What Would You Do? (Education)

[usmbguest5318]

How do you see the financial impact of your proposals?

That's a hard question for me to answer with any real rigor because financial impact necessarily means measuring costs and gains. There are too many dimensions that I've not carefully researched enough to offer a reasonably accurate and quantitative answer.

• Costs:
  • Cost of direct schooling in terms of facilities, equipment, wages, and so on: higher than it is now. How much so? I don't know. Could be a lot (as an order of magnitude), but it might also not be a lot.
  • Where would the funding come from? There are many ways to do that: tax increases or tax revenue reallocation are the primary ones; however, creative financing and/or level setting could also be used.
• Gains:
  • Quite simply, better educated kids are able to perform jobs that pay better. Given that the U.S. has a shortage of sufficiently trained/skilled workers, having better qualified high school grads would go a long way to putting more people to work, and that would have the corresponding boost to the economy. It may be that boost in personal incomes and the economy could ameliorate the blow of the higher overall costs, or it could fully offset them.
    • 4 U.S. governors on jobs: Finding skilled workers is a problem
      
    • Employers can't find enough skilled labor to fill jobs
      
    • CLOSING THE SKILLS GAP
      
    • A Better Measure of Skills Gaps
  • Holding students back while also not keeping them past 18 years old, may help in fact lower costs as kids who don't matriculate remain in lower cost grades for longer periods of time.
  • Keeping kids in schools longer each day and all year reduces the mischief young people have the opportunity to wreak on society. That is surely a cost savings, but I can't say how much it is. To the extent it keeps kids from becoming full on delinquents, it may be a huge savings as we know the cost of putting a kid in juvenile detention is far higher than schooling them.
  • Keeping kids in schools ensures more of their day is supervised by adults, thus providing the structure they need to grow up with "better" values and sensibilities. That almost certainly will translate into overall lower adult crime rates, but I can't quantify that.
  • Most, maybe all, the proposals I suggested contribute to making the task of educating children more effective and more efficient. This may not actually lower costs, but it will help increase the return on the sums spent.
  • Other: There are other factors, but the ones noted above should make clear the scope of what must be considered to answer your question.

As you can see, the question you've asked is no mean one. I wish I could just punch a few numbers into a spreadsheet and come up with a number that is at least roughly - i.e., within $5B, give or take, on some metric -- county, state, federal, gender group, identity group, something - but I can't. Even an answer that's "good enough to indicate closer examination is warranted" to your question is about six months' of real work for a small team.

I'm sorry I can't give a better answer. I hope you understand that it's got nothing to do with not wanting to; I just don't have the data I'd need to do it. (And, if I may be frank, it's more data than I'm willing right now to look for. )

I also noticed a reference to "worship", etc.(specifically, the seventh graders schedule model). Was that because it was in the model you were citing, or are you actually proposing generic/specific religious teaching?

"Worship" appeared because it is part of the curriculum at the school from which I copied the schedule.

FWIW, I'm fine with religion being taught, although in public schools, it needs to be comparative religion and/or philosophy, not theology (no matter the faith system). (See page 28 here. The school is Episcopal, and it offers a variety of dogmatic and secular religion classes.)

Further, I did not see any reference to "trade" classes - typing, computers, woodworking, etc. Would you find a 'dual track' approach, dependent on student's interest/capabilities, or do you feel strongly about teaching everybody the same thru graduation?

I think there's room for trades as well. The thing for me with trades being taught in school is that they are often taught as, and thought of, though they need not have intellectual rigor comparable to that of academic courses. I'll offer a few brief analogies to explain what I mean by that.

In higher education, one can take a degree in a trade/profession or in an academic pursuit. (Note: "Theory" is below used in the scientific sense.)

• Engineering degrees are merely applications of physics, chemistry, biology and math theory, depending on what type of engineering one studies.
• Accounting and finance are applications of economics and math theory.
• Marketing is an application of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and economic theory.
• Acting is little but communication and psychological theory.
• Computer science, despite the name, is an application of math and language theory.
• Kinesiology is an application of biology, chemistry and a bit of physics theory.
• Architecture is applied physics, geometry, psychology and art theory.
• Law is applied philosophy.

I think of learning trades/professions as basically being interdisciplinary studies, but as such, they can present plenty of opportunity for students to develop the life-important critical thinking skills as can math or history. So, if in, say, shop classes students are challenged to learn the relevant principles of geometry or physics (for instance) along with developing problem solving skills within a "building stuff" context, I'm fine with that. If cooking classes include, say, the relevant biology, chemistry and physics principles, that works for me. A good baker who understands the chemistry of baking can pretty well bake a good cake/pastry with a far wider range of ingredients because s/he'll know how they combine and interact under heat and varying temperatures. That kind of knowledge leads to an allows for innovation and successful innovation leads to, well, success.

What I would find unacceptable about teaching trades is doing so without including the theoretical underpinnings of the techniques being taught. I have no desire to see schools cranking out students who are good for very little beyond putting square pegs in square holes. I want to see schools churn out dynamic thinkers, no matter their area of proficiency.

You probably saw my comment about allowing adept students specialize early. Students beginning to learn trades/professions far earlier than "normal" is part of what I had in mind with that. (I had professions in mind, but trades would be fine too.) The reason I put the "high achieving" requirement on allowing that avenue is that students that want, say, to be mechanics and who performed highly in algebra and geometry have about all the math they really have to have unless they want to go on to materials/mechanical/chemical engineering. The "early specialization" route, however, need not preclude them from taking calculus, which they'd need for engineering, but they wouldn't have to take, say, European history or other liberal arts/humanities that aren't crucial to their desired field.

(Of course, I realize that one can call everything an application of natural sciences and math. It still makes the point, but it's a huge oversimplification to broach it that way in this context.)

 

[usmbguest5318]

Before replying to specific remarks, I want to add that based on my observations of children's facility with computer "stuff," it's quite clear to me that kids are more than able to learn mechanical actions - how to solve a quadratic equation, how to "long" divide, how to compose standard grammar sentences, etc. -- at a far younger age than we current demand they do. Given that observation, I think perhaps we should teach kids "rote" operations earlier and save the theory for far later, but still earlier than we do now. For instance, I think children should be introduced to proofs in the seventh grade, the focus being on getting to develop and grow accustomed to structured thinking more so than being able to replicate the proofs.

I think the same concept should be applied in all classes. For example, in say earth science, I think that students should be tested to answer questions like this:

• Based on your understanding of the metamorphic, igneous and sedimentary rock, which is better as a foundation for a skyscraper? Why?

But what do our schools do? They ask inane questions like this:

• What kind of rock is shale?
  • Sedimentary,
  • Precambrian
  • Metamorphic
  • Conglomerate
  • Igneous

Kids don't need, in these days of the Internet, to memorize things and learn how to be good at memorizing. They need to learn how to make sound inferences and "put two and two" together in a rational way. They need to be problem solvers, not data regurgitators, which computers and the Internet does better than any human can.

We group our kids, not by educational level, but by some arbitrary common model based on their age.

I think schools have as one of their key objectives preparing people for productive lives as adults. As go public schools, however, what that means is in one's 18th year at the latest, school's over. One may get a GED or something, but going to the little school building with all the other kids, well, that comes to an end.

As goes the practice of age tracking students, well, there's some good sense to that, at least I think so. Here's why...Let the following be givens:

• 18 years old makes one an adult.
• There is a body of knowledge and thinking skills that as a society we declare all adults should have.
• The evidence that one has that minimum skillset/knowledge is a high school diploma.

Insofar as the required knowledge and skills must be mastered by a specific point in time, and the information has to be taught, simple planning says that "so much" needs to be taught by "this" point in time if an individual is to have the time to master all the skills needed for a fruitful adulthood. Among the most straightforward ways to define milestones is by year.

The dilemma for which I don't have a "new" solution is that of kids who fail to meet their milestones and get to the 12th grade with no way to earn a diploma that indicates they've mastered the required content. Those individuals will just have to complete their education via the GED certificate.

Frankly, our school system celebrates mediocrity, while playing lip service to excellence.

Well, I don't know about that. I think there are schools in school systems that acquiesce to mediocrity.

 

[Spare_change]

Before replying to specific remarks, I want to add that based on my observations of children's facility with computer "stuff," it's quite clear to me that kids are more than able to learn mechanical actions - how to solve a quadratic equation, how to "long" divide, how to compose standard grammar sentences, etc. -- at a far younger age than we current demand they do. Given that observation, I think perhaps we should teach kids "rote" operations earlier and save the theory for far later, but still earlier than we do now. For instance, I think children should be introduced to proofs in the seventh grade, the focus being on getting to develop and grow accustomed to structured thinking more so than being able to replicate the proofs.

I think the same concept should be applied in all classes. For example, in say earth science, I think that students should be tested to answer questions like this:

• Based on your understanding of the metamorphic, igneous and sedimentary rock, which is better as a foundation for a skyscraper? Why?

But what do our schools do? They ask inane questions like this:

• What kind of rock is shale?
  • Sedimentary,
  • Precambrian
  • Metamorphic
  • Conglomerate
  • Igneous

Kids don't need, in these days of the Internet, to memorize things and learn how to be good at memorizing. They need to learn how to make sound inferences and "put two and two" together in a rational way. They need to be problem solvers, not data regurgitators, which computers and the Internet does better than any human can.

We group our kids, not by educational level, but by some arbitrary common model based on their age.

I think schools have as one of their key objectives preparing people for productive lives as adults. As go public schools, however, what that means is in one's 18th year at the latest, school's over. One may get a GED or something, but going to the little school building with all the other kids, well, that comes to an end.

As goes the practice of age tracking students, well, there's some good sense to that, at least I think so. Here's why...Let the following be givens:

• 18 years old makes one an adult.
• There is a body of knowledge and thinking skills that as a society we declare all adults should have.
• The evidence that one has that minimum skillset/knowledge is a high school diploma.

Insofar as the required knowledge and skills must be mastered by a specific point in time, and the information has to be taught, simple planning says that "so much" needs to be taught by "this" point in time if an individual is to have the time to master all the skills needed for a fruitful adulthood. Among the most straightforward ways to define milestones is by year.

The dilemma for which I don't have a "new" solution is that of kids who fail to meet their milestones and get to the 12th grade with no way to earn a diploma that indicates they've mastered the required content. Those individuals will just have to complete their education via the GED certificate.

Frankly, our school system celebrates mediocrity, while playing lip service to excellence.

Well, I don't know about that. I think there are schools in school systems that acquiesce to mediocrity.

Well, ain't dat a bitch??? I agree with most of what you say, and the differences are in application, not in approach.

What can we argue about next? Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?

 

[Unkotare]

...

I think the same concept should be applied in all classes. For example, in say earth science, I think that students should be tested to answer questions like this:

• Based on your understanding of the metamorphic, igneous and sedimentary rock, which is better as a foundation for a skyscraper? Why?

But what do our schools do? They ask inane questions like this:

• What kind of rock is shale?
  • Sedimentary,
  • Precambrian
  • Metamorphic
  • Conglomerate
  • Igneous

Kids don't need, in these days of the Internet, to memorize things and learn how to be good at memorizing. They need to learn how to make sound inferences and "put two and two" together in a rational way. They need to be problem solvers, not data regurgitators [sic], which computers and the Internet does better than any human can......

Kids are asked both types of questions. If you think a functioning memory (and strengthening of recall and retention) is not part of learning, you're crazy. What is your experience in education?

 

[usmbguest5318]

...

I think the same concept should be applied in all classes. For example, in say earth science, I think that students should be tested to answer questions like this:

• Based on your understanding of the metamorphic, igneous and sedimentary rock, which is better as a foundation for a skyscraper? Why?

But what do our schools do? They ask inane questions like this:

• What kind of rock is shale?
  • Sedimentary,
  • Precambrian
  • Metamorphic
  • Conglomerate
  • Igneous

Kids don't need, in these days of the Internet, to memorize things and learn how to be good at memorizing. They need to learn how to make sound inferences and "put two and two" together in a rational way. They need to be problem solvers, not data regurgitators [sic], which computers and the Internet does better than any human can......

Kids are asked both types of questions. If you think a functioning memory (and strengthening of recall and retention) is not part of learning, you're crazy.

The following assumes your statements have nothing to do with the fact that one of the questions is multiple choice and the other is unaided recall.

• Of course kids are asked both types of questions.
• Do you think good answers to the first type of question do not require the student to have strong recall and retention?

My issue is more that too often, IMO, test questions call students to regurgitate memorized/learned information rather than to consider the information they've memorized/learned and aptly apply it to solve a problem. The issue I have with the second question is that even if the student answers it correctly, they've not shown that they have any awareness of the implications of shale being sedimentary. Yes, of course, an instructor can wend their way to, over the course of several questions, getting to the "so what" of shale being sedimentary.

Personally, when I took exams, I strongly preferred essays and short answer questions to multiple choice ones. I did because the last type didn't (usually, math was an exception) allow me to demonstrate the nature and extent of my subject matter mastery and it exposed me to a greater risk of misconstruing the question and thereby getting it wrong. I preferred to receive credit for what I did know than to receive no credit for not remembering some minor detail that happened to be the focus of a multiple choice question.

What is your experience in education?

• Earned advanced degrees
• Graduate teaching assistant (economics) - I once created a multiple choice exam for undergrads and decided it was too much trouble to do well. From that point on, I stuck with "blue book" exams. I felt that was better for the students as it allowed me to tell what they knew (or didn't) and provide constructive feedback. In contrast, students incorrectly choosing "D," if "D" is the wrong answer, doesn't lend itself to my furthering the teaching/learning objective; I have no way to tell why they chose "D." I wonder if you think I'm crazy for thinking that way?
• Everything pertaining to sending four kids to school/college and being an involved parent in that process
• Adult instruction - I only ever developed multi choice questions for adult education.