The world is laughing at US

tonyb

deronb1 wrote: »

I would like to see more vocational training offered in public schools. I dont know how many times ive been asked "when am i ever gonna use this?" from kids. And you know what, for the most part, they have a valid point. Not all kids are going to or should be going to college.

Try and engage them with opportunities at younger ages. Something somewhat tangible thay can work towards, with a clear vision of the monetary rewards they can achieve if they stay the course and put in an honest effort.

Great idea, kinda forgot about it. Makes you wonder why shop class was pretty much eliminated from the schools.

tonyb

deronb1 wrote: »

xcapri79 wrote: »

Most policies and curricula are enforced at the state and local levels. The FG has created laws and polices in an overarching theme to ensure the rights of individuals that are protected by our Constitution.
.

X is making a point that maybe is being taken out of context. Yes the FG creates policies protecting certain rights, but education isn't a right if you follow the constitution to the letter.

However, I believe most want a national standard of learning and I have no problems with setting those on a national level. That's where it should end though.

While policies and curricula are enforced on the state and local levels, it's done with strings attached.....meaning money. That's where things start to go off the rails. Remember, power not granted to the FG, which education is not one of them, is given back to the states. So really, education should be a state issue.

Lets not argue over who's responsible for education, we'll get too far off track. Love the vocational training idea, every school should have a Mike Rowe type running it. Best idea yet in this thread.

deronb1

Yup Tony its sure not what it was. College prep gets priority and im sure funding has a lot to do with it. We have CTCs (Career Technical Centers) in our county and some surrounding counties. They are stand alone entities that do quite well. Open to Juniors and Seniors who learn real world applications while getting the four core.

They are not for shleps though. Have to have a decent gpa and solid attendance to get in and they dont play around once you are in. Costly? Yes, but opens up many opportunities for kids who might otherwise lose interest and slowly fizzle out.

tonyb

Glad to hear that bro. I remember shop class though in H.S., didn't cost the students anything and took those kids who weren't good students and gave them a path to pursue. Those were kids who were probably going to never go to college or most likely to drop out.

Shop class gave them a sense of worth though, a taste of success, being good at something and that also helped them gain confidence and improved their other studies.

deronb1

Absolutely. Some kids never experience success, EVER. Gotta get em earlier than HS imo.

tonyb

deronb1 wrote: »

Absolutely. Some kids never experience success, EVER. Gotta get em earlier than HS imo.

Another great idea. I always assumed H.S. was the appropriate years to teach that, but I could be wrong. Maybe middle school might be more advantageous.

I like your thinking, keep 'em coming.

Now that I think about it, shop class was so much more. It taught discipline, math, geometry, even history. How can that not be beneficial to a student in his other classes.

F1nut

My junior and senior high schools had metal shop, wood shop, auto shop, drafting, art, music/choir and home economics in addition to the regular classes. We also had hardcore gym 5 days a week, no fat kids. Common Sense, not Common Core was the order of the day.

The problem with ideas like Common Core is they look at each person as having the same aptitudes, they don't. Every person is born with a different grouping of set aptitudes, which never change throughout ones life. The best thing schools could do is administer an aptitude test to each student early on, certainly no later than the 5th or 6th grade. This would enable the student to know their strengths and weaknesses and for the schools to better tailor their education.

VR3

8+5+x=10
X=10-5-8
X= -3

Seems normal to me ^_^

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

My junior and senior high schools had metal shop, wood shop, auto shop, drafting, art, music/choir and home economics in addition to the regular classes. We also had hardcore gym 5 days a week, no fat kids. Common Sense, not Common Core was the order of the day.

The problem with ideas like Common Core is they look at each person as having the same aptitudes, they don't. Every person is born with a different grouping of set aptitudes, which never change throughout ones life. The best thing schools could do is administer an aptitude test to each student early on, certainly no later than the 5th or 6th grade. This would enable the student to know their strengths and weaknesses and for the schools to better tailor their education.

F1nut wrote: »

My junior and senior high schools had metal shop, wood shop, auto shop, drafting, art, music/choir and home economics in addition to the regular classes. We also had hardcore gym 5 days a week, no fat kids. Common Sense, not Common Core was the order of the day.

The problem with ideas like Common Core is they look at each person as having the same aptitudes, they don't. Every person is born with a different grouping of set aptitudes, which never change throughout ones life. The best thing schools could do is administer an aptitude test to each student early on, certainly no later than the 5th or 6th grade. This would enable the student to know their strengths and weaknesses and for the schools to better tailor their education.

Similar to how the Chinese approach education, more tailored to individual aptitudes.
I love the idea, but am stumped on how to implement such a way. That would require a counselor who could review an aptitude test, consult with parents and their kid about the best path forward. and construct a class schedule. Don't schools today still have counselors ?

The other problem being, the variety of classes you'd need to offer to cover the various aptitudes would be crazy. I can see steering them to classes already offered that would help a student within their aptitude, but I can't see a more tailored approach until they get to higher learning institutions where things are more tailored. Love the idea, just don't see how to go about it in the earlier learning stages.

Gym class is another we need to bring back from extinction.

tonyb

I think, and correct me if my assumptions are wrong, k-12 education is just a guideline of general knowledge. Knowledge you can use in any career you choose when moving up to higher learning. If that's the goal, then we should shoot for that and try not to make k-12 a college experience. Though I don't know if that's a bad thing either.

motorhead43026

If the world could see this thread, all would really be laughing.

tonyb

motorhead43026 wrote: »

If the world could see this thread, all would really be laughing.

I don't know many parents who are experiencing CC first hand that are laughing, more like crying.

X has valid points, which many should read up on something that over 170 countries signed on to. But again, that slides more into the political realm and I'm just looking for ideas based in common sense, not political policy. Maybe it's hard to separate the 2, I dunno, but lets try guys.

So far, it seems a PS system that includes choice, teacher salary based on merits, more involvement from parents and teachers and less from administrators and the Feds, bringing everyone into the pie, home schoolers, tutors, charters, private. Bringing back some staples like vocational training, gym class. Aptitude tests, and a more tailored class schedule.

We have some smart people here, now how do we take all those ideas and form them into a PS system ? If you were given that task at work, I believe the majority would nail it down in no time.

My brain works on the notion that "can't" isn't an acceptable word. I've made a living on doing things that others said couldn't be done....in the physical sense anyway. We can make a PS system better, maybe not inclusive of all our wishes, but better.

maximillian

"teacher salary based on merits"

Again, no skin in the game since I am a homeschooler. However, I think this one might be a bad idea. Sounds good off-hand, but I think the negatives will prevail in the long term. When you tie compensation to student performance, then trying to make students pass a test becomes paramount. More tests or passing a test does not necessarily make good students. There are many factors that play into how well a student does on a test that is beyond the teacher's ability to teach. Tests are important as a means to gage some basic performance, but tests do not paint the whole picture of a student's performance. Tie performance to salary and teachers will be pressured to get the students to pass the test without concentrating on what is best to teach them.

What I think is a HUGE issue with respect to the overall US performance is low income families. DSKIP mentioned this earlier too. It's a socio-economic issue that no test standardization or school curriculum will solve. Standardized tests will highlight the issue, but it will not fix it. But why wait for CC to highlight this issue? There is plenty of data already that shows students from low income homes will typically perform poorer than students from more affluent families. Solving this issue will take more school administrator and government involvement, not less. And this discussion is even more political than CC is so I will not go into it further.

tonyb

Good points Max.

Teacher salary on merits though....isn't that how the rest of the world works ? It can't simply be based on test scores for the reasons you already said. They already are teaching to pass a test. That's how you all wanted it, standards....the only way to know if a student has reached those standards set forth is to test.

I agree with you and Skip on the low income families. Don't agree on the more government involvement though. They always seem to create more problems than solve them. For instance, if low income families are defined as a problem, why are we letting more in the door daily and in huge numbers ? Isn't government responsible for that ? Isn't government responsible for creating an environment for job growth ?

So if they failed at keeping low income people out, or failed at helping current low income families rise up out of poverty, why do I want them involved ?

We don't need CC to tell us what we already know, and I agree, no standardized form of testing will solve that issue. I'm not looking to solve every social issue though. I'm not looking at how to improve test scores for low income families. Simply looking at building a PS system for the better with keeping in mind that no PS system is going to be all things to all people......nothing ever is.

tonyb

Some brought up returning to the classic form of education, which vocational training and gym class were also a part of. I can't help but agree to those notions. Yes, testing is not the sole determination of a good student, which is where vocational training and aptitude tests come into play. Nor is it a sole determination of a good teacher. The money should follow the student, not necessarily the one system surrounding them. The great minds of yesterday were not so narrow in their learning.

Some believe we need to prepare kids for more math and science geared jobs. If that's the case, re-do the content of those classes to make them more interesting. Why redo the whole system ? Give teachers the latitude to make those classes more interesting. You can't tie their hands and ask for results, simply doesn't make sense. It's like asking a carpenter to build a house with a broken hammer, bent nails and one arm.

cnh

Good for you, nbrowser. This is certainly part of the solution! But, according to Andrey Tarkovsky 1 + 1 = 1? Where would art be if there were no irony or paradox?

1 +1=1: Impossible Translations in Andrey Tarkovsky's Nostalghia

And with Max above, "poverty" is a HUGE factor here. HUGE! Education alone cannot fix a broken economic system, one that is skewed toward those who already have the advantages of home, work, education, and wealth. But that's all politics of course, either/or for most people. For the Left the solution is Gov't and for the Right there isn't a free market option they've ever seen that they don't "love", lol But practically speaking, history often demonstrates that the two have to address each other in order to keep each other in "check"! Gov't excess, and corporate violations of the public trust and well being; there are examples GALORE on both sides! Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that either one of these operates from a sense of what is "best" for the people, what is good, and honest and ethical?

BlueFox

It appears college has become the new vocational school.

motorhead43026

BlueFox wrote: »

It appears college has become the new vocational school.

I doubt very few people want to be an Auto Mechanic, Carpenter, hvac technician, body man, etc. I was a mechanic/service manager for nearly 15 years and I regretted not going to college. I got lucky though, an old friend got me on as warehouse manager for Westinghouse Electric. Westinghouse required a degree for hires but made an exception for me. I worked my way up, and today I am making in my field 4 times what I would be making as a mechanic today (25 years later). I hate too think where I would be without that lucky break. Yet I get your point, but I would always suggest a young person to go to college.

tophatjohnny

none of it matters..he has a pen!! And he'll use it!!

ken brydson

nbrowser wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

Some brought up returning to the classic form of education, which vocational training and gym class were also a part of. I can't help but agree to those notions. Yes, testing is not the sole determination of a good student, which is where vocational training and aptitude tests come into play. Nor is it a sole determination of a good teacher. The money should follow the student, not necessarily the one system surrounding them. The great minds of yesterday were not so narrow in their learning.

Some believe we need to prepare kids for more math and science geared jobs. If that's the case, re-do the content of those classes to make them more interesting. Why redo the whole system ? Give teachers the latitude to make those classes more interesting. You can't tie their hands and ask for results, simply doesn't make sense. It's like asking a carpenter to build a house with a broken hammer, bent nails and one arm.

Oh, and 1=1 still = 2 in my little world.

Might want double check your math...

maximillian

tonyb wrote: »

So if they failed at keeping low income people out, or failed at helping current low income families rise up out of poverty, why do I want them involved ?

This topic is VERY politicized. Glad the cnh didn't go into much depth either. As much as I would like to, I'm not even touching immigration as that will get this thread shutdown rather quickly.

There are things the government can do. Creating conditions that gives kids access to a healthy learning environment helps a lot. After school programs, school lunch programs, tutoring and other at-home help programs are some examples. I'm sure there's others. Kids can't learn if they go home to abusive environments, or roam the streets all night long. Kids can't learn on an empty stomach. Yes, the government can't hold their hands. However creating opportunities is a start. Then teachers can try to push troubled kids into those opportunities as a help mechanism.

Not saying the above is an exhaustive list, or necessarily all good ideas. They are a few examples that's better than nothing, but is not overly intrusive. Debating more would be good to do. But, again, runs the risk of becoming to political.

StevieB

Everything with regards to the feds is political and common core is no different. Got my kid out so I don't have to deal with it, but it sure seems like a sure fire way to potentially drive a wedge between you and your child.

tonyb

maximillian wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

So if they failed at keeping low income people out, or failed at helping current low income families rise up out of poverty, why do I want them involved ?

This topic is VERY politicized. Glad the cnh didn't go into much depth either. As much as I would like to, I'm not even touching immigration as that will get this thread shutdown rather quickly.

There are things the government can do. Creating conditions that gives kids access to a healthy learning environment helps a lot. After school programs, school lunch programs, tutoring and other at-home help programs are some examples. I'm sure there's others. Kids can't learn if they go home to abusive environments, or roam the streets all night long. Kids can't learn on an empty stomach. Yes, the government can't hold their hands. However creating opportunities is a start. Then teachers can try to push troubled kids into those opportunities as a help mechanism.

Not saying the above is an exhaustive list, or necessarily all good ideas. They are a few examples that's better than nothing, but is not overly intrusive. Debating more would be good to do. But, again, runs the risk of becoming to political.

Your kinda making my case. School is suppose to be to educate, not solve all of societies woes. It will never be all things to all people. If you want it to be, then you have to let the dollars follow the student and give parents more choices.

Having schools acting as the parent is a band-aid for the real problems nobody wants to face. All I'm saying is it's time to address those problems head on, as a country, much like you do in your own household, if it's to change for the better.

Goes back to my assertion that everything runs hand in hand. Yes, many other areas have to be dealt with including politics, but if that time isn't now....then when ? When's a good time for you ? I would think that being almost 20 trillion in the hole with over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities would dictate now is the time to shake things up and tackle some of these problems. The current path in education, culture, economy isn't working out so well.

No ?

Then whats your mark ? What point do you personally say to yourself, something needs to change ? Do you even have one....or much less care to ?

tonyb

cnh wrote: »

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that either one of these operates from a sense of what is "best" for the people, what is good, and honest and ethical?

Absolutely.....but in a country of 350 million, finding those traits in the people that hold the power is like looking for a Unicorn in hell.

See, part of this mess is, once you give that power away, getting it back is almost never going to happen. Which is why many want a smaller government and more power back to the states which can be controlled better by the people who reside in them.

Plus no matter what PS system someone comes up with, you simply won't be able to please everyone, I get that. However, trying to make things better is now an uphill battle because you as a citizen or state you live in have had their power stripped slowly over decades.

So do we get to the root of the problem, or keep adding band-aids ? Does anyone really think adding band-aids is the way to go ?

We keep talking about the need for standards in education. What good are standards if exceptions are made constantly ? If only a certain number are held to the fire while others get a free pass...and we are afraid to fail students who don't hit those standards ?

If you don't set standards in any other aspect of your life, what then ? What if your own child doesn't meet the standards you set forth in your own household ? What happens ? If your leaders don't meet your own set of standards, what happens ? If schools aren't meeting your own set of standards, what should happen ? Granted, those standards would vary widely just by the shear numbers of people involved, but you can get a consensus, you can get a feel for the right or wrong path.

I know most think there is nothing that can be done, accept what it is and forget about it. B.S. I say....

ken brydson

D_M

motorhead43026 wrote: »

BlueFox wrote: »

It appears college has become the new vocational school.

I doubt very few people want to be an Auto Mechanic, Carpenter, hvac technician, body man, etc. I was a mechanic/service manager for nearly 15 years and I regretted not going to college. I got lucky though, an old friend got me on as warehouse manager for Westinghouse Electric. Westinghouse required a degree for hires but made an exception for me. I worked my way up, and today I am making in my field 4 times what I would be making as a mechanic today (25 years later). I hate too think where I would be without that lucky break. Yet I get your point, but I would always suggest a young person to go to college.

I also traveled a very similar path. Auto mechanics in high school and also a two year trade school. One of my trade school instructors said, "Son, rolling around on a creeper is fun when your back is young and strong, but what are you going to do when you are my age?" The light went off in my head and I pursued a four year degree. Some people have mentioned that college isn't for everyone, but college level training in key areas are needed by everyone. If not, then it becomes difficult to understand how the various pieces around you fit together. One of the problems with education is relatability. I was one of those students, poor, single parent, and asking what am I going to use this for anyway. Students learn when you show them how education is applicable to their interest. Even if the student wants to be an entertainer, pro athlete, beautician, or an entrepreneur. Every single field that generates income for someone revolves around post k-12 knowledge.

tonyb

D_M wrote: »

[. Every single field that generates income for someone revolves around post k-12 knowledge.

Not necessarily. Building trades are more so on the job training. Post k-12 knowledge doesn't always come from a college. This is where some Unions are beneficial to those not wanting a college degree. Colleges in general are not the be all end all of knowledge.

This is why the dollars should follow the student, so they have choices in gaining the knowledge that is directed at their career path.

Many too, come out of college with a sense of entitlement. From my experiences, most can't tie their shoes when asked to apply that knowledge in the real world. They don't understand how business works, how to deal with the various personalities, and are usually overwhelmed by the work load asked of them. They do know they want to get paid more than those who have mastered the skill sets needed without a college degree. Not saying every college grad is like that, but a darn good amount.

We all learn differently, some are book smart, some need a more hands on approach and to be physically taught something. There should be an avenue for everyone to learn, which is why the dollars should follow the student.

The idea is to make as many as possible a productive part of society, not a boat anchor. You need as many as possible contributing, not taking away. In order to do that, you have to offer more than one avenue to learn.

deronb1

Agreed, Tony. Much of the real knowledge is learned while on the job, from others and experience. The sheepskin is the ticket in for many jobs, but guarentees nothing. Conversely, a college degree needs to stay important and required for many occupations, but certainly not all.

D_M

Tony,

We are saying the same thing. I used the phrase "college level training" to signify the breadth of knowledge that needs to be assimilated by the individual, not the venue in which the training needs to take place.

tonyb

D_M wrote: »

Tony,

We are saying the same thing. I used the phrase "college level training" to signify the breadth of knowledge that needs to be assimilated by the individual, not the venue in which the training needs to take place.

Gotcha pal.

I apologize if my comments underscored the value of a college education. Certainly wasn't the point I was trying to make. Only that education comes to us in many ways, college is only one of those ways....and not adaptable to everyone.