Education in this country

inspiredsports

tonyb wrote: »

Charter schools have done wonders in poor area's of inner city schools. Cheaper than public schools too.
The standardized tests was a way to hold some accountability, but in the end, the child suffers, not the teacher. We need a new approach to the education system. The unions will fight to keep it the same old song and dance though.

And guess what? Good teachers are retained and bad teachers actually get fired from these schools, just like in the real world. The poor teachers learn from the experience and go out and try again, and the kids benefit.

A friend of ours started a charter school in the city where we live about a dozen years ago and now has 5 or 6 highly successful buildings up and running.

AsSiMiLaTeD

People here **** ENDLESSLY about standardized test and how teachers just 'teach the test'...

I have a CRAZY idea, you guys are gonna think I'm nuts. If everything's about the test and all they do is 'teach the test', then why don't we just change the damn test to include all the knowledge that we think they should have at a given age.

People gripe about the test because teachers teach the test and apparently don't teach the other important things. Just put the 'other important things' on the test, and then they'll teach that too.

Really, how hard can it be?

bobman1235

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

oh, another thing I disagree with about education is lack of use of technology. For example, in logistics we have a class devoted to cost analysis methods.... they teach us this BY HAND using a pen and paper. In half a semester, we've learned about 7 methods... however, ALL of these methods are done using technology in the real world. No one calculates the shortest truck route using a pen and paper... I was able to download 148kb freeware that did the problem for me in 6 seconds, instead of taking 15 minutes to do it on paper.

If we utilized the software used in the field, we would be able to learn faster, learn more methods, tackle bigger problems, ect. Simply, we'd be more prepared for the real world.

Wow.

So kids shouldn't learn math because they have calculators?

Learning the science BEHIND things is part of what education is all about. School isn't supposed to be a glorified training session for your future job, it's supposed to teach you how stuff works. Now, eventually, once you UNDERSTAND what's going on, you should use the program to do it more quickly, don't get me wrong, but.... honestly, if you don't undersatnd this already, my saying it to you isn't going to make a difference.

inspiredsports

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Problem is, we will be running things at a third grade level. all the analysis we are learning is so basic that I've been able to guess how to do most the stuff without using their formulas. How is this simplistic stuff going to carry me into the real world where someone is getting paid $10/hour to run much more complex calculations on their computer?

edit: we need to face the fact that this world runs on computers. If we had an emp, those calculations would be the least of my worries... we wouldn't get paid without computers, we wouldn't be shipping anything, our people couldn't find any items in the warehouse to ship, ect, ect.

Anyone can plug numbers into an input box. You've been given the rudimentary understanding of the underlying programming. Now you can choose to simply use what someone else has created, or attempt to improve it based upon your legitimate understanding of what the program is setting out to accomplish.

I applaud your teacher for presenting it that way, and I applaud you for actually learning it.

bobman1235

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

People here **** ENDLESSLY about standardized test and how teachers just 'teach the test'...

I have a CRAZY idea, you guys are gonna think I'm nuts. If everything's about the test and all they do is 'teach the test', then why don't we just change the damn test to include all the knowledge that we think they should have at a given age.

People gripe about the test because teachers teach the test and apparently don't teach the other important things. Just put the 'other important things' on the test, and then they'll teach that too.

Really, how hard can it be?

Very hard? It doesn't matter what's "on the test." It's the fact that passing the test is all that matters, rather than understanding the material. A trained monkey can be taught to give the right answers to something.

cokewithvanilla

Of course get that, but does it make sense that we spend so much time on learning what is behind stuff that we will never use? Perhaps if we learn what is behind the tougher problems, sure... we could move quicker if we didn't stress working the problem, or testing on working a problem that takes two pages of paper. We can learn what is behind it without necessarily making the calculations. The main reason I say this is this is nearly my last semester.... we shouldn't be learning the basics in the last semester, and if we have to, we need to speed it up...

for example, in the first 6 seconds of our discussion on the "shortest path" method, I knew that the concept is finding the shortest path at each point, and continuing. On paper, this can take all day. I get the concept... then they show me how to do it for like 32 points.. .taking hours. How does that help? We don't need to perfect a redundant, simple calculation... we need to get the concept and move on to more important things.

inspiredsports

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

People here **** ENDLESSLY about standardized test and how teachers just 'teach the test'...

I have a CRAZY idea, you guys are gonna think I'm nuts. If everything's about the test and all they do is 'teach the test', then why don't we just change the damn test to include all the knowledge that we think they should have at a given age.

People gripe about the test because teachers teach the test and apparently don't teach the other important things. Just put the 'other important things' on the test, and then they'll teach that too.

Really, how hard can it be?

Having been peripherally involved peering over my teaching wife's shoulder for 30 years, my opinion is that it would be much like getting the average Polkie to sell his/her existing (2-channel) gear and replace it exclusively with Emo --> Monster --> Bose :biggrin:

tonyb

Maybe because the teacher wants you to figure it out and not rely on a computer to do the learning for you. Just sayin' is all. There is a method to the madness,hopefully.

inspiredsports

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Of course get that, but does it make sense that we spend so much time on learning what is behind stuff that we will never use? Perhaps if we learn what is behind the tougher problems, sure... we could move quicker if we didn't stress working the problem, or testing on working a problem that takes two pages of paper. We can learn what is behind it without necessarily making the calculations. The main reason I say this is this is nearly my last semester.... we shouldn't be learning the basics in the last semester, and if we have to, we need to speed it up...

Good point, but the fact remains, you are now in a great position of understanding what is needed. Those who were only taught to plug numbers into the boxes are clueless. You now know what you don't know, and seem frustrated enough to go out and do something about it/fix it. You will be managing those $7-10 number inputting folks.

That's a very cool thing about college. Once you realize there's more to it than what you've been fed since kindergarten, you really are ready to go out there and figure out what you want to eat on your own. Congrats!

steveinaz

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

I think the biggest problem with education is what is taught. I know that I have been learning the same things each semester in college. It's like each progressing class teaches 70% old 30% new. We also spend way too much time on BS. I will graduate in the summer, and this semester is my FIRST semester in my major... that is sad. We should have at least 2 years in our major... at least. Why the hell do we have all these gen eds that lead nowhere? Why did I have to take "music appreciation"?

All this stuff just slows us down. While other countries graduate students quicker, and with more subjects in their major, we graduate slower with only having a few semesters of our major (at least in business).

As for discipline, I'd say ...no. I don't pay to be disciplined. If I want to walk out of class, fine... if I have more important things to do like text or be on my laptop, fine. So far, I can sleep through my classes and maintain a good gpa. Besides, we need people who flip burgers, who package meat, who drive forklifts .... we need people who have no want to be in school.... we should not force everyone to learn.

Answer to first/second paragraph: Revenue.

Answer to 3rd: I'm talking K-12 here. College students are grown ups, responsible for their own actions.

megasat16

U.S was once the top country in Education coz the rest of the world was dumber in the past. At that time, the intelligent folks around the world are gathered in the U.S to compete.

Now, the rest of the world catches up and U.S is losing the spot a while ago.

A College student knows where to look the formula (usually the Internet or Goggle) but don't know what formula to use or what is the basics theory or idea is a norm these days. It's alarmingly increasing in number these days and very frustrating when they got out of college one day.

cokewithvanilla

well... same goes for k-12 really.. i mean, sure it would be nice to have good teachers, not push kids through who didn't learn, blah blah, but when it comes down to it, it is the student and not the teacher that makes the difference.

I know people who were pushed through k-12 with the same teachers I had, and they simply weren't cut out for school... it was a waste of their time. You can't make people learn. We need unskilled labor, so it's not necessarily a bad thing

Other countries might be ahead of us because they can easily see the benefits of school, they have the motivation. In the U.S., we have peple content to be on welfare because they have their plasma, they have their car... they have a decent standard of lviing... in other countries, I can imagine there being a higher motivation because the standard of living without an education is pretty bad. This is just a guess.... but I really do think it is about the person who is learning, more than the system they are learning from.

nooshinjohn

We need to get back to the fundamentals, reading, writing(english) the sciences, history... We need to teach kids how to think and reason. What I have observed is history being taught with an agenda-driven bias, and mathematics being dumbed down so that even the slowest among students can feel good about their effort(or lack thereof). America is among the lowest ranked nations in the industrial world for many subjects today, yet we rank first in self esteem.

Teach the basics, and hold teachers to the highest standards of ethics and competence. In this way, we can identify students that need more attention and help them improve, rather than reduce standards and pass everyone along.

We also need to teach the truth of our history, without bias or agenda...

steveinaz

inspiredsports wrote: »

I like your teachers style. After an EMP strike, you and your classmates may be running things as the only class in the world who really learned the mechanics of how something really works.

Exactly, as archaic as it seems, you'd be amazed how important that information is to totally understanding a process.

Anyone remember their MS-DOS commands? You don't need to, the GUI and mouse takes care of all of it, but it's still good to know what is actually happening in the background.

cokewithvanilla

nooshinjohn wrote: »

We need to teach kids how to think and reason.

I can agree with that. School is so much memorization... which, in my opinion, is pretty useless

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

another I'd like to add:

- Until a child masters the basics, computers should play an extremely limited role. All writing/math should be done long-hand, all research at the library---you know.."books" those paper things with alot of pages that require you to actually experience correctly spelled words, and correct sentence structure.

Once a child shows a good grasp of the basics, then introduce them to computers for paper writing, research, etc. We are far too dependant on these damn things.

Great, except in the real world they don't necessarily need the basics if computers and other electronics, etc are the norm to be used. That's not the case right now but in 10-15 years kids may not have to learn to write since anything involving written words will be done on a keyboard.

I don't have a clue how to use an abucus or a cotton gin or a washboard because my generation had other methods. Like it or not some of the things taught today as "basics" won't be basics in the future.

Just food for thought as I agree 100% in the spirit of the post, but times and methods change. Doing long hand division really has no place anymore. Who ever sits down and does a problem that way.......

Just a few examples of the "basics" that your generation and my generation used when we were growing up but today it;s a bit arcane to require a child to sit and do long division, as long as they know what it's used for, there are much more efficient methods today.

H9

cokewithvanilla

steveinaz wrote: »

Anyone remember their MS-DOS commands? You don't need to, the GUI and mouse takes care of all of it, but it's still good to know what is actually happening in the background.

The problem with that kind of thinking is that we've advanced so far. If we desired to teach everyone how everything works in the background, education would take a lifetime, and we'd have a bunch of over educated people with no practical skills.

For example, I have no idea how the programming behind photoshop works. Most graphic designers do not either. Do we think this would be important to a graphic designer? I'd rather them spend time learning to use it, than learning how it is accomplished... essentially, that is knowledge that will never help.

same goes for a lot of things in my opinion... if you tell someone that is a chicken... is it essential that they understand the biology of a chicken, the number of chromosomes, how chromosomes work, and on and on? No... I think there is a cutoff between necessary knowledge and trivial facts. We need to educate people with an end in mind... everything they are taught has to have a purpose

steveinaz

nooshinjohn wrote: »

We need to get back to the fundamentals, reading, writing(english) the sciences, history... We need to teach kids how to think and reason. What I have observed is history being taught with an agenda-driven bias, and mathematics being dumbed down so that even the slowest among students can feel good about their effort(or lack thereof). America is among the lowest ranked nations in the industrial world for many subjects today, yet we rank first in self esteem.

Teach the basics, and hold teachers to the highest standards of ethics and competence. In this way, we can identify students that need more attention and help them improve, rather than reduce standards and pass everyone along.

We also need to teach the truth of our history, without bias or agenda...

3 words: Liberal Progressive Movement; sorry but it's a FACT and a major contributor to what is wrong with our educational system. Our children are taught to be ashamed of themsleves, for being AMERICAN. It disgusts me.

steveinaz

I grew up in a Union home, my Dad was a sheet metal mechanic/draftsmen. He also worked part time as a Real estate agent, for extra income. I have alot to be grateful for in that his union pay kept our heads just above the water. There was a time when unions had their place, but that time is over, IMO. They have run their course, and like many causes, got so powerful they corrupted themselves. They've become just as bad as the sweatshop businesses that were their very catalyst to exist in the first place, many years ago.

Nobody can seem to keep their perspective anymore. Know a good thing when they have it, and not to push the envelope.

FWIW, Federal workers (GS, WG, WM) are not union in the traditional sense. Yes, we have "so-called" union represenation, but we can't strike, they is no union to join, and our salaries are not negotiable. The Union rep is mostly their to give a warm and fuzzy--but they are pretty much powerless, unless you are being obviously screwed over by supervisor--and you better have concrete evidence to support your claim.

98Badger

Demiurge wrote: »

Perhaps, but in reality the issue in our state has nothing to do with education and everything to do with gelding public union bosses who don't understand that 100% taxpayer funded health care and pensions are not, in any way, a right. While people have been losing their jobs in the private sector due to the economy, people in the public sector have been getting wage and benefit increases.

They're being asked to pay a small portion of their pension and benefits. Public employees are also going to be allowed to opt out of joining a union, and in turn not have their money stolen from them and funneled to political parties they don't agree with.

Bunch of damn crybabies.

I recall someone saying: "Er...uh...um...er...errr...uh...We won!"

If you have been watching things unfold, you will see the unions have agreed to paying more for health care and pensions. This is no longer about balancing the budget. Notice the police and firefighter unions are exempt from the budget bill. I wonder which candidate they supported? Breaking the unions is a political move to ensure a certain party remains in power. As for the comment about public employees continuing to get wage and benefit increases that is not exactly correct. Many/most have taken pay freezes or been forced to take furlough days without pay. I'm not sure how that equates to wage and benefit increases. The way I see it, the system is corrupt on both sides. It's about either party gaining/maintaining political power. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving more in the direction of "money talks".

In terms of changing education, I do think many of the posts make excellent points. The system does need to be adjusted. Unfortunately, the changes that will have the greatest effect are cultural and the most difficult to implement. The newst generation seems to have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement and a lack of motivation. Until that changes, I seriously doubt any attempts at fixing the system will be effective. Let's raise the bar instead of lowering it.

inspiredsports

98Badger wrote: »

If you have been watching things unfold, you will see the unions have agreed to paying more for health care and pensions. This is no longer about balancing the budget. Notice the police and firefighter unions are exempt from the budget bill. I wonder which candidate they supported? Breaking the unions is a political move to ensure a certain party remains in power. As for the comment about public employees continuing to get wage and benefit increases that is not exactly correct. Many/most have taken pay freezes or been forced to take furlough days without pay. I'm not sure how that equates to wage and benefit increases. The way I see it, the system is corrupt on both sides. It's about either party gaining/maintaining political power. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving more in the direction of "money talks".

In terms of changing education, I do think many of the posts make excellent points. The system does need to be adjusted. Unfortunately, the changes that will have the greatest effect are cultural and the most difficult to implement. The newest generation seems to have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement and a lack of motivation. Until that changes, I seriously doubt any attempts at fixing the system will be effective. Let's raise the bar instead of lowering it.

Good points.

One that I'm not sure about is that it's the newest generation of teachers.

My wife's co-teachers range from 22 to mid sixties. The union reps have changed over the years and were typically mid forties to early fifties. To my way of thinking, and maybe it just came with the position, their low priority placement of the students in the whole scheme of things turned my stomach.

They were always entrenched idealogues, and if they had ever worked a performance-based day in their lives, they'd long forgotten about it.

Additionally, I've found the older teachers to be the most vitriolic in their speech about the various administrators. And again, I've rarely found the well-being of the students to be the topic of their discussions.

sucks2beme

People that know how to read and apply are what's needed.
The world changes around us. The media(books, computer,internet,chalkboard)
isn't the issue. It's learning how to read and apply. Learning how to use
an operating system or program is NOT a real education. Show me someone
who never has seen a computer, but understands the basics can be up and running
one in a couple of weeks(other than typing, that takes a while).

We seem to have a counter-education thing going on here. Being cool
or a jock is more important that being a good student. Ever see a
personal ad in India? Looking for a woman with good English and math skills
is important to them. That's not likely to come up very often on an episode of
"the Bachelor". Until that changes, there's not going to be any real
progress. You could pay the teachers $100k a year, but what good will it do
until the kids decide to really apply themselves to learning.

treitz3

Steve....no love? I asked you a question.

nooshinjohn

sucks2beme wrote: »

Being cool (Charlie Sheen, 50Cent, Eminem)or a jock (Michael Vick) is more important that being a good student. Ever see a personal ad in India? Looking for a woman with good English and math skills is important to them. That's not likely to come up very often on an episode of "the Bachelor". Until that changes, there's not going to be any real progress. You could pay the teachers $100k a year, but what good will it do until the kids decide to really apply themselves to learning.

Added a bit to your post...

Students see these guys as role models and do everything to emmulate that behavior. What kids learn is that actions have no real consequences, so learning is stupid. We have dumbed things down to the point that kids just give up because they are not challenged. I know this first hand as I was one of those kids. Teachers need to be allowed to teach their passions. They need to be able to inspire and lead. Teachers today have taken the Nike mantra of "I am NOT a role model" too far, and any teacher that does not want to raise their standards and have an impact on the minds of the students they are entrusted with should be fired. The teachers unions and any government agencey that stands in the way of the education process needs to be banned, defunded, or shut down.

It is not about the kids not wanting to learn as much as society teaching them that they don't have to. This needs to change, before the next generations are lost forever, and our society with it.

agfrost

I'm a high school teacher, so I've got some thoughts on several points. Don't take any of this as gospel, I'm not the type to assume I know all.

steveinaz wrote: »

Here lies the core problem. Over the years teaching has become a "source of income", rather than a source of inspiration. Not everyone is cut-out to be a teacher; it takes something special. Too many of our teachers lack the secret ingredient---that's not meant as an insult (hell, I know I'm not cut-out to teach) it's just that teaching is not for everyone.
Teaching absolutely is not for everyone. I've worked with, and for, people that do not have some, or all, of the attributes required to be an interesting and effective teacher. Being such a teacher requires, among other things, knowledge of subject area(s); a willingness to pay the price (of time and effort) needed to plan, present, and assess well; a healthy dose of enthusiasm for the subject; a stubborn sense of what constitutes learning (so that students aren't given A's for merely being inoffensive in class).



If you love to teach, I mean truly live, breathe, and eat it...you can teach anything, with nothing more than a willing audience.

This is true... and elusive. Even assuming that a teacher can do the job of teaching well, the "willing audience" is frighteningly rare. The reasons for this deficit are many, and there's blame to be laid at the feet of culture, parents, teachers, administrators, legislators... I've written and deleted a couple of hundred words trying to summarize my thoughts as to why; I'll just have to state that this is one of the most complex problems in education. The "No Child Left Behind" movement has as a given that students are a willing audience--Basing a premise on a false assumption dooms it to failure.

tonyb wrote: »

No really, if you left it up to the principle to decide. Do you have to take a test to get a raise ? Your boss says your doing a good job, how? By the results he/she see's. By feed back from your clients,customers. Why couldn't teacher pay be based in the same manner ?
The major issue with merit pay, IMO, is that it is essentially impossible to see the impact of a single teacher on a student. If my principal was in my classroom on a daily, or even weekly basis; he'd have a good idea of how I perform. Alas, he's got 150 other teachers to monitor, in 180 school days, as well. And we're assuming he knows the first thing about teaching himself, which may or may not be true. And assuming that he doesn't have an axe to grind with a teacher that goes into evaluation. Or that District-level or parent-level pressures don't color his evaluation. I "get" the awesomeness that would exist if it were possible to determine what pay a teacher "merits," but I have doubts as to whether it is possible. How about exit tests for students? Completely, utterly unworkable. Essentially all teachers from white-collar, high-income areas would be seen as meriting pay; essentially all teachers from other, less well-to-do areas would not merit additional pay; merely by virtue of their clientele. For many (not all) students, their socioeconomic status, family & cultural value placed on education, the number of parents in their home will put a floor and/or ceiling on what they achieve in school, and that's irrespective of their teachers. Marginal teachers in the high SES school will have students who test well, due to factors the teacher does not control; super-human teachers in the low-SES school will never be acknowledged, in spite of the sterling work they do. Merit-pay based on test scores won't work, won't work, won't work.

inspiredsports wrote: »

Good stuff.

It's good to see someone posting about this because that is the first step:Getting Involved at the local level.

Parents and guardians need to take control of their children's educations because the so called "experts" do not have the children's best interests covered in any way, shape or form.
Agree. Parental involvement = #1 correlation with academic success for students.
My wife has taught since 1981 and is continually baffled by the way the current system rewards, even protects, the worst teachers imaginable with the same compensation as the best. It's nonsensical, especially when you consider what's at stake.Agree, but again: How to ferret out the worst, fairly without misidentification or abuse? I assume I'll be OK under any system put in, but I'll be holding my breath.

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

oh, another thing I disagree with about education is lack of use of technology. For example, in logistics we have a class devoted to cost analysis methods.... they teach us this BY HAND using a pen and paper. In half a semester, we've learned about 7 methods... however, ALL of these methods are done using technology in the real world. No one calculates the shortest truck route using a pen and paper... I was able to download 148kb freeware that did the problem for me in 6 seconds, instead of taking 15 minutes to do it on paper.

If we utilized the software used in the field, we would be able to learn faster, learn more methods, tackle bigger problems, ect. Simply, we'd be more prepared for the real world. Many employers wish to train you on site, after they've got you in their clutches, so that you don't have bad habits and will learn to do the work "the company way." I'm inclined to agree. In education, it's crucial to REALLY learn the concepts that underlie the workings. Fast programs give answers, but don't develop the understanding of how/why it is the way it is. I understand your frustration, but still feel that there is value in your current suffering.

obieone

The NEA has too much power. Just listen to Christie, and pay CLOSE attention to the NUMBERS!


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1ksLlAi3iIc&quot; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

inspiredsports

agfrost wrote: »

I'm a high school teacher, so I've got some thoughts on several points. Don't take any of this as gospel, I'm not the type to assume I know all.

inspiredsports wrote:

My wife has taught since 1981 and is continually baffled by the way the current system rewards, even protects, the worst teachers imaginable with the same compensation as the best. It's nonsensical, especially when you consider what's at stake.

agfrost wrote: »

Agree, but again: How to ferret out the worst, fairly without misidentification or abuse? I assume I'll be OK under any system put in, but I'll be holding my breath..

I understand you were invited (urged/cajoled/coerced) to join the union the day you signed employment papers for your first teaching job (coerced is the proper term in my wife's specific cases). In her case she has only paid in and never extracted anything from the union because she is truly a gifted teacher and would probably make 40-50% more than the average in a free-market teacher compensation system. In contrast, several of her co-workers would make much less or perhaps even be let go (and the kids would bendfit from that system).

OK, but consider this. I started my first job when I was 14 and am now 54.

I have never not had a job when I wanted one, but I've never been in a union. Neither have millions and millions and millions of others.

Additionally, I've held onto jobs when others around me were let go.

Have you ever stopped and thought about how employment works, quite successfully for most, outside of the auspices of union employment?

markmarc

I've taught in private, K-8 parochial schools for 17 years and I can tell you the biggest reason for success is parental support. Because they are writing the checks each month with very few exceptions parents make sure that homework is done, trips to the library are made, detentions and other consequences are served.

Like typical suburban public schools we have a mix of economic ranges, and a fairly equal number of kids with disorders (ADD, ADHD, etc). Like all parochial schools, cherry picking just doesn't exist. What we do have is 100% back to school night and parent/teacher conference attendance.

tonyb

Please explain to me why most charter schools excell,even in poor counties,inner cities, at less costs than public schools ?

AGFrost, your in one of the most unionized area's of the country, considering your out in the burbs, you may see a difference to chicago public schools. I do realize some of the same problems exist regardless of the community. As a teacher, I have a few questions for you. Let me say that I do have teachers within my family, and union workers of who I am one myself. Lets just keep this to the public sector.

As a teacher, are you beholden to the proper education of a child,or to your union first ?
Are you happy with the way the system is set up to incorporate change,and if not,do you feel your hands are tied, and if so,by who ?
Since non union taxpayers are contributing to your benefits and pay, should they not have a say as to what that should encompass ?
On average, what class room size would be appropriate for the average teacher, give or take, pupils per class.
Do you feel at any time you are pressured to pass students that in your opinion, don't deserve to move on to the next grade ?
Are you afraid of any retribution from your union if you speak up in oposition to any of their policies or practices ?
Do you devote any additional time either before or after school to kids struggling to cut it ?
Do you feel, as a taxpayer, that you should have to pay for services you don't receive ?
By that I mean as a homeowner,no kids.

Would like to get your thoughts on some of this, and on charter schools as well.

tonyb

DSkip wrote: »

Sigh.

1. A teacher's union is stupid. Plain and simple. You are a public servant, not a laborer.

2. The curriculum is outdated. Many students would progress at a very accelerated pace if given the opportunity. You don't teach down to the weakest student, but the curriculum still holds back the above average students.

3. Most good teachers don't "teach the test". The weaker ones do. The one's who aren't good at their job or creative enough to make strong lesson plans. With that said, even good teachers end up losing 2-3 weeks of their curriculum on average teaching test-taking techniques for the standardized test. Weak teachers lose 2-3 months though.

4. Chalk and chalkboard is NOT a good way to teach. Most of the time it isn't even teaching, its just lecturing and hoping the kids understand. Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it works for everyone. That is one of the great strides being made in education over the last 20 years. Sensory learning. Engage the student and come at the objectives that appeals to several different learning techniques. So many students drop out or are left completely behind because of the "chalk and chalkboard" technique. It either bores them or doesn't appeal to their learning style.

5. Like markmarc said, community involvement is paramount. I've worked in schools where parents care, and I've worked in school where the average parent had a 5th grade education level and no interest in school whatsoever. Hell, one parent wanted her kid (3rd in a class of ~300) to drop out and pursue being a nurse's aide. Not a nurse, an aide. We couldn't convince her otherwise b/c the mom just didn't get what her daughter was truly capable of. Out the door she went.


There's a lot wrong with education, but there have been major strides in the field. Also, what works in one district won't work in another. Each district, each school, even each grade level is different. I hate generalizations about education b/c, yes, in most cases, they should work that way. They don't though. It's all about the synergy.

I can agree to most of this, but to get that synergy,you have to have the latitude to find what works in a given area. Can't do that in a union based system.