage continued efforts. The (public) high school that I attended has a Resource Room, with teachers from each department, where a student could get help. Another teacher would come in early every day, and students could retake any exam- no matter the grade. Other teachers would allow students to sit in on additional classes if they wished.
Any student who did not avail himself of these aids should suffer the penalty.

4."Sometimes, with some students, one technique works better than others."
Friere and the educrats do not allow different techniques, and specify a) teachers cannot be the 'sage on the stage,' but must remain the 'guide on the side.' And b) students teaching students is THE technique.
But it goes beyond the individual classroom, as progressive education does not believe in teaching a body of knowledge, or fact based content.
"The pedagogical point of Freire’s thesis : its opposition to taxing students with any actual academic content,..." Ibid.

5. "...surprised that under any circumstances, even the Valhallah of Learning in Finland, that students work alone in science labs."
I believe that we are discussing whether or not students should ever work together.
Absolutely they should, especially in the situation that you have chosen.
But not as a rule to the exclusion of a teacher who actually knows the subject.
In my experience, groupwork always broke down into one student actually doing the work and three copying it.
I suspect, without real evidence, that the formulation that champions this groupwork idea is based on the result: three lazy students will now pass, and 'feel good.'


6. "I posted only the grades, not the names ..."
No, the teacher that I quoted earlier actually bucked the system and posted grades with names!
BTW, according to this teacher, his students had the highest passing % on the NYS Regenst exam approximately ever other year. In a department of about 30.
But this was prior to the stop-watch tyranny.

7. "...some of them are not very condusive to raising the perfect student. "
Spot on. This is the problem we must attack. We must provide ways to mitigate the problems that kids bring with them, many outside of their control. But we must always be honest with the kids. Real tests, real grades. Extra classes, extra time, let them choose the teacher, the textbook, other choices, so that they, to borrow the synecdoche that Dude uses, have 'more skin in the game.'

7a. "Only later in the semester did we discover she was being sexually abused during the weekends. "
OMG. This is way beyond my thoughts on education. But perhaps one of the problems with our system is that teachers are so well intentioned that they see every aspect of the child as their perview. It shouldn't be. In NY teachers are 'mandated reporters,' and must, by law, report such things to the responsible authorites.


8. "..wouldn't it make YOU feel bad ..."
Feeling bad is not the worst thing in the world.
Far worse is being passed on without the ability to succeed later in life. And I have read studies that show that affirmative action admitees to high level grad schools graduate as far lower rates than those who go to schools where they are better able to compete.
"Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted."
BalancedPolitics.org - Affirmative Action (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)
[Here is the alternative view:]JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

9. "rather than the "96" they felt they deserved..'
I think I'd love it. That is the perq of a 95 student: let them think that they rule.
But not the 45 student. He must be trained to understand that he can turn that 45 into a 95, and tell him how in short, clear, understandable steps.

Thanks again for taking the time share your views.

Remind me to post Ms. Coulters' sometime. You'd have fun attacking them.

 

[midcan5]

You can blather all you wish, but facts are facts.

Content-rich traditional methods surpass the progressive pap in vogue today.

Those systems that avoid progressive education produce far better results:

" The “Massachusetts miracle,” in which Bay State students’ soaring test scores broke records, was the direct consequence of the state legislature’s passage of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which established knowledge-based standards for all grades and a rigorous testing system linked to the new standards. And those standards, Massachusetts reformers have acknowledged, are Hirsch’s legacy.

Or are you denying that progressive ed is a leftist philosophy?

To your last question, YES. There is no leftist philosophy of education. There are only ideas of what is best. Weird that you give Massachusetts as your example - aren't they all bad liberals?

I just had this discussion with several HS teachers who taught or administered at our top PA and MD schools, mostly private and again it was more about values and just a lack of interest. Lazy was their word. Culture: TV in this country, greatly influence children, that and parents working all the time or single parent families have no time. Did you read the Finish piece? Your ideas comes from your stored ideas and you fail to see the gorilla in the room.

The potential for education is there regardless of the method, I'm sure you recognize too that good teachers are rare but there too. Getting the right combination and a worldview that praised and honored and valued education and learning are the hard parts. It is you who blather when you constantly blame some imaginary foe and fail to see the whole picture.

 

[editec]

Our schools cannot fix the problem that our families are facing.

Fix the state of the American family and the schools will heal themselves.

 

[Samson]

To your last question, YES. There is no leftist philosophy of education. There are only ideas of what is best. Weird that you give Massachusetts as your example - aren't they all bad liberals?

Since I have no idea what you guys have decided to lable "Leftist," I'll just assume you mean "Socialist" or even "Communist." Niether of these social constructs are all "bad." Education Systems in the USA do have some very socialist roots, since one of the primary goals is to break down eonomic class divisions that helped propagate WWI. The socialist goals have since been extrapolated to include dissolving racial, ethnic, gender, and religious divisions.

But, the system also has "Rightest?" goals. Assuming this means decentralised administration, and offering students the opportunity to reap the rewards of capitalism, you'd be hard pressed to find an education system on the planet that does more.

I just had this discussion with several HS teachers who taught or administered at our top PA and MD schools, mostly private and again it was more about values and just a lack of interest. Lazy was their word. Culture: TV in this country, greatly influence children, that and parents working all the time or single parent families have no time. Did you read the Finish piece? Your ideas comes from your stored ideas and you fail to see the gorilla in the room.

Our entire system ignores the "gorilla in the room."

I wonder if these teachers considered the irony of their remarks: At one time in the not-too-distant-past, students had TOO LITTLE Leisure time to go to school (the primary reason for our now-antiquated Summer Vacation was the need for people to tend crops).

I agree: We now have TOO MUCH Liesure. But what choice do kids have? Employers are prohibited from employing them! Hell, they're imprisoned in their homes, and we are surprised they watch TV?

Take India, or China.......you think their kids are sitting on their asses watching TV? No, they are thrashing rice, or making toys, or digging ditches. When they get a chance to learn, they APPLY themselves. You know why? Because they KNOW what they'll be doing if they do not.